Philip Sherburne’s (whose piece in this book is one of the more interesting in a volume that largely helped me remember why I hate most music writing) newest column in Pitchfork sees him lamenting many things about dance music, some of which are legit (paying crazy $$$ for imports if you are even lucky enough to live near a shop that stocks them) and some of which are not (”electronic dance music, which once spun blithely under a yellow smiley face, seems uncommonly sober these days”). He specifically mentions something Simon Reynolds said about no longer believing in beats (whatever that might mean) and how this has affected how he listens to music.
Ronan Fitzgerald (who has banned me from commenting in his blog as you can see, for pointing out that the US did not invent religious fundamentalism nor sports) posts his typically whiny response that seems to center around the fact that he wants mnml to go away so people won’t complain about it any longer. I think he is missing the point, it isn’t the word “minimal” nor any specific records that people are not happy with, it is the whole shebangy-bang.
The common thread in all three of their arguments is the dismay in their own personal musical narrative no longer having meaning to them. Nothing has changed in the music, it is always just the music. But all three are guilty to varying degrees of attempting to overlay some grand idea of dubious reality onto the music. Simon Reynolds’ success with his analysis of the “hardcore continuum” (which I by and large tend to agree with, it is a close parallel to the development of house and techno in the US except for their offshoots in the UK) has long since devolved into “hauntology” and whatever other blog-centric non-genres he and his cronies have been pushing. Ronan is probably mostly only guilty of historical ignorance coupled with naivete for his preferred sub-genre, while Philip seems to have been swept up in the hype that he helped deliver despite a more well-rounded knowledge.
Beginning with Mr. Sherburne, the “yellow smiley face” he refers to is one heavily associated with rave in the UK, which is of course an entirely separate entity from the house and techno culture of the US. The same can be said for Berlin’s current hedonism which he criticises which has its closest relations in raving as opposed to techno and house culture. When he says
You don’t have to be a formerly wide-eyed raver to mourn the complacency behind today’s dance music– or more precisely, to mourn the atrophy of a particular sense of optimism, of possibility, that once seemed encoded in particular rhythmic structures and the ceaseless advancement of electronic music’s shifting stylistics.
he reveals that his expectations were in line with the “forward thinking” concept so popular with mnml (amongst other dance genres such as dubstep which he also mentions as a genre in which fans are becoming disillusioned with the “progress” it is underground).
Simon Reynolds’ problem that his interest in music
was all underpinned by a quasi-mystical faith in beats as somehow figurative: a belief that the tremors that each breakthrough by auteur-producer or scenius alike sent through the state of pop somehow correlated with or could be equated to tremors through society…
is obviously set up for dissappointment from the jump-off. At least he admits freely to the fact that it was all in his head, despite the hard evidence that made the hardcore continuum idea so useful. You can follow the music’s geneology and learn from that, but assigning it a meaning that it does not really have is not going to give good results.
Ronan is far more pragmatic in his complaints. He said “It’s been a long time since people had something new to argue about,” but that isn’t exactly true either. My argument has been the same through multiple generations of popular dance music, the specifics are the only bits that change. Whatever “new” sub-genre comes next in the hype machine will likely suffer from the same problems, the details will be new but the arguments won’t be. Maybe it will seem new to him in his metanarrative, but it really won’t be. In reality, it has been a long long long long long long time since people had something new to argue about, and it isn’t going to change any time soon.
Dance music has never been about these things. What it is about is much more primal, something that touches people in a place that their brain doesn’t really operate. The people who are concerned with the idea about “new sounds” are missing the point. Music isn’t going to change the future, at least not directly. The reason house and techno are effective is that they bypass so many of the limitations that other musics have and go straight for people’s emotions. The true innovations in the music come from people who find new ways to do that, or people who have their own musical personality that allows them to make people feel a way that they never had before.
It is about the people on the dance floor connecting to something bigger than them, something that has been around since the dawn of recorded human existence. Whatever it is has been called by various cultures and religions, it is the same concept: being “in the zone”, Zen, the “Holy Spirit, becoming entranced, etc. When Ronan whines that my talking about dance music is “religious”, he might be more correct than I originally gave him credit for. This concept has been used by religions worldwide, though it is not exclusively their domain. Atheletes and musicians, especially those who use improvisation, also are frequent visitors to this state. Musicians talk about music “writing itself” while atheletes routinely make plays that they wouldn’t have thought possible. It all comes from letting the mind go, which is exactly the opposite of the way these critics have been approaching dance music.
As it says on the Wikipedia page on Zen:
But to Zen Buddhists the koan is “the place and the time and the event where truth reveals itself” unobstructed by the oppositions and differientiations of language. Answering a koan requires a student to let go of conceptual thinking and of the logical way we order the world, so that like creativity in art, the appropriate insight and response arises naturally and spontaneously in the mind.
This explicitly states what makes the “original” forms of house and techno so powerful. The deejay was able to “get in the zone” easily because he had control over the records easily and without thought. When the “records select themselves”, it is because the deejay’s ego has left the building and he is operating on auto-pilot, taking the energy in the room and tranferring it through himself and into the records which then take effect on the energy in the room. The cycle is based on simplicity, and the purely physical actions of the deejay and the dancers. The original house and techno producers experienced something similar with their use of limited hardware to make tracks. Without needing a a degree in audio engineering so that their tracks sounded “professional”, these producers essentially jammed by themselves on simple equipment that allowed them to tap right into that same kind of energy that the deejay was utilising.
The problem with so much modern dance techniques is that they miss this point entirely. Thought is required to use Ableton to deejay, the actions are more mental than physical and that diminishes the ability to reach the point of “action without thought”. The same goes for the producers who are more like computer scientists than musicians in many cases. Dancefloor experience is changed because of this, where people need more and more drugs to try and reach the ultimate goal of dance music: the loss of ego.
Dance music is not limited in emotion. It does not need to be hopeful, happy, angry, or melancholy, even though it can be and is all of those things. It can also embody emotions that there are no words to describe! What it cannot do, though, is express no emotion. Without that, its effect on dancers is nil unless the dancers are receiving assistance from some other place. For some that is drugs, for others it is their brain. If you are on the dance floor and you think “Wow, what a revolutionary sound this is” YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG.
So much dance music criticism revolves around some psuedo-intellectual circle-jerk attitude and it pisses me off. We try to avoid that here by concentrating on the music itself in its many varying forms as well as the societal pressures that limit the music’s effectiveness in reaching its highest levels. All the things that happen around the people producing and deejaying the music have an effect on the dancefloor. Economic and social woes, which Sherburne mentions in the intro to his piece, have in the past been the source of some of the greatest dance records ever made simply because people had nothing else to put their good feelings into. They NEEDED that release. Perhaps the reason Philip is noticing the uselessness of mnml is because he too needs that release that it just isn’t providing?
The fact that there does seem to be rumblings of Ronan’s “purism that’s paradoxically in vogue at the moment” is a sign that the bigger picture is finally being examined by more people. Looking through the manifestos at the end of Sherburne’s column, you can see that attitude springing up consistantly:
“Try to emphasize content over form.”
“Before that track you just made goes out into the world, ask yourself: have you just made something that would knock you out if someone else was the author? Would you need to own it and listen to it again? Or does it just blend in with everything else out there (ho hum)?”
“Producers and DJs shall respect the history of techno, house and disco by collecting actual vinyl and establishing an understanding of their roots, not just in dance music, but in all musical forms, doing their best not to copy the sounds of the past but to draw on the inspiration of originators and honor their legacies by innovating with previous risk-taking practices humbly remembered and cherished. Risk-taking shall be the guideline for all music deemed “good” by fans, artists, labels, DJs, etc.”
“Refrain from releasing or submitting any track that:
a. sounds like it could be the work of another producer,
b. sounds redundantly like other works of your own, or
c. only evokes the emotion of being in a club.”
“Study and consider the history of dance music and make every attempt possible to carry on its creative and positive traditions while respectfully avoiding mimicking, re-treading, or capitalizing on its origins for content.”
“Mixing is overrated; selection is not.”
“Honestly question your motivation and objective, particularly if your interest in dancing and dance music is a result of certain chemical experiences.”
“Fans shall respect their roles as cultural consumers by always asking for something more, something different, something visceral, something real and above all something that sounds good. They should be proud to pay for the work.”
“Never try to be new. If it happens, it happens… ”
“There is a direct connection between the devaluation of music and artistic irresponsibility. ”
“A track has to catch a moment.”
Is this a wake up call to all of the people involved in techno and house music who have lost the way? One can only hope. It makes me happy that these guys are suddenly having bad feelings, it means that all is not lost. For me, I always have the people who do it right. There may be far fewer of them than there used to be, but that is what the past 40 years of dance records exists for. You don’t have to play all new shit if it doesn’t get the job done! And unless you are K’ed to the gills, it seems like what is most popular is no longer getting that job done. Let’s hope that the next “next big thing” actually learns from the mistakes of the previous ones and we can elevate dance music in general to its previous heights and then some.
“When The World Is Running Down, You Make The Best Of What’s Still Around…”
Well, that would explain why you’ve got such a hard-on for that hipster Brooklyn Hercules bullshit and the less than stellar Rick Wade album.
I think one thing that’s missing from all of these arguments is the concept of idol worship. It’s important to always re-check new work by established artists not only against their own oeuvre, but against as much as possible of whatever else that’s happening at any given moment. I don’t mean to harp on the Rick Wade thing, but taken objectively that album just isn’t up to snuff with both other house albums out right now AND all of his other work. I know you like “bumpin’ it in your ride”, but it’s inferior on so many levels, and I stand by that.
I’d really like to know what Jwan thinks of that Rick Wade. Jazzy - are you listening?
[Reply]
“Let’s hope that the next “next big thing” actually learns from the mistakes of the previous ones and we can elevate dance music in general to its previous heights and then some”
Next big things will never learn it seems. Having said that, they don’t matter to me personally. I’m pretty happy with the state of play at the moment regards dance music. So we are watching the downfall of another trend - big fucking deal. let them whinge and moan about it. It sounds like they feel lost or whatever because they relied so much on whats cool, on whats “in”, instead of just on music.
Sherburne now gives out about the boring 12hr parties. Watching a bunch of hipsters shuffle around semi-uninterested while listening to mnml all fucking night long was OF COURSE going to get boring. Sheesh. A 12hr party should and can encompass shitloads of styles, sped up, slowed down, changing every hour. get a crowd open to all this and you will have a great party. It’s not a difficult concept.
And Tom, at least Ronan gave you an excuse for banning you from his blog. I think the last time he let me post before being banned I called a discussion boring. and, eh thats it. boohoo.
[Reply]
Watching a bunch of hipsters shuffle around semi-uninterested while listening to mnml all fucking night long was OF COURSE going to get boring.
LOL.
That is not an accurate description of 12 hour parties in Berlin.
[Reply]
kenny reply on July 21, 2008 7:26 am:
No, its not an accurate description of all parties in berlin. of course it isn’t. but there are ones like that.
[Reply]
They must have gone to some really shit parties in Berlin cos every time I’ve been we’ve always had a proper scream.
[Reply]
I don’t feel any of this pessimism at all. Perhaps I’m just projecting what’s in my head but I really think that Techno & House are ripe for a comeback (in Dublin anyway). It’s a case of whether the right producers and DJs can or will step up to the mark.
I agree with a lot of the software production bashing. It just doesn’t sound the same to me. One of my best friends (and favourite producers) uses mostly Reason etc to make music and although he has managed to forge a unique and interesting style I am constantly trying to get him to revert back to outboard instruments. Perhaps he will eventually get this out of his system but until then I will have to put up with this digital swoosh and overly compressed barrage of sound.
Regarding Minimal; there’s no (and has never been) accounting for taste. What harm did a twelve hour party in Berlin ever do to anyone other than to create a few vacuous column inches? I’d even go as far as to say that I like some Minimal. There, I said it and if anyone has a problem with that it is just their own insecurity.
[Reply]
“Thought is required to use Ableton to deejay, the actions are more mental than physical and that diminishes the ability to reach the point of “action without thought”. The same goes for the producers who are more like computer scientists than musicians in many cases. Dancefloor experience is changed because of this, where people need more and more drugs to try and reach the ultimate goal of dance music: the loss of ego.”
Oh come on Tom, think about the above, you know it isn’t so and you also just binned Kraftwerk off - opps.
[Reply]
pipecock reply on July 21, 2008 11:55 am:
have you ever been a vinyl deejay? I also think that there is a fundamental difference between what Kraftwerk did and what techno and house music are all about. They were influential, but I do not and never will buy into the idea that Kraftwerk “invented” techno. They are one of my favorite groups ever, but they tickle a whole other part of me than the minimal lo-fi early dance tracks.
[Reply]
Martin Dust reply on July 21, 2008 12:16 pm:
Yeah, I have decks and I understand what you’re saying - it just not an absolute. You can rig Ableton anyway you want - there’s just as much freedom etc and it’s possible to switch your thinking from 12″ to files - I do it all the time.
Hold on tho you said “The same goes for the producers who are more like computer scientists than musicians in many cases” - does that not include Kraftwerk then? Cos they could out science anyone, it took them 12yrs to build a sample bank *LOL*
[Reply]
pipecock reply on July 22, 2008 1:25 pm:
but there should ideally be no “thinking” to switch! And I am not discounting all music made more painstakingly (that would rule out just about all disco and funk music as well ss kraftwerk) I only said that more barriers are harder to overcome. Since we are talking about techno and house club tracks and not those other styles, the argument holds up.
Big ups on integrating some Eastern philosophy in there… I’ve always felt this way about electronic music. It explains alot as to it’s reception amongst both those who love it, and those who misinterpret it.
I believe the reason most electronic music has gotten such a weak response in general - here in the states especially - is because people need a STORY to latch onto when they listen to music. It seems the most popular songs are somewhat vague in their lyrical narrative to the point that people can inject their own desires/problems onto so they can reinforce their own projects / position in the world (story, “ego”, self-worth, etc.), whereas the majority of the pieces talked about in this forum are wordless… whose value is picked-up upon more by those who can bypass the whole self-stroking mentality, and straight into non-conceptual, or at least more “abstract” ways of exploring emotion and subjectivity.
Those in the former camp - generally, when they hear something like “Icon” by Derrick May, or something of that caliber, they only hear jumbled up bits of noise over and over again.
That is not to say that music without personal narrative is BETTER (athough for me personally, I usually prefer it), or even more “lofty” than the less abstract forms of art, but it most certainly is less understood… especially in our own relentless ‘Merican consumer culture.
[Reply]
Hey Tom what movie were we watching when we first applied that “action without thought” thing to djing? I think we were at BaBa’s house one night in the summer of 05…
[Reply]
pipecock reply on July 22, 2008 1:26 pm:
I can’t remember to be honest. But once that idea became apparent, my thoughts on dance music were solidified.
[Reply]
So much dance music criticism revolves around some psuedo-intellectual circle-jerk attitude and it pisses me off. We try to avoid that here by concentrating on the music itself in its many varying forms as well as the societal pressures that limit the music’s effectiveness in reaching its highest levels. All the things that happen around the people producing and deejaying the music have an effect on the dancefloor.
See, this is totally on point. But I think that saying that intellectual analyses get in the way of understanding dance music (which I agree with) is not the same thing as saying that it’s impossible to explain or communicate what makes dance music great, using words (which I don’t agree with).
It’s ridiculous to say what blogs ’should’ be doing, but personally I most enjoy it when a blog can shed light on what is great about music in an interesting way, when the blogger brings depth of thought and knowledge to the table and illuminates the reader in the process. Woebot was the gold standard in this - he was always writing about obscure stuff, but bringing it to life with words. Saying “this is good but this sucks” doesn’t qualify however. Explanation is key.
I’m loving this for exactly that reason:
The reason house and techno are effective is that they bypass so many of the limitations that other musics have and go straight for people’s emotions. The true innovations in the music come from people who find new ways to do that, or people who have their own musical personality that allows them to make people feel a way that they never had before.
Because that’s the truth right there. And it’s a truth that has nothing to do with where a producer is from, what style they produce in and what machines they use to do it. In morality and politics its the means that matter, not the ends. In music it’s surely only the ends that count. Is “The art of stalking” less good if it was made in 30 minutes as opposed to 30 days? Of course not.
Any machine constructed to help music has to be learned. When you first pick up a guitar you have to think hard about where your fingers go and what chord you’re playing. But eventually that all becomes second nature and you don’t have to think about it anymore. Same with djing. Same with martial arts. So I’d hazard a guess and say it’s the same with Ableton. Could well be that lots of people haven’t reached that point yet, because the software is new. But it isn’t the FAULT of the software. It’s the fault of the people.
What I’m getting at is that STRUCTURAL analyses of dance music are as damaging as INTELLECTUAL ones. It doesn’t matter that Chic were art-school hipsters. It doesn’t matter that H&LA are gay or that DJ Assault isn’t. It doesn’t matter what race someone is or what city they’re from so long as they produce music that touches the emotions.
We try to avoid that here by concentrating on the music itself in its many varying forms as well as the societal pressures that limit the music’s effectiveness in reaching its highest levels.
The first half of this sentence is great, the second half undermines the validity of your point of view. If you’re thinking about societal issues, how can you just be concentrating on the music itself? That makes no sense….
[Reply]
pipecock reply on July 22, 2008 1:40 pm:
I’m not saying that it is impossibe to use words to describe dance music. I think that when it is done properly, it should come out sounding more like bad poetry than an intellectual discussion.
Regarding the structural analyses, I think that is the best way to find the paths that lead to good results. There are a number of diverse ways to get there, and trying to examine those helps to shed light on the failures of other approaches. Every good artist and deejay is going to have their own style and approach, but I think that in looking back on failed subgrnres you can see a pattern of things that just DON’T work well ever.
As for the social issues, understanding them when you are sitting at home reading about music is probably one of the best ways to be able to better understand what is happening on the dancefloor when you are entranced on the weekend. Mnml is not going to even be attempting the same kind of thing as Detroit house for example. Knowing that fact and understanding why that is canassist in letting your mind go in a way that it has not been before.
[Reply]
Jacob reply on July 23, 2008 6:34 am:
Mnml is not going to even be attempting the same kind of thing as Detroit house for example.
That assumes that it matters one jot what the artist is attempting as opposed to what the listener experiences. It also assumes that the merit of art is solely to accurately communicate intention. If that were the case, all art would be bald statements of intent or opinion.
By this statement you’re effectively saying that you will always give detroit music the benefit of the doubt because you assume its doing something ‘more’ (hello Rick Wade) that you can’t necessarily detect but that you believe must be there.
That’s straight up prejudice.
looking back on failed subgrnres you can see a pattern of things that just DON’T work well ever.
If you live in a binary world, maybe, but for most of us it’s a bit more analogue than that. Most of the time we’re surrounded by examples of things that work sometimes for reasons that cannot be deduced due to a web of conflicting factors.
For me that’s why the only true response to music is a pure one. Does it sound good? Does it make me dance? Does it make me feel something?
Not “It should make me feel something because Rick Wade made it”.
[Reply]
gmos reply on July 23, 2008 7:35 am:
“That assumes that it matters one jot what the artist is attempting”
it does matter, intent surely has a huge effect on the output as far as the creative process is concerned, no?
I believe artists should strive to create something original and personal, a dance music producer should strive to make people dance, etc, intent is important.
when you listen to something you may not care about the intent of an artist, but that doesn’t negate it’s importance in the creative process imo
pipecock reply on July 23, 2008 1:20 pm:
Intent is everything.
Rick Wade was making deep Deteoit house music before there was a Kenny or Theo sound to jack. He was making bass music before there was a Twlight 76 or anybody thought to call it “ghettotech”. His sound is personal and not colored by trends of any kind. What more can one ask for? If you think that doesnt make a difference in how his music sounds, you would be wrong.
pipecock reply on July 23, 2008 1:29 pm:
Also, why is the listener’s experience the most important? That attitude reeks of cultural piracy, as if someone’s opinion of a song matters even if they dont know what criteria to even evaluate the song with. What nonsense. Interpreting music may be less “literal” than something like a book, but it can still be misinterpreted.
I also have to point out that Rick Wade is not the only Detroit producer who just does his thing in his style regardless of what is going on in the world around him. Most Detroit artists are coming from their own culture, they make music based in that culture, not based on playing Berghain if their record gets popular or maybe going to play in Ibiza if they are really lucky. None of that crap is even on their radar. This should be admired!
Jacob reply on July 24, 2008 2:34 am:
Uh huh. Intent matters more than outcome, does it? So you’re saying that if Rick Wade put out “I wanna be hippy” with a press release saying that the track was all about bringing the detroit realness and was a satirical comment on the empty shallowness of euro dance culture, you’d think it was awesome because he said so?
Because pardon me, but I don’t think that’s a demonstration of your underground credentials, that’s an admission that you’re so brainwashed by cultural context that you’ve destroyed your own critical faculties.
The listener has to be the ultimate arbitrator of what is and isn’t good because nearly all artists have good intentions, its just that they often fail to make good on those intentions. Stevie Wonder is really talented. But he still made some shitty songs. Is that because he was trying to make a shitty song? Of course not. He was trying to make a good song and failed.
Ritchie Hawtin would state that his intention is to push techno forward and make deep, nuanced minimal music that moves dancefloors. But you disagree with him that this is what he achieved. So why can’t you apply the same critical filter of the difference between intention and result to the music whose cultural narrative you like?
And please note this has NOTHING to do with what gets played at Berghain or “doing your own thing”. But if it did, you should probably note that Luciano’s top three charted records this month are Brother’s Vibe, Kerri Chandler and Inner City.
gmos reply on July 24, 2008 4:45 am:
“Intent matters more than outcome, does it?”
Intent has a massive effect on the outcome, right? So, therefore it does matter, you said it wasn’t important, but of course it is.
Also, a “stated” intent doesn’t necessarily equal actual intent.
Of course, “good” intentions don’t always result in great music, other things such as talent and inspiration are very important too. Obviously the outcome is what you end up judging in regards to whether you like the music or not, but having the right intentions is a good starting point.
kenny reply on July 24, 2008 8:41 am:
Something has to be said about what the musician gives up when he hands over his music to the public also. Ones intentions only go so far after all. A track may end up getting played by cheesy ibeefa jocks - Jaguar is one example - cause once the music is out there you have no choice in what may happen to it. Thousands of people couldn’t have given a fuck where it came from. Once, as an artist, you choose to release your music for public consumption your “intent” for that track can go down the swanny. Most artists understand that. If you don’t you can become far too precious about it, and if you complain about people not understanding yer intent or whatever, don’t release the music.
Great post, lots of thought-provoking stuff in there. The Zen thing is close I think, and the comments on software like Ableton are quite close to the mark too I think, although they do have their uses…
Close enough to enough of the dance music subjects close to my heart that I posted an extended set of thoughts on it myself (linked)…
Good stuff!
[Reply]
pipecock reply on July 22, 2008 1:42 pm:
I think you said some very good things on there, summing up and expanding on different things I touched on.
I reccomend everyone go read this post!
[Reply]
“I think that when it is done properly, it should come out sounding more like bad poetry than an intellectual discussion.”
Ha ha, well put.
[Reply]
you took the words right out of my mouth. all of em.
[Reply]