>The internet, books, dvds, none of which existed in the early
>1990s in a form that was devoted to the history of electronic
>dance music or techno in particular. Where would a kid get
>exposed to Underground Resistance in the early 1990s if they
>didn't have connections to an underground dance scene? Is
>Underground Resistance not more well-known now than ever?

electronic music used to be on the radio ALL the time tho. or mtv. i guess their product is more accessible, but i dont think their popular exopsure is greater


>But not developmentally enough for its history to be canonized
>and popularized to the same extent as say, hip-hop has been.
>Techno, as one faction, is easily reduced to a story involving
>a handful of strong personalities but the focus on techno
>sometimes undermines the larger movement of which it is a
>part.

what movement? im not talking about all music made electronically. when you say electronic music to mean that, its not really saying anything except how it was made. Techno is a style of music, just like hip hop, with very similar roots. The difference is that Techno gave birth to many subgenres that are now Styles in their own rights

>It is a developmental milestone for a movement to reach a
>point wherein an agreed-upon history develops, creating a
>sense of unity. I'm not sure that electronic music doesn't
>have too many splinter factions to prevent that kind of
>unified agreement from taking place. If there are still so
>many significant differences in interpretation, it suggests
>that a consensus reality has not yet been reached. In this
>regard I can understand why it doesn't fit the mold of jazz,
>wherein there is a clear and pervasive sense of identity.

again, if you mean ALL music made solely electronically then thats too broad. you would never talk about ALL acoustic music as its own artistic style. thats like talking about ALL oil paintings.