>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

Electronic dance music was on U.S. MTV regularly in the late 1990s, yes, but first house, techno, hardcore, jungle, etc. had to develop into something that was significant enough to warrant being recognized by a mainstream source. The influence of those underground scenes can be identified in the mainstream earlier, but not in as direct a sense as you suggest, more in isolated instances or through already-established artists. Prior to the rise of AMP-era exposure, the U.S. underground dance scene was more regional and urban than universally mainstream.


>what movement? im not talking about all music made
>electronically.

Neither am I. We're talking about the continuum of modern electronic dance music, and its eventual impact on popular music in general.

>when you say electronic music to mean that,
>its not really saying anything except how it was made.

I didn't say that; you're building a straw man.

>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

According to your words, techno has similar roots to hip-hop and gave birth to many subsequent styles...but we shouldn't consider those relationships indicative of an overall movement of electronic music? It is suitable for MTV to package various electronic music styles together but not for me to refer to this as a movement?

Your issue is with the fundamentals of this entire topic, then, and not me in particular.

(edited for clarity)