*preemptive hip-hop is electronic music*

Remember the whole notion of this is based on the 'accepted' notion that jazz was the classical of its era. What did that mean? Kind of hard to pin down. More or less it ties to compositional greatness. The great musical works of the era were composed in the realm of jazz in the same way that the great musical works of the previous era were composed in the realm of western classical. Now of course the latter part of that is debatable, as the world of music was so myopic at the time as to only include western music as a point of reference. By the time jazz came around the world was a bit more globalized and the influence of jazz was being felt all around the globe. Cultures from all four corners of the globe were using the palate of textures jazz was offering to express themselves. It fused with the local musics to become their own traditions under the umbrella. And unlike classical it was far more mutable in this regard as there were not strict confines of presentation which limited how it had to be interpreted. Jazz was the medium, perhaps the most powerful medium to date.

Fast forward a bit and there's a new medium. It's the medium of electronics. And just like jazz it is a global phenomena which is resulting in perhaps even a more diverse spectrum of sound and possibilities than its predecessor. All of the little pockets of the world pick up on it and induce their own local/cultural flavors into it to stand on their own merits under the umbrella. It ranges to the popest of pop, to the nichest of niche. There's instrumental and vocals. Small works, and grandiose 'operas'. And here's the kicker, after 50+ years of history its still just getting started. This era is great. We should all feel blessed.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

And don't try shoving anything in my ass.
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

I do agree that there are innovations being done in electronic music, in fact moreso than in other genres that are more popular
however to say that 'electronic music is the jazz of its era' is going a bit far

>I do agree that there are innovations being done in
>electronic music, in fact moreso than in other genres that are
>more popular
>however to say that 'electronic music is the jazz of its era'
>is going a bit far

in a few years it will be accepted knowledge.
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

but the fact that it wont probably supports your belief because until Duke Ellington came along and innovated the way he did, jazz wasn't considered an art form by those 'in the know'

b/c i don't see how the argument could be made for performance.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

well, in that case, i get what you're saying in the text, and i can see your basis.

the thread title is a little misleading though, but i know that's all about the views, brother.

(c) episode of the wire i haven't seen yet have remembered the quote for years

i think it's going more the other direction, but hey, we'll see

yeah with jazz it played a big part. not even going to deny that. but classical... it was a given that didn't revolve around the individuals so much. the compositions far out lasted the performances. of course during the hey day there were no recordings, and what remains is merely the accounts of performances far and few between. every now and then you hear about a stellar soloist (really rare), a great conductor (often the composer himself), or a talented orchestra. but those were all given for the realization of the composition. it wasn't inherent in the performers themselves.

and so jazz was really a break from that in that it spotlighted the performer in as much regard as the orchestra and the composer once held. and those performance were truly a great part of the rise of jazz to the levels it achieved. but still the palate of expression layed around the composition, or in the case of jazz the compositional structure. within jazz the compositional structure was much freer than in classical and this freed the performer to take the spotlight.

this can be paralleled with the way that the strict confines of western theory created the structure by which the composition in its era could be given the spotlight, first by working within those rules and then by branching beyond them.

so it follows that these successions of eras need not walk in the exact same footsteps as their predecessors, but rather must navigate new grounds which those that went before were unable to do. and in this way electronic music fits the bill perfectly.
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

i think people really overstate improvisation in jazz- 99% of the time, the improviser knows roughly what they will play and exactly how long they have. rarely does anything genuinely surprising happen in jazz improvisation.

i get your point but it's just as reductionist as the opposite.
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

that is, that jazz propelled the performer to spotlight. But Ihave reservations with this:

>yeah with jazz it played a big part. not even going to deny
>that. but classical... it was a given that didn't revolve
>around the individuals so much. the compositions far out
>lasted the performances. of course during the hey day there
>were no recordings, and what remains is merely the accounts of
>performances far and few between. every now and then you hear
>about a stellar soloist (really rare), a great conductor
>(often the composer himself), or a talented orchestra. but
>those were all given for the realization of the composition.
>it wasn't inherent in the performers themselves.

I think the reality was probably more difficult to characterize (and knowing the trends of historical scholarship in general, there's probably a lot more being written about performance in the eighteenth and nineteenth century these days; it would be worth an ebsco search, for sure...). Soloists weren't *that* rare, and by the mid-nineteenth century composers were shifting toward a more recognizable role. Not sure about the prominence of orchestras.

And we can't understate the degree to which composers, conductors and musicians (namely soloists) intermingled. Not unlike jazz - where you have band leaders like Ellington or Davis handpicking their co-players and writing tunes around their outfit - composition was more collaborative than it might seem.

What that does to your general statement (if anything)... I'm not entirely sure. :)

-thebigfunk

~ i could still snort you under the table ~

>I think the reality was probably more difficult to
>characterize (and knowing the trends of historical scholarship
>in general, there's probably a lot more being written about
>performance in the eighteenth and nineteenth century these
>days; it would be worth an ebsco search, for sure...).

I think what I was going for was far more general in the sense of the performers were at the relatively strict control of the conductor. Composers when not conducting themselves picked their conductors. Conductors picked their musicians. A bonding sort of happend between them all around the composition. Not so much the other way around.

>Soloists weren't *that* rare, and by the mid-nineteenth
>century composers were shifting toward a more recognizable
>role. Not sure about the prominence of orchestras.

Yes you are right in a sense. A particular soloists skill on violin by example would be noted and even thought of in the composition. Yes they could play this solo perfectly. But the measured wayy in which it was structured meant that it was the composition for the soloist, if that makes sense. This beatuliful piece for solo violin. And then there's the ______ version of it which epitomized the piece. We know the soloists around their interpretations.

>And we can't understate the degree to which composers,
>conductors and musicians (namely soloists) intermingled. Not
>unlike jazz - where you have band leaders like Ellington or
>Davis handpicking their co-players and writing tunes around
>their outfit - composition was more collaborative than it
>might seem.

Agreed.

>What that does to your general statement (if anything)... I'm
>not entirely sure. :)

Not too much, and I may be mistaken but i read approval in that little grins.


________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

i changed my mind.

i think the difference is that the most popular classical and jazz (until the smooth jazz era) was by really good composers and performers; not so in electronic music, not for a long time at least. even if you try bringing up the great talents of the genre in conversation with your so-called like-minded peers, nowadays you get either laughed at or ignored; same for their current reputation with the most popular and trusted critics in the new media and dieing old media. what does that say? to me, if the most talented music isn't embraced even among people who like the genre, it's a disqualifier for the comparison to jazz and classical. that said, critics (including blogging wannabes) and the media can gate-keep and write these musicians out of recorded history for a while but not forever, not so long as i'm breathing.

>i changed my mind.
>
>i think the difference is that the most popular classical and
>jazz (until the smooth jazz era) was by really good composers
>and performers;

Is this necessarily true? It seems like the truly great figures rise to the top over time but in the middle of it I think there are always mediocre figures that develop popularity in the short term. Since we only remember the greats it sort of romanticizes the past into a time where there only seem to be legends.

>>i changed my mind.
>>
>>i think the difference is that the most popular classical
>and
>>jazz (until the smooth jazz era) was by really good
>composers
>>and performers;
>
>Is this necessarily true? It seems like the truly great
>figures rise to the top over time but in the middle of it I
>think there are always mediocre figures that develop
>popularity in the short term.

i'm not denying that part (in fact, what i'm saying is the same about electronic music and now), but do you think we'd know what listeners and musicologists consider the all-time greats of classical music (not just Classical but all pre-recorded western music outside folk) if they weren't embraced during their time? as for jazz, make an informal mental list of the 10 biggest figures in the genre; chances are they were or are all popular in their lifetime and probably not just fleetingly.


>Since we only remember the
>greats it sort of romanticizes the past into a time where
>there only seem to be legends.

be specific about classical (pre-1950), jazz (pre-1980), and electronic music (up until a few years ago perhaps): who are the equally or more popular mediocre talents i might be overlooking?

>be specific about classical (pre-1950), jazz (pre-1980), and
>electronic music (up until a few years ago perhaps): who are
>the equally or more popular mediocre talents i might be
>overlooking?

It is appropriate of you to call me out on it, but I must plea cop that my knowledge isn't deep enough of the other genre to provide too specific data. The idea seems to have been consistent enough in my own lifetime that I have no reason to assume otherwise about the past. I have generalized impressions of the popularity of certain Big Band leaders extending into then-contemporary biographical features (Glenn Miller, Gene Krupa) but not to others who are historically provided with greater esteem (Ellington, Basie). It is not meant to imply that Miller and Krupa are not skilled, but we generally would agree that Ellington and Basie are more significant in influence. Social and institutional factors obviously play into those examples, as to why some would be deemed more commercially viable than others, but I assume that there are always social and institutional factors that result in the popularity of some at the expense of the innovators.

With regards to electronic music, the examples that come to mind are those like Fatboy Slim or Prodigy, that despite their greater contemporary popularity have not held as much historical esteem in succeeding years and more innovative/influential peers like Aphex Twin.

EDIT: I am not necessarily saying that the innovators or the influential are not popular at all, more that contemporaneously they may stand out with less relief from a mainstream perspective.

>It is appropriate of you to call me out on it, but I must plea
>cop that my knowledge isn't deep enough of the other genre to
>provide too specific data.

understand that my point wasn't to clown or trap you, i just honestly disagree. i could be wrong, of course, so that's why i asked.


>The idea seems to have been
>consistent enough in my own lifetime that I have no reason to
>assume otherwise about the past.

i think that's a mistake. classical music isn't pop music, and maybe the masses didn't appreciate the genius of certain works during the composers' lifetime, but the composers were largely appreciated overall while living, or at least shortly after. if they weren't then we'd probably not know them or their works now. jazz, same thing: while there was catchy jazz (swing, big band, etc.), the maverick musicians who presented more challenging music also had a popular following. i'm not speaking in absolutes here, implying that for a while in jazz and electronic music the most popular artists were also the "best" (an objective concept i don't even believe in anyway). all i'm saying is that high artistic quality and skill were embraced widely until relatively recently in these genres.


>I assume that
>there are always social and institutional factors that result
>in the popularity of some at the expense of the innovators.

in modern times, i agree. regarding classical, i think some composers struggled more than others during their lifetimes for various reasons (race not being as significant then, as i understand most classical composers were or passed for "white"), but if the artistic quality was high enough i think they would've been embraced, their works celebrated and performed before the monarchy/church/government/masses.


>With regards to electronic music, the examples that come to
>mind are those like Fatboy Slim or Prodigy, that despite their
>greater contemporary popularity have not held as much
>historical esteem in succeeding years and more
>innovative/influential peers like Aphex Twin.

i was hoping you'd bring them up because i wanted to say that the popular/breakthrough electronic artists of the late '90s while not being *as* talented as RDJ and his peers were still talented nonetheless, and as i said above, i wasn't speaking in absolutes as far as the most talented = the most popular, just popular. as far as historical esteem, that's what i'm getting at, that younger or just sheltered listeners are being unexposed to these great talents thanks to close-minded, politically motivated critics, bloggers, wannabe writers, and former fans who've turned their backs on the music for various reasons.

I think you know I'm not much of an absolutist myself, apologies if I am coming across that way. Without being too redundant, hopefully, I will try to refine my point a little.

There are always insider audiences that apprehend things directly and are more likely to have an early appreciation the work of talented individuals within that niche, and a wider mainstream that can only access the niche through gate-keepers or more familiar intermediaries. For the outsider audience, there is always a convoluting factor, then, which may prevent a similarly discerning appreciation from forming.

I think this dynamic is always at play, even historically, and the convolution prevents those who aren't already in the know from "knowing" until sufficient time has passed as to develop a widespread consensus reality. I recognize what you say that the people who eventually become regarded as widely influential must, by necessity, have been popular enough to gain traction in the first place.

I suppose it might help to know who you are thinking of in terms of the talented who aren't recognized? There is surely a niche or sub-niche that does recognize them? Do you think that time will not bear them out? How does it relate to unsung heroes throughout music history? The niche, insider audiences of jazz and classical do recognize their own heroes, but how is this not true of electronic music?

>I suppose it might help to know who you are thinking of in
>terms of the talented who aren't recognized?

no one person in particular, just the popular (but not so much as to have commercial radio rotation a la prodigy, fatboy slim, chem bros, moby, the crystal method, etc.) artists of the '90s and into the early '00s before the backlash (not even restricted to "IDM" but any music that dared appeal to the intellect instead of or even *as well as* the feet). i feel like they're being marginalized now in favor of icky bloghouse/fake electro and now this wonky/beat generation/instrumental hip-hop influx, which all has its place but isn't as original, creative, challenging, or, comparatively speaking, innovative. if i had to pick a moment when everything changed i think i'd pick the commercial success of daft punk's 'discovery' album.


>There is surely
>a niche or sub-niche that does recognize them?

of course, but it should be as big as it was. i think some people who were exposed to it back then felt ashamed of either not ever "getting" it or getting it while so many others didn't or remained oblivious.


>Do you think
>that time will not bear them out?

in the present and immediate future, the way things are going, no. in the long term, yes, judging by my experience. when i wrote my term papers for music theory and then music history class, the professors were unaware of but totally won over the artists (of the above ilk) i wrote about; the latter professor even ordered a bunch of aphex twin cd's for the school library. i think i influenced each of them to take and listen to the genre seriously, and, as they're professors, i can't help but think they'll influence others in kind, just as i know i myself through conversation and my old radio show have influenced dozens of if not far more people in my lifetime to listen and become fans of this music. so although things may not look good right now, the powers that be won't be able to keep these talented artists marginalized forever.


>How does it relate to
>unsung heroes throughout music history?

it's in tradition, but even the people we see as unsung heroes today weren't unknown in their time. foolishly i believed, when i first heard nick drake, that he was some unknown musician in his lifetime who died only to be discovered decades later; not so, i later learned. no one who is an unsung hero now was completely unknown before except for rare exceptions like the tramp singing on "jesus' blood never failed me yet" and maybe the singer on dj shadow's "this time (i'm gonna do it my way)," although the topic starter has implied that he knows who he is; regardless, unsung heroes are really just underrated, not unrated. i don't think the greats in electronic music were underrated, and certainly not unrated, until recent times. likewise, there are underrated major figures in jazz and classical, but they were still popular in their time (i'm not talking about orchestral musicians and sidemen here, rather composers, band leaders, and signed recording artists).


>The niche, insider
>audiences of jazz and classical do recognize their own heroes,
>but how is this not true of electronic music?

i'm talking more about the niche and beyond. maybe not to the scope of millions of sales, but what is a niche when it comes to classical and jazz when those were the prevailing genres for so long? *instrumental* electronic music could never compete with vocal pop music, but it became it. comparing instrumental to vocal (electronic and otherwise) music doesn't make sense, so in that regard, i am only talking about people who listen to and are interested in instrumental music that is electronic, regardless of whether the listener would call it that (the term is a nonstarter for many, who consider it gay, weird, white, nerdy, unfunky, etc.). it used to be that, for these people, the most popular and known artists were truly talented. less so now.

>i'm talking more about the niche and beyond. maybe not to the
>scope of millions of sales, but what is a niche when it comes
>to classical and jazz when those were the prevailing genres
>for so long? *instrumental* electronic music could never
>compete with vocal pop music, but it became it. comparing
>instrumental to vocal (electronic and otherwise) music doesn't
>make sense, so in that regard, i am only talking about people
>who listen to and are interested in instrumental music that is
>electronic, regardless of whether the listener would call it
>that (the term is a nonstarter for many, who consider it gay,
>weird, white, nerdy, unfunky, etc.). it used to be that, for
>these people, the most popular and known artists were truly
>talented. less so now.

Perhaps that is part of the transition from niche to mainstream culture, it becomes watered down in moving towards accessibility? Originators displaced and obscured by imitation until such time as their contributions are properly canonized and acknowledged? Electronic music is young enough I don't think it has fully solidified yet.

May I also ask do you have any particular newer favorites in the modern era that you perceive as fulfilling a similar role as the marginalized artists from before, or that you like equally? Not necessarily the same style, but a similar attitude or approach.

At any rate, I appreciate all of the thoughtful responses.

>Perhaps that is part of the transition from niche to
>mainstream culture, it becomes watered down in moving towards
>accessibility?

i think that's a common occurrence, but in the case of electronic music, what's popular now, outside of electronically produced vocal pop music and hip-hop, isn't really even mainstream. you won't hear "bedroom" producers on the radio or tv nor most of the fake electro artists just yet (although word to BEP). it's just trendy, and the people discovering electronic music (as a form) through either or both of these trendy styles aren't being exposed to the best talents, and in the current system, they won't, because they're purposely excluded.


>Originators displaced and obscured by
>imitation until such time as their contributions are properly
>canonized and acknowledged?

absolutely. doing the aforementioned paper for music history class i finally understood why a lot of the original american techno and house artists and their fans/supporters had an attitude about the '90s europeans. now they're both in the same position of neglect.


>Electronic music is young enough
>I don't think it has fully solidified yet.

i agree, but it's really not that young either if you think about it.


>May I also ask do you have any particular newer favorites in
>the modern era that you perceive as fulfilling a similar role
>as the marginalized artists from before, or that you like
>equally?

i wouldn't go as far as to say liking equally, but the answer that immediately comes to mind is the "miles davis of our generation" aka the "jimi hendrix of our generation" (others' words, not mine), flying lotus. i like others, too, but flylohan is the one closest to the '90s to early '00s stuff i really fell for. also, i like the field, and i have a sneaking suspicion a lot of his young and/or coming-from-other-genres fans are unaware of similar but older artists on the same label (kompakt).


>At any rate, I appreciate all of the thoughtful responses.

u2

>i think that's a common occurrence, but in the case of
>electronic music, what's popular now, outside of
>electronically produced vocal pop music and hip-hop, isn't
>really even mainstream. you won't hear "bedroom" producers on
>the radio or tv nor most of the fake electro artists just yet
>(although word to BEP). it's just trendy, and the people
>discovering electronic music (as a form) through either or
>both of these trendy styles aren't being exposed to the best
>talents, and in the current system, they won't, because
>they're purposely excluded.

absolutely. where would a kid even get exposed to a group like Underground Resistance now a days?

this actually is something i hate about Timbaland. let him tell it, and he came up with the sound for FutureSex/LoveSound. like it wasnt filled with Detroit Techno motifs. that album should have be someone's starting point for discovering electronic music, but it didnt happen.
props to Detroit for continuing to play Techno on the radio, even if its at odd hours

>>>i agree, but it's really not that young either if you think
>about it.

no its not that young at all. around 30 years old.

>absolutely. where would a kid even get exposed to a group
>like Underground Resistance now a days?

he wouldn't, he'd have to expose himself as i did... paws. research and recommendation isn't to be underrated or diminished in importance, but there should be outlets for people like UR to reach a contemporary audience, especially when you can more easily hear people whose music wouldn't exist without them.


>this actually is something i hate about Timbaland. let him
>tell it, and he came up with the sound for
>FutureSex/LoveSound. like it wasnt filled with Detroit Techno
>motifs.

i'm a long-time timbaland defender, but even i have to call him on his bullshit when he talks about being an innovator of certain sounds and ideas. i do love FS/LS and consider it a work of collective pop genius, but i'd never claim it's a wholly original work.


>no its not that young at all. around 30 years old.

that's if you want to start at kraftwerk. people were using synthesizers years before that and composing and performing with tape loops decades before that.

acknowledging your inspirations wouldnt takne ANYTHING away from the impact and quality of the album. telling people you were listening to a lot of Techno before you made it wont change how good it is.

he made some comment around the time "get ur freak on" (sidebar: Miss E is SOOOO slept on as an electronic/hiphop hybrid album) and "ugly" came out that despite the obvious influence he had never listend to a drum and bass song. smh.

his pride won't let him admit some things, even something as obvious and innocent as influence. he should feel good about being inspired by other types of music; not everyone is as diverse. instead, as you say, he doesn't acknowledge it unless he thinks it's something that will help his sales like pretending to be or actually being a fan of miley cyrus and all those crappy rock singers and bands on the two 'shock value' albums. i have great respect for the neptunes, tim's peers (SBIs, y'all), for always being upfront about their influences and who they like.


>he made some comment around the time "get ur freak on"
>(sidebar: Miss E is SOOOO slept on as an electronic/hiphop
>hybrid album) and "ugly" came out that despite the obvious
>influence he had never listend to a drum and bass song. smh.

yes, i vividly remember his famous quote when asked directly about the influence: "i don't know about no drums or no bass."

this denial coming from a veteran black producer from virginia who's traveled the world and honed his skills at a young age as a DJ.

>absolutely. where would a kid even get exposed to a group
>like Underground Resistance now a days?

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?


>>>>i agree, but it's really not that young either if you
>think
>>about it.
>
>no its not that young at all. around 30 years old.

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.

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.

>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.

>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)

in reading this back, it sounds harsher than I intended, and I'm sorry about that

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

ok i was just making sure.

>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?

i was just asking for clarity. i agree with you on this.



so then with that out of the way, the origin of Techno IS the origin of the movement you're talking about right?

>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.

this is so true, yet so often it's left that open-ended, forcing the conversation to be way more general than it should be.

also, i like the field, and i have a sneaking
>suspicion a lot of his young and/or coming-from-other-genres
>fans are unaware of similar but older artists on the same
>label (kompakt).

I thought something similar the other day when I got the Intrusion - Seduction of Silence album. A sticker on the front with various review blurbs states: "Jumps right out as something new and different." I like it, but it still sounds like Rhythm & Sound to me.

>i'm talking more about the niche and beyond. maybe not to the
>scope of millions of sales, but what is a niche when it comes
>to classical and jazz when those were the prevailing genres
>for so long?

subject line. the coolness of bop came from beatnik's who appropriated in the same vein hipsters do (thankfully they had talent in other arenas, like writing by example. but i digress...). but the masses who loved jazz, when the jazz players couldn't afford to tour big bands and play the dance stuff they liked, those masses all scoffed at the idea the musicians would play the music that they like. which is why there was the mass european exodus of jazz musicians. why the patrons of jazz came less from the masses and more from the princesses and baronesses (who had ways with money they way beatnik's had ways with words).

and lets not delude ourselves into believing that jazz is accepted in some open ended realm. you can play a records by the biggest names in jazz to the 'masses' which would cause them to turn of the stereo and proclaim it noise. and yet there's a genius to it that is a part of the overall genius which the jazz umbrella.

let's not wynotnize jazz into this beatuiful picture of music that everyone can get into and appreciate. playing the ken burns 20 volume Jazz barely touches the surface. step to far beyond it and the masses turn a deaf ear. and while i'm jabbing at wynton, the same is true for classical, but perhaps because of a movement like jazz or atonality or other off kilter sound in music, rather than someone saying lets close it all up to protect the sanctity of what we subjectively call classical, those ideas forced them to open up to all the wealth that existed prior, and recontextualize it as a part of the broad history that it truly encompasses.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

>>i'm talking more about the niche and beyond. maybe not to
>the
>>scope of millions of sales, but what is a niche when it
>comes
>>to classical and jazz when those were the prevailing genres
>>for so long?
>
>subject line.

i was not talking about subgenres of jazz; as you framed the conversation around umbrella genres of classical (inclusive of nearly a millennium of music), jazz, and electronic, it's unfair to pick less popular movements within jazz to attempt to debunk what you know is a true general statement, that jazz was hugely popular and the main umbrella genre of choice for part of the 20th century.


>which is why
>there was the mass european exodus of jazz musicians.

a further parallel working in favor of your argument


>and lets not delude ourselves into believing that jazz is
>accepted in some open ended realm. you can play a records by
>the biggest names in jazz to the 'masses' which would cause
>them to turn of the stereo and proclaim it noise.

who and when?


>and yet
>there's a genius to it that is a part of the overall genius
>which the jazz umbrella.

i agree


>let's not wynotnize jazz into this beatuiful picture of music
>that everyone can get into and appreciate.

not what i said


>playing the ken
>burns 20 volume Jazz barely touches the surface.

yet it *is* jazz and represents music that was popular and made by talented musicians, whether to your taste or not

>>>i'm talking more about the niche and beyond. maybe not to
>>the
>>>scope of millions of sales, but what is a niche when it
>>comes
>>>to classical and jazz when those were the prevailing genres
>>>for so long?
>>
>>subject line.
>
>i was not talking about subgenres of jazz;

then why'd you ask what the niche's were? are the subgenres not niches? are the niches not jazz?

>it's
>unfair to pick less popular movements within jazz to attempt
>to debunk what you know is a true general statement, that jazz
>was hugely popular and the main umbrella genre of choice for
>part of the 20th century.

What years would you say that covers? 20's through what 50's? Three decades. Longer than rock (arguably). But the difference between 20's jazz and 50's jazz is incredible. And of course that's leaving out sixties and seventies jazz which had some of the finest moments of jazz but happened 'after the hey day' and so as such wouldn't fit into the 'hugely popular' cannon of jazz. are we not to evaluate that material because it wasn't as relevant as the emergent Rock was at the time? Or do we still study that jazz as in depth if not more so than the jazz of the hey days?

And I'm not trying to debunk the popularity of jazz, I'm merely stating that its musical (muse-ical) value doesn't lie in the popularity of it but its propensisity for muse-ings.

>>and lets not delude ourselves into believing that jazz is
>>accepted in some open ended realm. you can play a records
>by
>>the biggest names in jazz to the 'masses' which would cause
>>them to turn of the stereo and proclaim it noise.
>
>who and when?

Do I have to pull out the Trane records? Now I wish *that* post had been archived.

>>playing the ken
>>burns 20 volume Jazz barely touches the surface.
>
>yet it *is* jazz and represents music that was popular and
>made by talented musicians, whether to your taste or not

Who said it wasn't my taste. I love that stuff. But I don't think it is anywhere near all that jazz has to offer, and its omissions are glaring in favor of a certain picture of jazz which I disprove of. Not the musicians or the music. But the history it attempts to write.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

>>>>i'm talking more about the niche and beyond. maybe not to
>>>the
>>>>scope of millions of sales, but what is a niche when it
>>>comes
>>>>to classical and jazz when those were the prevailing
>genres
>>>>for so long?
>>>
>>>subject line.
>>
>>i was not talking about subgenres of jazz;
>
>then why'd you ask what the niche's were? are the subgenres
>not niches? are the niches not jazz?

if i recall correctly, classical and jazz were being referred to as if they were niche genres themselves when they were in fact the dominant music for some time. maybe i misunderstood or am misrecollecting what was said.


>What years would you say that covers? 20's through what 50's?

at least the '20s, if not earlier, up to sinatra and the other crooners... basically before rock & roll.


>But the
>difference between 20's jazz and 50's jazz is incredible.

the difference between donna summer and justice is incredible, yet you can still plot the course.


>And
>of course that's leaving out sixties and seventies jazz which
>had some of the finest moments of jazz but happened 'after the
>hey day' and so as such wouldn't fit into the 'hugely popular'
>cannon of jazz.

still popular music even if no longer the dominant form of it. having not been alive, i'd still guess it was at least of equal popularity as the most talented electronic musicians are now, it probably had better media coverage, and i know it had way better stocking in stores.


>And I'm not trying to debunk the popularity of jazz, I'm
>merely stating that its musical (muse-ical) value doesn't lie
>in the popularity of it but its propensisity for muse-ings.

it doesn't lie in its popularity, but its popularity speaks to its artistic merits. although it became more difficult and less conventional, certain people still listened to and appreciated it. it wasn't abandoned, just like creative electronic music hasn't been.


>>yet it *is* jazz and represents music that was popular and
>>made by talented musicians, whether to your taste or not
>
>Who said it wasn't my taste. I love that stuff.

i'm saying for the sake of argument it's irrelevant what you feel.


>But I don't
>think it is anywhere near all that jazz has to offer

what boxed set or documentary program has it all?


>and its
>omissions are glaring in favor of a certain picture of jazz
>which I disprove of. Not the musicians or the music. But the
>history it attempts to write.

again, irrelevant to the point that those musicians and composers had talent, and that talent was embraced to varying degrees by the public.

Experience, Music for the Jilted Generation, and Fat of the Land were all TRUE classics....and the first two shaped the rave sound and then reshaped it again

shit i even thought Always Outnumbered was a 4/5

but liam makes great music, so i don't want to dis him like that. i just wouldn't put him in the same class of natural and displayed talent as the example ajiav chose, aphex twin, even though he also influenced and at times worked within the rave scene despite most of his music being different in style and aim than the prodigy. as i said before though, the most popular electronic musicians during that whole explosion, including the prodigy, were talented.

pendulum had a chance to make waves, but alienating their core fanbase (ME lol) with In Silico hurt them.

Underground Resistance always seemd to me like they had a shot, especially as a band

i honestly consider myself lucky to have grown up in a time when commercial rock radio was playing electronic music in heavy rotation and mtv had a whole tv show, albeit late at night, dedicated to the genre. it's almost surreal to think about now, but it happened, and it helped a lot of people such as myself discover music that they grew to love. today we have the internet, but people can close themselves off to what they're not ready for or interested in. i think it's really cool that people younger than me are interested in and like electronic music, but it's not the same experience.

hell i have 2 hr grooverider mixes recorded off of the radio from like 1998. every week 89X in detroit (alt rock station) would have a live feed for whoever was playing at Motor (RIP)

i remember staying up late to see the Voodoo People unedited video on mtv

>hell i have 2 hr grooverider mixes recorded off of the radio
>from like 1998. every week 89X in detroit (alt rock station)
>would have a live feed for whoever was playing at Motor (RIP)

my local alt rock station had something similar every week, trancemissions, which, despite its name, wasn't all trance (i hardly remember any trance on it at all), just electronic. the DJ would play songs, but occasionally there'd be live recordings, too. i doubt this kind of thing still happens on american radio.


>i remember staying up late to see the Voodoo People unedited
>video on mtv

the first cd compilation mtv put out for the show was huge for me. just look at this tracklisting:

1. "Block Rockin' Beats" by The Chemical Brothers - 5:00
2. "Atom Bomb" by Fluke - 3:57
3. "Pearl's Girl" by Underworld - 4:25
4. "We Have Explosive" by The Future Sound of London - 6:22
5. "Ni Ten Ichi Ryu" by Photek - 5:58
6. "Girl/Boy Song" by Aphex Twin - 4:48
7. "The Box" by Orbital - 4:15
8. "We All Want To Be Free" by Tranquility Bass - 4:20
9. "Inner City Life" by Goldie - 3:14
10. "Voodoo People (Chemical Brothers remix)" by The Prodigy - 5:54
11. "Are You There?" by Josh Wink - 3:58
12. "Busy Child" by The Crystal Method - 4:07
13. "Sick To Death" by Atari Teenage Riot - 3:39

most of these artists i'd never heard before the show and the cd.

>my local alt rock station had something similar every week,
>trancemissions, which, despite its name, wasn't all trance (i
>hardly remember any trance on it at all), just electronic. the
>DJ would play songs, but occasionally there'd be live
>recordings, too. i doubt this kind of thing still happens on
>american radio.

i can only speak on the places i lived but detroit has techno on the radio at night, maybe the 1pm lunch mix

orlando radio sometimes has breaks and dance remixes of pop songs

and georgia state radio in atlanta has weekly shows for house and drum and bass

and of course that leads to the topic of radio conglomerates, but all of those places have scenes because of the talent that is from them. in america id say its regional as far as preferred styles go, and its usually because that place has producer talent. detroit has a ton of big name producers, djs icey and babyanne are from orlando, and evol intent and mayhem have built up ATL's scene.



> 5. "Ni Ten Ichi Ryu" by Photek - 5:58

this song still makes crowds go crazy. the remix is actually really good too

>i can only speak on the places i lived but detroit has techno
>on the radio at night, maybe the 1pm lunch mix

that's good but not too surprising considering it's detroit. i'd be ashamed to live there if no stations played techno.


>orlando radio sometimes has breaks and dance remixes of pop
>songs

the rock station i listen to now has a saturday night show that is mashups; i've never listened, but from the promo bumpers, it sounds like cheesy blends and a few cliche dance remixes of popular songs, so not the same as trancemissions on the other, now sadly defunct station.


>and georgia state radio in atlanta has weekly shows for house
>and drum and bass

that's cool. well, i'm glad to be wrong then.

perhaps it never faded. sure the people we think are the most talented aren't the ones in the spotlight. but how many non-electronic songs are on the charts right now? see what i'm saying?
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

artistic style.

ke$ha's songs are made electronically but i dont think she qualifies

>artistic style.
>
>ke$ha's songs are made electronically but i dont think she
>qualifies

put another way.... kenny g still played jazz even if we all think less of it. that's a powerful medium if i may say so myself.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

it is not to question whether an individual is talented so much as compare the degree to which their work continues to influence and impact others over time. Aphex Twin seems to have had a more lasting presence and influence.

>in modern times, i agree. regarding classical, i think some
>composers struggled more than others during their lifetimes
>for various reasons (race not being as significant then, as i
>understand most classical composers were or passed for
>"white"), but if the artistic quality was high enough i think
>they would've been embraced, their works celebrated and
>performed before the monarchy/church/government/masses.

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=5&topic_id=2223838&mesg_id=2223838&listing_type=search#2231771
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

i say that, and of course made this post with you in mind, having previously heard you back peddle on it. though i think i've only heard you directly attribute it to idm, perhaps i missed you leaving it open ended as stated here. but it's always seemed that your reasoning falls back to popular acceptance and that's just not acceptable to me and my musings (pun intended).

>i changed my mind.

maybe we can change it back.

>i think the difference is that the most popular classical and
>jazz (until the smooth jazz era) was by really good composers
>and performers;

I challenged the performer notion in the reply above.

> not so in electronic music, not for a long
>time at least. even if you try bringing up the great talents
>of the genre in conversation with your so-called like-minded
>peers, nowadays you get either laughed at or ignored;

that's because they don't take music serious. they value it based on silly things like popularity. the muse has little use for popularity. i mean seriously, is tom clancey a definitive writer of our age or is ursela k. leguin. clancey had books made into movies which starred the biggest actors of our times. his name is known the world around. but in a thousand years if an archeologist dug up one of his books and one of leguins i think they'd be able to separate the wheat from the chaff within a chapter. this is muse speak. there is discussion for popularity, but amongst the classicals and jazz's of our times popularity really should be a non-factor.

>same for
>their current reputation with the most popular and trusted
>critics in the new media and dieing old media. what does that
>say? to me, if the most talented music isn't embraced even
>among people who like the genre, it's a disqualifier for the
>comparison to jazz and classical.

but again you're using popular and trusted as the measuring stick. who cares?

>that said, critics
>(including blogging wannabes) and the media can gate-keep and
>write these musicians out of recorded history for a while but
>not forever, not so long as i'm breathing.

i've been picking up my pen...

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

because then i can say "i told ya so." however, in this case, i thought about it and changed my mind.

>but it's
>always seemed that your reasoning falls back to popular
>acceptance and that's just not acceptable to me and my musings
>(pun intended).

maybe not to you, but i think popular acceptance is crucial to the comparison.


>>i changed my mind.
>
>maybe we can change it back.

who are "we"?


>clancey
>had books made into movies which starred the biggest actors of
>our times. his name is known the world around.

there's something to be said for that. it takes talent to capture the imaginations of millions.


>but in a
>thousand years if an archeologist dug up one of his books and
>one of leguins i think they'd be able to separate the wheat
>from the chaff within a chapter. this is muse speak.

it's also possible they may be riveted by the clancy novel. you never know the tastes of the people who matter, whether the historians of the future or the gate keepers of the present.


>there
>is discussion for popularity, but amongst the classicals and
>jazz's of our times popularity really should be a non-factor.

this seems elitist, even if we're on the same side of taste.


>but again you're using popular and trusted as the measuring
>stick. who cares?

i care when it has real world consequences.

>>but it's
>>always seemed that your reasoning falls back to popular
>>acceptance and that's just not acceptable to me and my
>musings
>>(pun intended).
>
>maybe not to you, but i think popular acceptance is crucial to
>the comparison.

was classical music ever 'popular' though? it was a patron arts, where an elite funded what they wanted and put on spectacles for the populace. sure the populace responded by the purchase of tickets to see the performances (and my some accounts many of these were more diverse in audience than one might instinctually believe). But the manner of selection was so rigid in the hands of the patrons can we really say it was the popular music of its time. (of course we could replace patrons with record labels and be speaking of more recent years but ignore that part for now).

i think you glamorize jazz's overall popularity. i mean think of the so called blue collar jazz. it wasn't popular outside of soul circles. and they weren't necessarily fond of big band. big band folk didn't necessarily get with the boppers. boppers weren't seeing eye to eye with the free jazzers. free jazzers couldn't fuck with the cool. ya dig. and that's the beauty of jazz is that all those diverse interpretations were able to carve their own niches and grow without the need to become *the* popular music. now parallel that with electronic music and the thing you find is that perhaps there is even more closeness between the niches despite more divergence in sound (you'll debate that and I won't argue). that's kinda beautiful.

>>>i changed my mind.
>>
>>maybe we can change it back.
>
>who are "we"?

"we" are having a discussion right?

>>clancey
>>had books made into movies which starred the biggest actors
>of
>>our times. his name is known the world around.
>
>there's something to be said for that. it takes talent to
>capture the imaginations of millions.

but that speaks more to the culture of the people than the culture of the art. and what i'm muse-ing about is the culture of the art.

>>but in a
>>thousand years if an archeologist dug up one of his books
>and
>>one of leguins i think they'd be able to separate the wheat
>>from the chaff within a chapter. this is muse speak.
>
>it's also possible they may be riveted by the clancy novel.
>you never know the tastes of the people who matter, whether
>the historians of the future or the gate keepers of the
>present.

while I'll give a nod to this i do still think there is an objective distinction which is made in the intent to study. if you are studying the people, you study what is popular. if you are studying the art, you study its evolutions no matter how small or popular.

>>there
>>is discussion for popularity, but amongst the classicals and
>>jazz's of our times popularity really should be a
>non-factor.
>
>this seems elitist, even if we're on the same side of taste.

how about in the context i put it above and below.

>>but again you're using popular and trusted as the measuring
>>stick. who cares?
>
>i care when it has real world consequences.

it's not that i don't care for the populous. i do. but i care for the art too. and i know that the populous doesn't always care for the art, though the art, when true to the muse is almost always for the populous. as the art grows so does the populous cousciously or subconsciously. is this an elitist stance? perhaps it could be perceived this way, but only by the populous. the muse has no word for elitist.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

>was classical music ever 'popular' though? it was a patron
>arts, where an elite funded what they wanted and put on
>spectacles for the populace. sure the populace responded by
>the purchase of tickets to see the performances (and my some
>accounts many of these were more diverse in audience than one
>might instinctually believe).

i think you answered your own question. even after classical ceased being a patron art, people attended performances. you have to be very naive to believe it was just to be seen and not to hear. also look at the number of people who bought and continue to buy classical sheet music and learn to play the music voluntarily as opposed to being forced to by an instructor. factor in classical record sales. factor in the huge popularity of opera, which is classical music.


>i think you glamorize jazz's overall popularity.

you framed the conversation around these huge umbrella genres. that gives license to include all styles of jazz together since you're including all styles of electronic music and even pop music that is produced electronically and hip-hop.


>and that's the
>beauty of jazz is that all those diverse interpretations were
>able to carve their own niches and grow without the need to
>become *the* popular music. now parallel that with electronic
>music and the thing you find is that perhaps there is even
>more closeness between the niches despite more divergence in
>sound (you'll debate that and I won't argue). that's kinda
>beautiful.

i can see it both ways. the music probably converges and diverges as much as jazz did. i honestly don't see it as all that close. i think the eclecticism of many listeners creates that illusion.


>if you are studying the people, you study what is popular. if
>you are studying the art, you study its evolutions no matter
>how small or popular.

i agree, i just worry that some of the "evolutions" in electronic music have been so understudied contemporaneously, and then actively excluded in recent years, that it will be either very difficult to assess in the future or almost unknown.


>it's not that i don't care for the populous. i do. but i
>care for the art too. and i know that the populous doesn't
>always care for the art, though the art, when true to the muse
>is almost always for the populous. as the art grows so does
>the populous cousciously or subconsciously. is this an
>elitist stance? perhaps it could be perceived this way, but
>only by the populous. the muse has no word for elitist.

that isn't elitist, no.

lmao

it's more for the ripple effect they have than their opinion and their right to their ignorance.

I believe I agree with the premise. I'm thinking of it in terms of the way it has revolutionized form, structure, etc., which I think equates with "composition."

Your exchange with inpulse mentions performance, and I would ask whether you think the DJ represents a correlating revolution in performance? Is it holding electronic music to a unnatural standard to expect that it should develop to be performed in a manner more consistent with that of previous era?

>Is it holding electronic music to
>a unnatural standard to expect that it should develop to be
>performed in a manner more consistent with that of previous
>era?

i think so and furthermore would say it's missing the point. however, there are people doing innovative, interesting things in live performance, but that shouldn't be expected to become the standard because it doesn't fit the music, both the way it's made and enjoyed.

>>Is it holding electronic music to
>>a unnatural standard to expect that it should develop to be
>>performed in a manner more consistent with that of previous
>>era?
>
>i think so and furthermore would say it's missing the point.
>however, there are people doing innovative, interesting things
>in live performance, but that shouldn't be expected to become
>the standard because it doesn't fit the music, both the way
>it's made and enjoyed.

I mean when you talk about jazz performers, you're talking about people who picked up instruments that had 100, 1000 and even 1000's of years of history, and then did things that were new and amazing with them.

the oldest electronic instrument still in use today is what, the theramin, almost 100 years old. i haven't seen a master theramin player of late, but it doesn't moot my point, which is that if the instruments are new, the ideas of how to perform with them are new as well. which was the reason for my first response to the performance notion. save for the end of electricity (which may be a possibility i guess), these things will only continue to evolve and with them the notions of how to perform with them. that there are efforts being made today regardless of their popularity or whatever else, that display amazing depth of talent, is only an indication of potential which i can only believe will continue to be tapped in the future.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

and thus woudn't fit the "classical -> jazz -> electronic" scheme.


>Your exchange with inpulse mentions performance, and I would
>ask whether you think the DJ represents a correlating
>revolution in performance? Is it holding electronic music to
>a unnatural standard to expect that it should develop to be
>performed in a manner more consistent with that of previous
>era?



classical and jazz performance have the ability to reproduce a composition in its entirety live. not so for DJing - or at least as it's widely done.

sure, DJing can replicate the improvisational aspect of jazz, in particular one or more players/DJs playing off each others' "solos," on its own terms.

otherwise, i think DJing is something wholly new unto itself, and doesn't deserve the comparison to previous musics. it kind of belittles it's value.

If electronic music represents something new unto itself, then doesn't DJ culture, being closely intertwined with electronic music, seem like an appropriate correlate?

As I am interpreting it (or making a case for) electronic music is not here meant to mirror jazz exactly, but rather constitutes a similar re-definition of standards. So it is not neccessary for DJ-ing to reproduce the composition live in a manner similar to jazz or classical, since that performance style is a function of music whose forms were determined by and originated in performance. Electronic music is largely a music whose forms originated with recording arts, and so a performance that is similarly contingent upon recordings suits the medium.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

>classical and jazz performance have the ability to reproduce a
>composition in its entirety live. not so for DJing - or at
>least as it's widely done.
>
>sure, DJing can replicate the improvisational aspect of jazz,
>in particular one or more players/DJs playing off each others'
>"solos," on its own terms.
>
>otherwise, i think DJing is something wholly new unto itself,
>and doesn't deserve the comparison to previous musics. it
>kind of belittles it's value.

you're saying it specific to DJing. I'm disagreeing more to those that would umbrella it to all electronic music (not necessarily you)

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

>I believe I agree with the premise. I'm thinking of it in
>terms of the way it has revolutionized form, structure, etc.,
>which I think equates with "composition."

btw yes... this is exactly it.

>Your exchange with inpulse mentions performance, and I would
>ask whether you think the DJ represents a correlating
>revolution in performance? Is it holding electronic music to
>a unnatural standard to expect that it should develop to be
>performed in a manner more consistent with that of previous
>era?

the problem with DJ's is you can't get a consensus opinion on what a DJ is. Some will say a DJ is just a person who plays the records. Some will go the turntabilist route. IMO just playing the records isn't enough. Turntablists were/are redefining the compositional spectrum, but they don't have a dominant enough voice to equate it with all of DJing. At the same time they don't want to be separated from their roots either (understandably) though the hardcore DJ will be quick to dismiss the turntablist by saying they can't rock a party (even if they can).

But yes the turntable is an electronic instrument when the performer chooses to use it that way.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

I'm thinking of the DJ not just in terms of the turntable as a choice of instrument, but also due to the impact DJs have had on the development of the music ---Walter Gibbons, Larry Levan, etc. editing disco tracks, versions and dub in Jamaica, Herc & others matching the breaks--- trying to suggest the idea that the roots of modern electronic dance music reside in the aesthetic derived from DJs manipulating pre-recorded materials. These guys are all more than just playing the music, but not what I would call turntablists, either, in the Qbert sense.

Not saying that the traditional DJ is the only option in the future, as technology allows for something more complex to develop --- but if the DJ represents a kind of pure root of electronic composition and performance then would future performance permuations not be an extension of the DJ? And so should the DJ not occupy a particular place of esteem in the new world order?

In essence I would say something akin to the transformation of technology from tools to instruments is a critical part of the rise of electronic music, and the era I'm trying to get at. The DJ surely plays a role in that, as does DJing. But my previous comment about the individual DJ's choice of thinking of themselves as a tool (to keep the party going) and an instrumentalist (scratch pickle) allows them to play both sides of the fence almost, unless they jump into the productio role (hey i can make music too) which has become a musicians role in this new paradigm.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

and Flying Lotus is today's Miles Davis ;)

and explain by example why he isn't instead the mingus.
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

just like jazz was not the classical of its era...they are apples, oranges and bananas...you can draw parallels but I don't think they are the same.

And the live performance thing is something you can't just pass off as "oh yea, except live performance"
some would agree that live performance is the most important part of music.
Jazz changed the game because of improvisation in live performance, and the fact that many musicians were "freestyling"...which is why many classical purists never accepted it as a true artform and they still don't, even if they are teaching jazz in conservatories now...
classical music was first and foremost about the composition, and performance was judged on how accurately an orchestra or performer could interpret the composition.
Jazz was based on the idea of variations on a theme...making it appeal to listeners because it was never going to be exactly the same every time and the most talented were those who could innovate in a way that caused a sensational reaction.
Electronic music, may be our generations original artform, but it really doesn't make it anything like jazz...or classical for that matter...
Electronic music can be improvised, but as was stated earlier, the best freestylers and most innovative electronic performers take a back seat in popularity to the electronic music that is pre-fabricated...the live performance aspect cannot really be fully appreciated by those who don't know exactly what the performer is doing, the layman, like a sax solo can be appreciated by someone who has never played the sax before...

so while it is the most innovative form of music in our generation...why does it have to be jazz? it isn't...it is its own thing and I'm cool with that...

>just like jazz was not the classical of its era...they are
>apples, oranges and bananas...you can draw parallels but I
>don't think they are the same.

no one said they were the same. in fact quite the opposite. that's why the whole equation works. :)

i addressed some of the things you raised above so i'll let you touch on those first before repeating them again here.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

i told a friend that exact same thought about electronic music and jazz.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

express *yourself*

how many different versions of tracks have you posted where you've spent hours working on what are merely looped samples from electronic musicians who put out their own first album in the last 10-11 years? i'm saying, you can do better, i know you can, and you can express your true self more by doing it differently.

didn't you also post something with manitoba/caribou recently? i'm at work and going by memory; why don't you say who you sampled? either way, you know. that may be accepted here, on a hip-hop board, but if you were to present your music with looped samples of contemporary artists in electronic music or even the other contemporary stuff you've been sampling, others would probably laugh at you for doing it because it's just not accepted. ultimately it's really not expressing yourself and your own creative spirit, at least not much.

Manitoba/Caribou song.

For that "Monibu" song, the guitar is from Sufjan Stevens' "The Dress Looks Nice On You".

Other than the Mann Tet song, I don't think I've sampled an electronic artist.

still, if you consider what you're making electronic music "expression," should you really be sampling a "peer's" drums, especially from only a few years ago? i'm not saying you shouldn't, and i would do it myself probably if i wanted to make a point to myself or others, but it just strikes me as lazy.


>Manitoba/Caribou song.
>
>For that "Monibu" song

that's what i was thinking of by title


>the guitar is from Sufjan Stevens'
>"The Dress Looks Nice On You".
>
>Other than the Mann Tet song, I don't think I've sampled an
>electronic artist.

fair enough... but the aimee mann and sufjan s. songs are fairly recent, too, and you know that's a no no for a lot of crate diggers and fans of sample-based music.

some other OKPs have sampled very new songs in the overall umbrella genre of electronic music, and it's just weird to me. i chalk it up to coming from a hip-hop perspective, but even hip-hop producers usually won't touch some of these songs either because of their newness or their similarity to what they're doing themselves.

You might not remember that, but the song started as an exercise. I wanted to see IF I could get the two (edit: loops) to match. I liked what came out and continued.

As far as considering "sampling/beat-digging rules": I don't.

My standard is: "Does it sound good?"

No other rule applies, as far as I'm concerned.


My point up there was that music - in many, if not all cases - seems to be about the process of... "sharpening" old ideas.

>You might not remember that, but the song started as an
>exercise. I wanted to see IF I could get the two (edit: loops)
>to match. I liked what came out and continued.

no, i don't remember that, as i think it was your own exercise, i just remember the sample sources and listening to different versions of it.


>As far as considering "sampling/beat-digging rules": I don't.
>
>My standard is: "Does it sound good?"
>
>No other rule applies, as far as I'm concerned.

that's all fine and good, and i even relate to an extent, but just realize that you're shorting yourself sampling heavily from current artists *and* you're going to have a hard time getting respect from your peers doing it. if you don't care then i don't either; do you.


>My point up there was that music - in many, if not all cases -
>seems to be about the process of... "sharpening" old ideas.

fair enuff

>that's all fine and good, and i even relate to an extent, but
>just realize that you're shorting yourself sampling heavily
>from current artists *and* you're going to have a hard time
>getting respect from your peers doing it. if you don't care
>then i don't either; do you.

Like I've said before, sampling is easier (in some ways) to do than constructing a sound from a synthesizer or a traditional instrument.

I am more prepared - immediately - to sample than I am to go buy a _________________ and spend months/years trying to learn how to get it to do the things that I want it to. So, I sample.

If you're giving lessons, I'm starving for them.

>Like I've said before, sampling is easier (in some ways) to do
>than constructing a sound from a synthesizer or a traditional
>instrument.

have you bought a synthesizer yet? as i said before, you can get an m-audio keystation keyboard for well under $100, sometimes $70, and it even comes with some software, but it integrates with other programs including some preinstalled on some computers.

easier isn't always best, and it certainly can't be the most artistically fulfilling.


>If you're giving lessons, I'm starving for them.

i'm not the one to do that. i think it's fine to experiment and sample whatever, but presenting them to other people, in multiple different variations no less, and touting it as your creative "expression" opens you up to this kind of criticism. if you can't tell, your creations have been on my mind recently. on the one hand, i think it's wonderful that you're bringing back new creations to the lesson, where it belongs, unlike the wasteland that is MTM. on the other hand, so far, from what i've heard, your works have been basic loops of contemporary artists' music.

why you continue to assume that I think my compositions are perfect. I readily admit the opposite in each of the threads I've made. (Usually by saying "I know this is unfinished/imperfect, but check it out" or something like it.)

I've been trying to figure out why we were still arguing, and that's it: You think you're telling me something I don't know.

We're on the same page basically.

>why you continue to assume that I think my compositions are
>perfect.

that's not what i was saying at all. the fact that you keep offering up a half dozen versions of one tune shows that you're looking for help and opinions, not boasting about perfection achieved.


>I've been trying to figure out why we were still arguing, and
>that's it: You think you're telling me something I don't
>know.
>
>We're on the same page basically.

i still don't understand why you won't spend the $70 on a MIDI keyboard that you can use like a real synthesizer via software. i don't think we're on the same page that sampling songs from a few years ago is cheap, especially when those songs already have programmed elements, but it's just my opinion. i also don't think we're on the same page when it comes to why you're not satisfied with your tracks. you post versions with minor adjustments, including fades, but they need major changes, and to make them you'll either need to buy some gear or change what you're doing by using strictly samples because so far what i've heard has sounded half-cooked. the potential's there, which is why i even bother to comment rather than just let you be.

It's very difficult to find anyone to explain it. It is more difficult to find someone to explain it clearly: "When you twist this knob, it has this effect on the wave's form. That effects results in this range of sounds," etc.

Shit, I need to get a MIDI cable because the lag on my USB cable makes it basically impossible to play along to anything.

of artists you either like or could at least find informative; other sites like XLR8R also have studio clips. then in the thread you made someone typed that long, clear post and then included a link with even more information at the end. i think it's just a matter of spending the time to learn the craft, like with any instrument.

Miles and Duke disliked the term jazz, i think Duke prefered the 'new (black/american) music'.

semantics, semantics, semantics.
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

i thought it was intersting in its context because it suggests a progression outside of the narrow confines of genres. i dont know what ellington considered to be authentic pre-jazz but i like his defintion.

but i think jazz would still end up on top. rock n roll is very much in debted to jazz. which isn't one of those influencer arguments. but more about the important things which rock brought had mostly already been explored in jazz, until you get on the technology side of things. in that case rock foreshadowed electronic music, but didn't own it enough to be called definitive.
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

all support this post

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

when i think of the effort that went into putting together the best pieces by a coltrane or an ellington and then i think of, say, justice, i don't think the latter is in the same league at all

who is the coltrane of electronic music?

no jazz snobbery-o
___

http://www.newgoldenera.com

http://tinyurl.com/liberators2 - anarchy in two dimensions

>when i think of the effort that went into putting together
>the best pieces by a coltrane or an ellington and then i think
>of, say, justice, i don't think the latter is in the same
>league at all

Justice probably not. But there are artists that approach their work with the same level of attention to detail that that coltrane does, and creates a spectrum of artistry as broad as tranes palate if not broader (because of the medium mind you). but it'd be impossible to make one for one comparisons because the mediums are so different. you have to be familiar with both mediums in order to really appreciate how such a comparison like aphex twin is the coltrane of electronic music works but in the same breath isn't really adequate and probably shouldn't be said. see my reply above to the cat that said flylo is the miles of it. that's one on the flip, where i don't think he'd be able to qualify it on the jazz side. even from my position, it took a lot for me to make this umbrella comparison. i'm not ready to make direct ones, though i think i could, and could qualify them, it wouldn't be wholehearted yet.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

i'll look up some aphex twins and more flying lotus to see if i can follow your parallel. for now, eh...

and that part about certain electronic guys having broader artistry than coltrane? you're going to have the name the act and the song that backs that HUGE statement up.

as far as the whole "jazz is the new classical" bit, both involve an understanding of notation and composition even by untrained musicians who play by ear (but are still in tune/the correct key, etc)

i don't know a helluva lot about musical theory, but you can put coltrane's music on sheet music to a quartet or whatever and they can rock out with it

can you do the same with aphex twins?

i see where you're going as far as both being primarily instrumental music forms, but i don't think they're parallel at all

just as a side note, how many electronic musicians also play 'traditional' instruments
___

http://www.newgoldenera.com

http://tinyurl.com/liberators2 - anarchy in two dimensions

however, i do have some cool live instrument band covers of electronic music, so on that one point we differ. is the music compositionally as complex as coltrane and the other jazz greats? definitely not, but i think imcvspl is trying to make a case for the production being an important element intertwining with the composition, which is somewhat of a controversial point as it mostly conflicts with music theory as we know it, yet in composition there are many ways to indicate, even just in sheet music, how something is to be played beyond just the notes and rests, so i understand the parallel. even considering the timbre or sound of the electronic music as an element of its composition, i still find very few musicians and producers within the huge umbrella genre to compete in complexity with the greats in jazz, let alone classical.

>but i think imcvspl is trying to make
>a case for the production being an important element
>intertwining with the composition,

this goes back to an old convo me an johnbook had where we talked about the notion he attributes to the beatles, of turning the studio into an instrument. since that time the studio has become smaller and looks much more like an instrument. its being used much more like an instrument, and one day soon will have to be accepted that these are instrumentalists. what production becomes from that standpoint is a wholly different question.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

>and that part about certain electronic guys having broader
>artistry than coltrane? you're going to have the name the act
>and the song that backs that HUGE statement up.

It's the medium man. And I didn't say broader artistry I said spectrum of artistry. They have access to a broader sound palate than Trane did. Not all of them play with it in detail the way trane did within his, but many of them do.

>as far as the whole "jazz is the new classical" bit, both
>involve an understanding of notation and composition even by
>untrained musicians who play by ear (but are still in tune/the
>correct key, etc)
>
>i don't know a helluva lot about musical theory, but you can
>put coltrane's music on sheet music to a quartet or whatever
>and they can rock out with it

True and false. They can get a lot of trane's stuff but a lot of the solo work gets lost in the notation. Or put another way, you might be able to notate it, but having someone play the exact same thing based on how it was notated would likely fail.

>can you do the same with aphex twins?

And in that way there's a parallel with the aphex's. You might be able to notate it, but having someone play back based on that notation would likely not be representative of what he initially laid down.

But the point I'm going here goes beyond that to the fact that the theories of notation must/will be modified to accomodate that new specrum of sound which the electronic musicians now have access to. Western theory is in adequate. There's no notation for the opening of an envelope or an oscillating frequency modulator with precise settings. These things are now becoming a normalized part of the musical palate, and notation doesn't suffice. And within that palate the range of creativity is as broad, complex and ingenious as the previous to eras typified by classical and jazz.

>i see where you're going as far as both being primarily
>instrumental music forms, but i don't think they're parallel
>at all

Actually one of my rationales for being able to make this post now is all of the work with voices I'm currently hearing in electronic music.

>just as a side note, how many electronic musicians also play
>'traditional' instruments

More than you think. I just did interviews with four different artists. Three of them had been classically trained on traditional instruments, and all noted that influence in their electronic work.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

the link in my sig makes a great soundtrack for this thread.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

But I've found this thread really interesting. Thanks to all involved in the discussion...


-thebigfunk

~ i could still snort you under the table ~

say you don't have the time to get into it.... say anything!!! lol!!

glad you're digging it though.
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

Saying that something is the classical or jazz of its era is mainly a way to give it some high-brow cred which isn't necessary in the slightest.

Also, what type of dumb genre-name is 'electronic music'? Defining a genre *strictly* by the means/tools used to make it rather than that *and* chord-progressions/tonal language/"vibe"/tempos/numerous other things seems pretty silly to me.

>Saying that something is the classical or jazz of its era is
>mainly a way to give it some high-brow cred which isn't
>necessary in the slightest.

Unfortunately classical carries the connotations of high-brow. I don't see it that way. I think of it more like colonization. You can't just erase it from history. There's a lot that can be learned from it. But at the same time there's no need to praise it unwarantedly. If you read what I write carefully I take more than my fair share of cheap shots at it. This post included. But at the same time I will give it respect where waranted.

>Also, what type of dumb genre-name is 'electronic music'?

Post # whatever where I said did anyone notice music isn't capitalized. As in I wasn't making a genre declaration. More paradigm declarations. The classical paradigm. The jazz paradigm. And the electronic paradigm.

>Defining a genre *strictly* by the means/tools used to make it
>rather than that *and* chord-progressions/tonal
>language/"vibe"/tempos/numerous other things seems pretty
>silly to me.

But for arguments sake how would you define jazz inclusive of the tools chord progressions, language vibe tempos etc. that truly covered all of the various aspects of jazz.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

"intelligent" dance music, anyone?


>Unfortunately classical carries the connotations of high-brow.

it does, but listening to and being a fan of jazz decades past its commercial peak also has a connotation of being arty, intellectual, and sophisticated. i don't think it's any coincidence that the 3 genres in question are popular right now with people of selective and refined tastes, a deep interest in the arts, as well as an historically minded appreciation of music.

But I'm wondering what we're including under the umbrella of "electronic music"

I'm assuming that we're referring to any and all music that relies significantly on electronic instruments (in the broadest sense of the word) for its realization?

I think that insofar as electronic music has introduced entirely new methods of creating music, and that those methods have impacted not just electronic music as a whole but also traditionally non-electronic genres... I can get with that idea. I think it's amazing that music like, for instance, Owen Pallett's stuff is pretty reliant on a number of methods that have come out of electronic music, even if in its final form the actual use of electronics is less prominent. (not to say he doesn't use electronics in the final music... I'm thinking, I guess, of his fondness for flurries and stabs of super-fast notes that remind me of a sampled horn burst or something like that, even if he has them played by a real strings)

I think the trick here is keeping in mind that the electronic "revolution" is indeed one of method. That sampling, splicing (for lack of a better word), sound manipulation, etc. are techniques that have been picked up by non-electronic communities and musicians, and that that is where its biggest impact lies. While jazz impacted popular music as a whole through its general style(s), for sure, I think what made *more* of an impact was its immediate collaborative structure and its opening up of traditional ideas of composition.



-thebigfunk

~ i could still snort you under the table ~

i know it's innocuous and not meant maliciously, but that's the vibe i get off some of imcvspl's statements and yours here:

>think the trick here is keeping in mind that the electronic
>"revolution" is indeed one of method. That sampling, splicing
>(for lack of a better word), sound manipulation, etc. are
>techniques that have been picked up by non-electronic
>communities and musicians, and that that is where its biggest
>impact lies.

all of these things are cool, but what about appreciating them within the genres in which they were revolutionized? this music is fantastic in its own right, not just as important for its influence on older forms of music.

>all of these things are cool, but what about appreciating them
>within the genres in which they were revolutionized? this
>music is fantastic in its own right, not just as important for
>its influence on older forms of music.

around here discussion in the context you speak doesn't go much beyond what's out. mostly because there's so much of it i guess. i don't know. give me a topic on it though.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
Prince "The Gold Experience" Track #12
Avy - http://vanguard.avanturb.com

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Heads Up:
http://comeclean.avanturb.com
http://protoheads.avanturb.com
http://vanguard.avanturb.com

Pulling together the latest RIPL and peeping the diversity represented I can't see how anyone can't see this. Right now is the be-bop phase. Can't wait for shit to go Hard Bop, though there's already a strong fusion sect coming out of the west coast (think west coast jazz).
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Machine Hype - http://machinehype.tumblr.com/
Music Beef Done Right - http://www.xlr8r.com/news/2010/10/listen-red-bulls-culture-clash-g

it being electronic music...but that being said, i can't say that i've heard too many songs or too many artists that have really transcended the genre conventions. like my fav act is The Chemical Brothers. What I think they've done with their mastery of technology and their knowledge of music is extraordinary. but I also don't think they have really 'created' anything new. like a new means of consuming music or telling or communicating a story with their samplers and what not.

it's good replicating one's idea of what music is, but as far as a holistic approach (at least in the modern or historical sense: live show, collaboration, etc) there hasn't been too many noteworthy acts that really live up to the hype caused by the music.

not to slight the artists (as i listen to my Chemical Brothers station on Pandora), but I just don't see them as more than really geeked out about what they do.

but maybe i don't know music nor especially musicans all that well to determine the true difference between someone who's a 'true' genius who uses a trumpet and someone who uses a sampler.

and here's why.

Jazz was built on Innovation and Improvisation. Electronic Music, is pretty much built on the back of the shit that came before it, and with technological advances, the likes of which aren't really inherent to other genres of music.

Meaning, As Dope as *insert* is, he made a track with a lot of knob twisting and software. Not that that doesn't mean he didn't invent anything. But the hours that John Coltrane and Miles spent rehearsing and exploring music to get that *sound* can be matched in hours, if not minutes using plug-ins, and other editing software.

AND we have books and tutorials for all this shit. Are Electronic artists innovative? Absolutely. Is there any imrovisation? To some degree, yes. But to declare it on a similar level to Jazz is overstating it.




(I'm gonna go back and re read some of the replies in this post, maybe you guys already touched on this.)

>and here's why.
>
>Jazz was built on Innovation and Improvisation.

What does this mean? I mean I know what it means but the innovation is unnecessary.

>Electronic
>Music, is pretty much built on the back of the shit that came
>before it,

Jazz was too though. It didn't just come out of the blue. And you are overstating this, particularly if you don't go back far enough in the history of electronic music. Simplest way to illustrate this is what came before the sine wave that it was on the back of?

> and with technological advances, the likes of which
>aren't really inherent to other genres of music.

So. I think you're taking the comparison too literally if you think it can be dismissed because of the technology used.

>Meaning, As Dope as *insert* is, he made a track with a lot of
>knob twisting and software.

And? What's the difference between a knob and a piano key if both are being played musically?

>Not that that doesn't mean he
>didn't invent anything. But the hours that John Coltrane and
>Miles spent rehearsing and exploring music to get that *sound*
>can be matched in hours, if not minutes using plug-ins, and
>other editing software.

This is not true. I mean you really can't parallel them. But rehearsing and practicing are an integral part of becoming a great electronic artists. Sure kids can stumble upon strokes of greatness but the regimented practice and work ethic is still required to sustain a level of quality.

>AND we have books and tutorials for all this shit.

Uhhh we just got schools teaching it. Miles and them all had schools to learn. In fact many of them were already a part of the public school system which is something electronic music is still working towards.

>Are
>Electronic artists innovative? Absolutely. Is there any
>imrovisation? To some degree, yes. But to declare it on a
>similar level to Jazz is overstating it.

But I'm not defining the next jazz as the next music based on improvisation. So this doesn't discount the notion.

>(I'm gonna go back and re read some of the replies in this
>post, maybe you guys already touched on this.)

Do that as I think what I'm arguing will be clearer.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃

Machine Hype - http://machinehype.tumblr.com/
Music Beef Done Right - http://www.xlr8r.com/news/2010/10/listen-red-bulls-culture-clash-g