Scott / August 28, 2009 12:51 PM

A well-written (if slightly maudlin) analysis of the Chicago electronic music scene (and the same as a microcosm of the entire US electronic scene).

I do remember the heydey of Electronica/Big Beat in the mid- to late 90s, the last time I can recall non-vocal-based electronic music getting massive radio play...remember how huge the Chemical Brothers, Crystal Method, et al, were? Was this just a case of right place, right time, of some admittedly talented artists getting lucky in getting noticed by the major labels, by radio, and, consequently, by everyone?

Has the much-lauded "democratiziation" of music production on personal computers and distribution via the internets so changed the nature of the music business that the nature of success therein has been permanently scaled down? Will all but the very biggest of the big, mega-club-packing, movie-soundtrack-making, vocal-based-pop-music-artist-remixing electronic musicians have to practice their art and make their names in the evening hours after their web-developer, IT, or marketing jobs?

Another question: other than relying on benevolent third parties publicizing said scene through works like Speaking Speaking in Code, what steps are said electronic musicians (yourself included) taking to expose a wider audience to your very worthy music?

Liz / August 28, 2009 1:20 PM

There is an interesting debate on the subject of sampling and its implied plagiarism here at Create Digital Music: http://createdigitalmusic.com/2007/08/31/random-rant-daft-punk-daft-plagiarists/

Why plagiarism is a moral no-no is something that's been debated in philosophy circles, but the gist of it seems to be that it is "inauthentic," to which I would agree. I still stand by Brewster's assertion that techno is a purer form of musicianship. When you sample, you get lost in that original creator's world. When you tweat synths and effects for an hour you create something out of waveforms that is purely your own. The process of pushing and pulling apart sound on your terms with your personal system of taste makes it yours.

Sampling disco riffs and making them into a house track to me seems more based on capturing an emotional feeling via nostalgic reference rather than creating the experience from the ground up. And that, I feel, is far more authentic.

From the video: "[it's about] Rearraging simple elements to create something extrodinary"

"Somebody's investing in that moment in where they're really feeling the passion"

"in that moment" is the key. Sampling is pulling something out of the past. When you live in the moment you can focus on the future instead of being sucked into the backwards-looking world of nostalgia.

In terms of what I'm doing personally to expose more people to the music, I have been creating nights here in Chicago that rely less on artist names that are a draw to a small niche of people, but creating fun and interesting parties that appeal to everyone..and then you just happen to drop the weird music.

And writing about this stuff on blogs that aren't specifically about electronic music should add to the goal. (*cough* writing on Gaper's Block)

Scott / August 28, 2009 1:28 PM

Ever have your use of a word challenged, a word you've been using for years, confident that you actually know its proper meaning, only to find you've been wrong all along?

Just had one of those. Very embarrassing.

When I said "maudlin," I actually meant "morose." I didn't mean to imply that the author was drunk or silly in her sentimentality. (at least not in this particular article. Heh.)

Scott / August 28, 2009 2:06 PM

Well, the sampling debate is another whole can of (ear)worms...

Just to play devil's advocate, can the success of a house/techno track be looked down upon as reliant upon nostalgia if the sampled hook is from a track so obscure that almost none in the current audience are aware of the original's existence? If it's a ghost-sampled phrase from, say, a lesser known classical piece? If it's sampled from the electronic musician himself (or one of his friends) noodling on a guitar in the studio?

I remember having heated debates with my college roommates in the late 80s wherein they were decrying the synth-based music I was into (your Depeche Mode, Kraftwerk, Skinny Puppy, etc.) as "not music" because the notes weren't created by plucking strings on a guitar, the tracks were recorded from sequences rather than "live" performances (they were really into classic rock and metal). It seems to me that your exaltation of waveform manipulation over track sampling is just my roommates' same argument in another decade...One that turntablism, for instance, really throws into question. (Listen to a Kid Koala album, for instance, and try to tell me that nostalgia is the primary appeal).

Ultimately, though, all of this is beside the original point I was trying to make: that techno and IDM comprise some of my favorite music, and I, like you, would love to see its popularity return to the levels of those 90s glory days. Certainly, we could wait for the nostalgia loop to finally get over the 80s, get through the grunge and golden-age-of-hip-hop revivals that will inevitably follow, and wait for big-beat/electronica to take its place as the Renaissance du jour...

Or, and I think you'll agree, we can take a more proactive stance: aggressively promote the art that you love to the masses. Parties and blogging are fun, but can often just end up as more preaching to the choir. If vocals hook the people, is it an artistic compromise to give the people vocal hooks? Is it a crime to get the people to pay attention to something new by giving them something they already know and love? If so, perhaps the electronic purist should simply make their music for the love of it and the appreciation of the small but devoted fan base.

But I gotta think there's another way...

David Powers / September 4, 2009 12:33 PM

I call "Bull$h!t"!

First of all, half of those artists make what is really "techno-pop". I'm not sure how putting a few synthetic sounds over what is essentially a stripped down pop song structure really constitutes "avoiding tradition".

Furthermore, it sounds to me like Europeans are engaging in a form of subtle racism in their positioning of the relative value of techno vs. house, in their choice of European artists as opposed to American (often black) artists, and in stating that techno artists are inherently more likely to "push the boundaries of music" and innovate, while house music just "rehashes" things for the sake of being popular. Especially problematic is the idea that techno is a genre with greater musicianship. Furthermore, techno is clearly in a phase of rehashing as opposed to innovation, and very little of it could really be said to be innovative in any sense. Putting together a few clickety-clack sounds in Ableton to make a track is not exactly rocket science, and this is the year 2009, not 1989.

If anything, techno is unable to innovate because it is limited by its inherently self-referential musical vision, with roots that really only extend back to Kraftwerk, synthpop, and industrial music. Rather than exploring new sounds horizons, techno tends to exist within a really narrow spectrum of sound, in the same way that the sound horizon of death metal is pretty much defined by loud guitar riffs and fast drum fills. I think techno needs to get over its sci-fi 1980's vision of reality and integrate more of the rich legacy of human music making. For me, that means techno should not be afraid to use sounds and ideas coming from free-form improvised music, jazz, classical, and world music.