3 ms·

> people ... tend to reach for 'techno' which is vague at best Exactly this. Journalism is such a joke these days - their agenda of sowing discord is blatant.

by _9hey 3y ago

> people ... tend to reach for 'techno' which is vague at best Exactly this. Journalism is such a joke these days - their agenda of sowing discord is blatant. Those familiar with the history of techno wouldn't call it a battle at all. It was about P.L.U.R. It wasn't pretentious and divisive like this generation.

jjulius 3y ago
>Those familiar with the history of techno wouldn't call it a battle at all. It was about P.L.U.R. It wasn't pretentious and divisive like this generation. I feel like a broken record in this thread so maybe I should just move on, but comments like these genuinely confuse me. This has been a debate within the scene going back decades, and has always been a point of contention for many of the people who were in the Detroit scene during it's inception. They've always claimed it as theirs and have often taken umbrage or scoffed when people have claimed it's European in origin. It was about unity, yes, but as the scene grew in the late 80's/early 90's, so did the battle over it's origins.
- _9hey 3y ago
  Making any claim about its inception is misguided, because it is not a single thing. One could argue that Robert Moog and Don Buchla invented techno in the 60s. It probably goes back further. It’s all standing on the shoulders of giants.
  - jjulius 3y ago
    I don't disagree, and I've even mentioned elsewhere in this thread that it's really hard to pin down origins - a lot of takes about who did it first boil down to personal opinions. The waters are muddied and there will never be a clear picture. I was just saying that I'm surprised that people in this thread are blaming contemporary journalists or, to borrow your phrase, "this generation" for this discussion, when in point of fact the Belleville Three have been having this "pretentious and divisive discussion" since at least the early 90's and they were born in the early 60's.
    - _9hey 3y ago
      The fault of journalists here is turning up the heat and spinning this in terms of identity politics as usual, when that controversy only exists between a small number of people. If they cared about truth more than controversy they would see this. But airing grievances is popular these days.
projectazorian 3y ago
Let’s not put on the rose colored spectacles. Many rave promoters were canny business operators who rode the wave of PLUR to fame and fortune. (Richie Hawtin, Paul Oakenfold, etc.) Like the 60s festival promoters before them, they may have sold peace and love, but they were really in it for themselves. There was also a lot of drug abuse and sexual assault, and the criminal activity that comes along with the drug trade. Not everyone had a good time.

by _9hey 3y ago

jjulius 3y ago

>Those familiar with the history of techno wouldn't call it a battle at all. It was about P.L.U.R. It wasn't pretentious and divisive like this generation. I feel like a broken record in this thread so maybe I should just move on, but comments like these genuinely confuse me. This has been a debate within the scene going back decades, and has always been a point of contention for many of the people who were in the Detroit scene during it's inception. They've always claimed it as theirs and have often taken umbrage or scoffed when people have claimed it's European in origin. It was about unity, yes, but as the scene grew in the late 80's/early 90's, so did the battle over it's origins.

_9hey 3y ago
Making any claim about its inception is misguided, because it is not a single thing. One could argue that Robert Moog and Don Buchla invented techno in the 60s. It probably goes back further. It’s all standing on the shoulders of giants.
- jjulius 3y ago
  I don't disagree, and I've even mentioned elsewhere in this thread that it's really hard to pin down origins - a lot of takes about who did it first boil down to personal opinions. The waters are muddied and there will never be a clear picture. I was just saying that I'm surprised that people in this thread are blaming contemporary journalists or, to borrow your phrase, "this generation" for this discussion, when in point of fact the Belleville Three have been having this "pretentious and divisive discussion" since at least the early 90's and they were born in the early 60's.
  - _9hey 3y ago
    The fault of journalists here is turning up the heat and spinning this in terms of identity politics as usual, when that controversy only exists between a small number of people. If they cared about truth more than controversy they would see this. But airing grievances is popular these days.

projectazorian 3y ago

Let’s not put on the rose colored spectacles. Many rave promoters were canny business operators who rode the wave of PLUR to fame and fortune. (Richie Hawtin, Paul Oakenfold, etc.) Like the 60s festival promoters before them, they may have sold peace and love, but they were really in it for themselves. There was also a lot of drug abuse and sexual assault, and the criminal activity that comes along with the drug trade. Not everyone had a good time.