3 ms·

If you look, I think you'll find that the "misinformation" in those replies was also posted by me ;) I have also read the Reynolds book, and most of what I sai

If you look, I think you'll find that the "misinformation" in those replies was also posted by me ;) I have also read the Reynolds book, and most of what I said is backed up by what he writes in it. You can trace things back to the Paradise Garage, the Warehouse, to the Electrifyin' Mojo, to Amnesia on Ibiza, to David Mancuso's loft, to Kraftwerk, to the Human League, to the 100 club, to the flower children and their "happenings," to Wigan Pier, or you can go back to the Radiophonic Workshop, Musique Concrète, Léon Theremin, you could cite the Dancing Plague of 1518 or ancient african ritual dances if you wanted. Nothing new is ever invented, etc. I still think that what Reynolds calls the Hardcore Continuum and its assorted tributaries started in some meaningful sense in Chicago and Detroit, as much as you may always be able to eventually link everything to everything else. The influence of records like Strings of Life is writ large in a way that is separate to the way in which the Human League and Giorgio Moroder are still influential on other strands of music history, despite their common sonic signatures. This is especially true if you consider the cultural/political identity of the scenes as separate from the musical evolution: the mythology of proletarian urban militancy surrounding rave arguably started in detroit with Underground Resistance. That must be the element most conspicuously missing from the current Diplo-fuelled chapter in rave history :) I suppose we inevitably tend towards taxonomy and categorisation as a cognitive survival strategy. EDIT: re-reading what I wrote, I admit that bold-facedly stating that the US "invented" EDM was perhaps rash.

kafkaesque 15y ago
I wrote a reply but was using this HN app for the iPhone and, of course, it didn't go through. We disagree on a couple of contentious issues, which is fine :) I'll try to re-cap very briefly (Argh! No time for long, deep conversations, anymore!) I think the keyword is 'meaningful'. I think Reynolds would agree that music genres and movements aren't linear or unorganic. They start, have hiccups, move and are flexible. They're dynamic. As you kind of alluded to in your edit. So, I guess we half-agree (?) on this. The African thing is a bit of a stretch, no? The comparisons I made are in-tune with each other and had stronger (and direct) ties and similarities. This is the tricky part of comparing conceptual/theoretical ties within music periods and sound, from a musicology point of view. The treatment of sound within my comparisons are much closer, I think. Also, remember that the 'electronic dance music' that is now popular in the States wasn't so in the 90s--it was underground--whereas you can make a case for it being popular in the UK in the 90s. If you hear people like Kevin Shields talk about music in the US vs. the UK back in the 90s and 80s, he talks about how the UK had a larger audience that was 'thirstier' for newer sounds and it was more accessible to 'mainstream audiences', whereas the States had a strong disparate audience and division. For example, talk to anybody in the US and ask them if they think The Smiths is mainstream. They will tell you they are not. Yet The Smiths was an extremely popular band in the UK. The same sort of thing occurs now in the radio up until now. So-called 'indie' or 'underground' music in the States is popular or listened to at a wider scale in the UK and even Canada.

kafkaesque 15y ago

I wrote a reply but was using this HN app for the iPhone and, of course, it didn't go through. We disagree on a couple of contentious issues, which is fine :) I'll try to re-cap very briefly (Argh! No time for long, deep conversations, anymore!) I think the keyword is 'meaningful'. I think Reynolds would agree that music genres and movements aren't linear or unorganic. They start, have hiccups, move and are flexible. They're dynamic. As you kind of alluded to in your edit. So, I guess we half-agree (?) on this. The African thing is a bit of a stretch, no? The comparisons I made are in-tune with each other and had stronger (and direct) ties and similarities. This is the tricky part of comparing conceptual/theoretical ties within music periods and sound, from a musicology point of view. The treatment of sound within my comparisons are much closer, I think. Also, remember that the 'electronic dance music' that is now popular in the States wasn't so in the 90s--it was underground--whereas you can make a case for it being popular in the UK in the 90s. If you hear people like Kevin Shields talk about music in the US vs. the UK back in the 90s and 80s, he talks about how the UK had a larger audience that was 'thirstier' for newer sounds and it was more accessible to 'mainstream audiences', whereas the States had a strong disparate audience and division. For example, talk to anybody in the US and ask them if they think The Smiths is mainstream. They will tell you they are not. Yet The Smiths was an extremely popular band in the UK. The same sort of thing occurs now in the radio up until now. So-called 'indie' or 'underground' music in the States is popular or listened to at a wider scale in the UK and even Canada.