Ok, so I've caved in and decided to start a thread in recent events of opinions of electronic dance music. Mixmag have fully begun to ride this wave til the end just from Ed's comments which is funny but actually interesting as well. I loved reading this article. Especially: "For the encore they lay The Beatles’ ‘Tomorrow Never Knows’, their favourite track ever, on top of ‘Chemical Beats’. As live techno goes, it’s some of the best you’ll ever see. New York agrees, and accordingly goes mental."

And to sum it up Ed describes: “That’s how we see music,” reflects Ed, his eyes drooping unpleasantly. “As one big psychedelic bubble. Dance records that fuck with your head.” This article was pre-dig your own hole too which was good because I think Ive only read ones starting from DYOH

http://www.mixmag.ne...ar-of-the-beats

It proves though that so much diverse musical history was happening and has inspired our favourite musical act here and what do the new kids have? laptops, software and whatever is fed to them on the internet and TV.

Everyone wants everything now and thus more shit music with more drops and build ups are made in 2 secs to keep the punter's attention.

Goddam forum bugs:


http://www.mixmag.ne...ar-of-the-beats

That's a brilliant old article (finally proof that they _did_ play that Chemical Beats/Tomorrow Never Knows mashup!)

I don't have much to say about the current EDM craze. I tell a lot of people I'm into electronic music and they respond by saying "oh, me too! like Skrillex and Tiesto" and I have to tell them, "no, I like electronica, stuff like The Chemical Brothers, Orbital, Underworld". Then I have to try to explain why this music is different from EDM without insulting them, which is generally impossible, the conversation dies and we never talk about music again.

The way I see it, EDM is like Disco. Eventually it's going to die, but it has to reach a point where it destroys itself. Right now it's one of the biggest things out there, but we have a lot of people protesting it, and as anyone who has studied art history would know, a fine catalyist of new forms of art comes as a protest against an old form that we're all sick of. EDM is going to get old and annoying to a large amount of people eventually. Enough people are going to get tired of the same sidechain compression, cheesy melodies, white noise whooshes and meaningless lyrics at some point. It may take another year or two, though, and until then we're going to just have to keep complaining about it until the rest of the world catches on. After that, with luck, maybe some interesting dance music will replace it.

This is definitely the way Dubstep has been going recently, curious to see if EDM goes this way, or if it just fades out.

Oh, so you prefer the incorrect 90's term to the incorrect 2000's term. Good on you, keep the scene alive and all that.

I generally prefer anything 90's over anything 2000's.

I have no idea what you're talking about, but if it has to do with debating genre definitions, then no thank you.

No, it's nothing about genre definitions - I find that kind of stuff awfully picky myself. It was simply a good representative of the point I was trying to make. All I'm saying is that attitudes like this seem to stem from an overabundance of nostalgia. I mean, obviously Mikl's coming from a place of positivity - lingering in the 90's because he prefers it. There's no problem with that. But what I do have a problem with is the notion that this recent "boom" in the popularity of dance music is somehow inferior to the one it experienced in the 90's. Both then and now, for whatever reason electronic music has become regarded as something fresh and exciting. And of course when a new, (largely) unfamiliar style hits the airwaves, you end up with a couple of punters who think it's the wave of the future and latch onto it way too tight, and some acts that get insanely rich by making an especially palatable form of the style for them. It's not something mutually exclusive to one era:


There's always going to be people who are just in it for the fashion, and when you're living in the era when it's fashionable you're going to have to put up with them. It's been true of every "next big thing" from dubstep all the way back to disco and the myriad fads stretching even further into the recesses of human memory. But conversely, you've also got the pioneers who actually made the thing in the first place, are dedicated to making it good, and will likely have a much longer shelf life than the stuff directed at the punters. At the time it can sometimes be hard to tell the difference, but there's a certain point where we have the advantage of hindsight and the luxury of only having to remember the good stuff about styles that have passed us by. As I'm sure all of us are aware, the Chems are in the "good stuff" camp, and that's why we can look at that Mixmag article with such fondness, knowing that their amazing journey was just beginning. But I could just as easily put up an article about the whirlwind lifestyle of thing-of-the-moment Skrillex, whose fate we don't yet know:
http://www.rollingst...erstar-20120301
Now we can't be sure of his legacy yet, so all we have to go on are our opinions about what he is right now, which are just as deeply rooted in our opinions about the scene he's in and our constantly having to be confronted with it as anything we actually know about his music. So it's an inherently unfair judgment.
In short: years from now, when it's died down or morphed into something else, the early-2000's "EDM" boom might not look so bad. In the meantime, all we can hope to do is try and pick out the good stuff so we can experience it while it's around. 90's dance music is brilliant, but it's not happening all around us anymore, so maybe it's worth taking a look at the music that is.

That article definitely was nostalgic but what I realised was the depth or a contrast betweeen the articles Ive read with the chems to say skrillex for eg. Ive read one or two of skrillex for curiosity as to why he was getting so popular. He is obviously younger and perhaps naive than the chems which I guess isnt entirely his fault and it all comes down to what type of music you like and how he was exposed to his influences.

Dont get me wrong, theres alot I dont like out there but I have found some amazing and inspiring music still thats been created and exposed currently from this generation aswell. And they're the people that perhaps have got 'it' right. Of course its all a matter of opinion but sometimes you can just tell if they are true to their craft and can see talent in these people compared to others.

"He straps on a black backpack, which contains his entire studio (a MacBook and Dre Beats Pro headphones)

He's a diminutive five feet five in all black – from the long, greasy undercut and thick-framed glasses to the G-Star pants and Converse trainers."

"

He plays a track he's recording with Damian Marley and a side project with Goulding that sounds like Portishead. "It needs to go somewhere," he says, shaking his head, "and it's too pop."

He launches the program Ableton Live. Within minutes, a pretty good dubstep track begins to take shape. "I like to make structures first," he says. He then begins creating a montage of layered vocal snippets, filtered live drum samples and crowd cheers building up to the drop. "A lot of times," he says, "the drop is as good as its buildup. You have to get fucking the most intensity at the right time. That's what I've been trying to focus on more. Usually the longer the buildup, the better."

there was an interesting article on mixmag, with tommie sunshine and some other chap taking 'for' and 'against' positons for EDM.

http://www.mixmag.ne...reat-edm-debate

my problem is, that most of the music that falls under 'edm' just doesnt move me, its all pretty generic really. like that gatecrasher trance stuff that came out a few years ago. not much substance.

and all this 'old skool against the new skool' stuff is just a nonsense really - there's loads of great new music by new producers coming out, and the 'its the old guard cant handle it' arguement smacks of an opportunistic defence by tommie sunshine of the emperers new clothes - i mean you've got a dj that finds himself at the forefront of a new genre - you're gonna court the controversy arent you?

its also interestingly very usa driven, its not really got the same impact in europe as i think clubbing culture is much stronger in europe and EDM isnt really driven by clubbing culture - its much more mainstream than that, hence a lot of the tunes can be played on the radio.

anyway, like gatecrasher trance the balloon will pop eventually.

Have to agree on everything Champiness wrote, you hit it on the nail.

mikl, on 14 January 2013 - 2:01 PM, said:

Do we talk about Skrillex and Ellie Goulding? Don't know why, but this could be interesting.

my 2 cents: the problem isn't the (lack of) quality of the music but the number of rules it has to apply to. everything has to sound the same. drums have to be 808 or 909, sidechain compress everything, minimal synth lines. measures of 8, 16 or 32 bars, etc. there is a narrowing scope/ a funnel-effect taking place.
If we take for example the music of 95, that wasn't always better than what we hear today. But there was far more room for experimentation and openness to new sounds and song structures. Big Beat being the best example of this open minded musical culture. where else do you find breakbeats, chopped up funk samples, blues guitars and psychedelic rock in one place?

advice: broaden the scope! i want to hear a armin van buuren track without that bit in the middle where nothing happens and you are supposed to raise your hands in the air and wait for the drop, i want to hear an avicii track without a builtup with uppitching, i want to hear an afrojack track with more than 3 notes ( ). Or an skrillex track without a drop, just 3 minutes buildup and thats it. only out of the box thinking can make this music into art.

or the short answer: whatever the guys at ninja tune do to music.

It's funny how electronica is now looked at fondly as a thing of years past. Back in my day when I was hitting clubs every weekend, that ruckus was straight up techno.

But I too find categorizing things into genres to the point of oblivion to be overly picky.

Anyway. There will always be a previous generation who looks at a newer generation with a sort of "get off of my lawn" attitude. I think it kind of comes with the territory of getting on in years. We are all sort of punters to some degree, if you look at it from a casual observer's (or listener's) point of view. As I mentioned elsewhere online, we listen to what we like. And there has always been commercial shit and therefore as listeners, we have to dive a little deeper to find the good stuff under the mainstream of commercial success.

I find the Ed vs Sunshine debate interesting because it has created this dialogue both here and elsewhere on the Internet. For us listeners and critics we can argue the merits of pioneering musicians all day long, and discuss what is music to our ears and crap to others, and what place commercialized, saccharin-coated mainstream music holds in today's society. We have that luxury, with the added bonus of being fans of a band that has transcended genres and are true pioneers of their craft. We can agree, or agree to disagree. But it goes deeper than that for someone like Ed (whose opinions on Swedish House Mafia make the news) and it is understandable why he said the things he did recently. Especially after the less-than-kind comments that were made about his livelihood after that gig in Australia recently. You know, the whole "why you suck so bad compared to Knife Party" comments. Imagine being told that you suck at your job by people that help pay your living wage, and it is no wonder you begin to question the relevancy of music that currently holds the listeners' ears captive. I work in online customer service and there are few things more annoying and downright hurtful than being told by a complete stranger that I suck at my job because I can't give them the kind of service they feel they are entitled to at other businesses that employ different policies.

With that in mind, I see the other side of the new-school argument as well. It can be debated all day. I agree with pretty much all of the thoughtful comments so far, and with mippio about the impending bubble burst. It is just a matter of time. The likes of the commercial music are having its day in the sun until the next big thing comes along.

I didn't read anything about people saying that the Chems were sucking as compared to Knife Party... That's really, really lame. Really lame. Unquestionably lame. Fantastically lame.

I'm getting to the point where I just let shitty music be shitty music. It's fine for people to love the easily-accessible anthems; I'll just wait patiently for great sets and great people to gather for amazing peaks that, in my humble opinion, the masses just can't touch.

The Chemical Brothers have always known where that peak is. Others can join if they want, but I'm sure Cloud 8 is just as good...

EIS-T makes a good point about the the tools and scope you choose to go to and how much "FURTHER" one wants to take it in creating music. (and if you're traditionally trained as a musician as well, buts thats a whole different argument)But its like what I was thinking that this generation have it too easy and have gotten lazy in creating something interesting because technology making it so easy. BUT in that argument one could say that more interesting and diverse music should be created because of this technology as well. (Which it has as well)

PUMISHER: I'm sure Portishead would love to be compared to Skrillex ha ha. NOT. Especially when its been well documented they feel the same way about aspects of today's music and industry as well. Who knows... but thats just based on the journalists opinion and his own experience and knowledge of electronic music at the same time. it might sound OK. Funny things can happen when you collaborate.

Re: those comments on facebook about some unhappy punters at the sydney NYE: That sort of lazy attitude to write an act off just because you dont understand or get into it (or the fact that its not bro-step) is just ridiculous. If you're not into it than fine, just let it be and blame the festival organisers for not realising that you wouldnt be happy with the organisation of how the festival was run not the artist. (But preferably no negativity towards anyone to be honest).

whirlygirl, on 15 January 2013 - 4:44 AM, said:

Agreed, although the Commercial v Not-So-Commercial debate is nothing new, but yeah debate is a good thing, that's why we are on these forums - to express opinions. However I noticed that Ed said "take that down" which I believe was a reference to the Twitter conversation being put up on a website (...and now it's on this forum). And indeed more recently in a tweet to Mixmag's Ben Gomori Ed said "it was a private conversation that Tommie Sunshine decided to broadcast..." Well Ed, it was on Twitter where we could all see it, so it wasn't that private! And if it provokes debate amongst a larger group, isn't that good?
So although I agree that the SHM track is bad (shame, I used to like some of the stuff that individual members of SHM did), I don't agree with Ed objecting to the conversation being put on a website (or three).

On a slightly different subject I noticed that Ed today retweeted a tweet from Tracey Thorn - the one about Bob Dylan's grandmother saying, "Be kind because everyone you'll ever meet is fighting a hard battle". I didn't realise this was a famous thing I thought it was a Whirlygirl thing. Was I the only one who didn't know?

No, that makes two of us, I also thought it was a Whirly thing

This EDM business will finally sort itself this year (from the good to the bad) and then whatever artist/producers we have left, they will have to fight it out to the end. Then electronic music will permantely erase the term 'EDM' from existance. It's kind of like when the 90's happened! We had Chems, Prodigy, etc, and they were in this new 'electronic' scene. Years later, only a handful are still around doing what they do best.

In a sense, sometimes, a new genre of music comes in, and evidentally folds itself up later on!

It's the year when the artist/producers finally have to start standing apart from each other and go their own path.

Hahaha it is not a whirly thing but I wish I had the wisdom to come up with that! I just really enjoy the saying and how it can be applied to just about anyone. There is some confusion that Plato coined the phrase which is incorrect. But it can be traced to Ian McLaren (aka John Watson) who was an author and a theology buff. And sadly no, I haven't read any of his works.

Read this again today and thought it was really relevant:



I like your post Champi, and I completely agree with that - the type of culture that follows music repeats and repeats over and over again. And of course nostalgia is a factor, I won't deny that. With that being declared, I'll just say that the real difference is the music itself. If you look at popular electronic music now, 99% of the time it's either formulaic EDM, or formulaic Dubstep. If you look at what was popular in electronic music in the 1990's you find, well, formulaic rave tunes and - here's the catch - non-formulaic Electronica music. This is why the 90's were better, a good number of acts came up with their own formulas for music, and it miraculously caught on and became popular, helped in part by the more alternative culture of the time. This formula creation is much more rare today, since people focus more on copying each other rather than coming up with their own style.

There is some impressive EDM out there right now - BT is one example I know of. I don't particularly like all of it, but it's a huge cut above what the rest of the main EDMers are doing nowadays. Zedd's done some good, less than typical stuff. And as far as dubstep goes, I've heard rumors of some great dubstep out there. Anyone care to point me to it?

The Mixmag article Mips posted is actually well worth reading, and the comments below give a really good indication of how people are leaning on this issue - more towards Team Ed than Team Tommy. It also makes me wonder if this EDM controversy is really as big as it seems, or just Mixmag hyping the hell out of it for sensational news. Either way, I hope Mixmag keeps "covering" it, it will probably push modern EDM away sooner than it would naturally.