Is techno/house static?

[doss]

This could be asked for any of the so callt genres within dance music, but it seems as if techno/house in particular, in most ways and in a more obvious way than other genres, is stagnant and no longer progressing, like it was from late 80s to mid 90s, and i would postulate that it is now the same as those indie bands who rehash, slightly alter, fiddle with and dwell in a ouroboros of nostalgic cycles in the matrix of a established form, insulting and forgetting the forward pushing ideas that bred the style. Whats particularly worrying with techno/house is how colossal and undying it is.

The same criticism is applicable for genres like grime, drum and bass, garage to a lesser degree - and it could be argued that cyclical entropy is the natural wave for musical styles. I have faith though. Dance music as a form of futurism/opposition is powerful and unifying and hopefully any period of stagnance will only inspire the next generation by way of its disgusting apathy and feeble acceptance of apocalyptic conservatism. I would say that techno/house in its more chin strokey resident advisor form is similar to how something like jazz plateau’d into easy listening and only serves to placate the masses and distract them from the power music could yield.

There is obviously examples of producers, dj’s who are innovative in there own sphere, but is there no mass want for innovation? Was there ever? am i being overly romantic? Is innovation and futurism necessary?

There is a slog of this sort of doss, posed, shoulder swayingly effete, politically null if not Tory - electronic dance music with no hunger, meaning or purpose that helps perpetuate cultural stasis, and surely the underground and the margins is where the antithesis of this should be brewing? rather than its comfortable resting place.

[lagom]

It’s kinda rare that sub-genres progress a lot. It can evolve into something else, like a new sub-genre (sub-sub-genre?), of course, but inside it’s own sub-genre, there’s not much room for progress or evolution. Grime can never be more than grime, the same with techno, boom bap, hard bop, delta blues, stoner rock, grunge, or whatever.

But there will always be some artists that will revolutionize a genre, Aphex, Dilla, Madlib, Sun Ra, Miles Davies, Burial, Black Sabbath, Sleep, and so on, but these are either first into the genre (Beatles, Sabbath, Sleep), geniuses who perfect the genre (Dilla, Madlib), or pure mad men (Aphex).

If you want to see progress, look at the parent-genres, pop, rock, electronic music, jazz, etc. and you’ll see a shitload of progress.

[ehg]

Hmmm. I feel like the internet has effectively splintered techno into a million separate micro-genres and mini-scenes, each with varying connections between themselves and with other genres: once everything gets flattened in that way, distinctions become almost meaningless and making a value judgment on techno as a whole becomes kind of redundant.

Better to ask which of those techno-related scenes are doing innovative or exciting things. For me, I think the not-particularly-well-defined subgenre around labels like Timedance, Mistry and Livity Sound has been consistently excellent over the last few years: techno that’s light on its feet, but has loads of subby Bristolian dubstep weight to it as well.

Not really sold on the idea that music has to be formally innovative to be revolutionary, or that techno being uniformly brilliant in the 80s and crap now is the result of failing creativity rather than massive social, political and economic changes over the last 30 years.

[pedropanyo]

It might be better to think of house and techno not as genres per say, but the base level framework from which genres grow and splinter. You talk about grime, drum and bass, garage etc. like they’d have existed without house and techno music, which we know they categorically wouldn’t (at least not in the form we recognize them.) Any form of club music that you feel might be currently pushing boundaries probably has its base root in house or techno from the 80s. It’s absolutely not static.

We’ve evolved from monkeys over millions of years, but monkeys still exist, if that makes sense, haha.

[eshajori]

at the risk of going a bit howdoyoudofellowkids.jpg

i think the youngers who really like interesting dance music are way more interested in non-4/4 material right now – whether that’s the night slugs/hyperdub spawn or the way that reggaeton, kuduro, gqom etc are being integrated into each other, or the kind of noise/ambient/deconstructed seam.

anyway in the early days it was all called techno, right? it’s all dance music – maybe the rhythmic emphasis is shifting at the moment.

[Meddle]

yes… as you hint, extremely strong link between neoliberal cultural hegemony and tech house/housey tech domination

[chava]

Ehh…don’t think that analysis is water tight.

[AxeD]

Dance floors at techno events are getting increasingly diverse from what I’m seeing.

Honestly I feel like this is barely even worth arguing. There’s so much great house and techno music being released and I definitely feel like there’s plenty of examples of innovation within the
respective genre limits. Everyone is going to define this differently in the end though.
Like if something’s very different from your usual stripped back 909 track, people would rather
attach a completely new genre term to it than call it a real innovation within techno.

Techno and house are intrinsically dance floor orientated though. The goal is to have dj’s play
it and in turn make people move. So there is a little bit of formula to it in terms of the arrangement
and the way drums and bass are mixed for example. But again, in my opinion there’s more
than enough artists playing with this formula in interesting ways.

[chava]

You might want to define innovation.

Also futurism connected to fascism, ya know. It’s that or the Tories I guess.

[KlaatKent]

I am pretty sure the OP wasn’t talking about Futurism the movement, but the notional idea of the future within early dance music, forward thinking, looking to the future, etc.

[cesar]

innovation does not equal good music. also I disagree there are people making innovative stuff. it really depends on how you define innovation

[AxeD]

Illustrates my point quite nicely. Some people will completely reject the notion that anything
innovative is happening in certain styles of music, while others will argue the opposite.
The truth is usually somewhere in the middle

[A.V]

There’s a lot to unpack here, but let me respond twofold:

1. Definitely get the idea that house/techno as a whole felt more futuristic in the 90s, since it was quite a new phenomenon at the time. As such, I definitely agree with @pedropanyo’s point that it exists as some sort of framework right now. Multiple innovative directions have been named already (Gqom, Bristolian techno, etc), but there’s obvs also very mundane house/techno fodder by the likes of Mall Grab and DJ Sheldon From The Big Bang Theory out there.

2. More importantly, I’d like to argue that a HUGE innovating task lies not in creating certain new (sub)genres, but more in creating a safe space where everyone can be themselves, equal line-ups where female/non-binary DJs get paid exactly the same as their male counterparts and in general a certain utopia that doesnt exist in the day-to-day world as we know it. I think that’s a way that dance music can be truly revolutionary and powerful (think of Bassiani!) and a necessary antidote to the likes of Trump, May and other neoliberal fucks.

[chava]

Same thing.

(20 characters needed)

[chava]

More importantly, I’d like to argue that a HUGE innovating task lies not in creating certain new (sub)genres, but more in creating a safe space where everyone can be themselves, equal line-ups where female/non-binary DJs get paid exactly the same as their male counterparts and in general a certain utopia that doesnt exist in the day-to-day world as we know it. I think that’s a way that dance music can be truly revolutionary and powerful (think of Bassiani!) and a necessary antidote to the likes of Trump, May and other neoliberal fucks.

Well I am all for accepting minority positions, but whether that will result in ‘innovation’ will remain to be seen. I think the focus on innovation as a catch-all phrase for something good, is a bit vague in fact. You also need something to hold on to and carry you through life (yes even music can help here). Changing the personal sonic landscape every 6 months is equivalent to living the life of silicon valley investor type disrupting left right and centre - exactly what the ‘neo-liberals’ value: an ever accelerating capitalist system requiring quick adaptation to rapid change. Sometimes it is hard for me to judge whether ‘the underground club/rave scene’ criticizes or celebrates this.
Also, Trump can hardly be said to be a neoliberal while installing mercantile trade politics from yesteryear.

Don’t roll with the utopia bandwagon. It is a trick the devil plays with you. Safe-spaces will never foster any form of innovation that’s for sure, but culturation of local/specific aesthetic modes (before presenting them to the public/market) can.

[angel_aura]

100% agree with you @A.V. Music is important, of course, I love it, but I think the spaces that dance music opens up and facilitates, especially for marginalized/underrepresented folx is what’s really futuristic and revolutionary about dance music, and maybe not so much the music on it’s own.

[asuka]

have never considered it like this before but the most on point comment ive heard about futurism tbh

[A.V]

I guess it has to do with one’s definition of innovation. Of course I don’t see it as a ‘catch-all phrase for something good’, but I do see it as changing the current situation for the better. I strongly believe in music as a healing force / tool to bring people together, but would hardly call a different time signature innovation.

Dancing weekend after weekend to underground house/techno without realising the social and political roots of these genres (both in the 80s/90s and today!) is just plain hedonism. Cool I guess, but not innovation, let alone futurism.

An example: the reason Drexciya feels so damn futuristic even today is not only because of the way they programmed their music, but also because they were envisaging a better world than they were living in, including an alternate mythology. I’d say that their futurism arises directly from their social situation IRL.

On Trump I’d like to recommend you this article with the title ‘Don’t let his trade policy fool you: Trump is a neoliberal.’

[doss]

It might be more pertinent to change the question to is the “hardcore contiuum” static, rather than placing the blame on house and techno - though i still do feel like these strains are particularly locked into place and telling of the general apathy in the music.
I feel like electronic dance music at the moment is in a flux of tiny changes, and that no one wishes to really change anything - what comes to mind is this adam curtis talk -

You could parallel political/musical caution/conservatism. People cant imagine a new and can only make incremental change.

A few folk asking to define what i would mean by innovation - i would class kraftwerk/juan atkins/jungle(as a whole) wiley as innovation in regards to the ardcore continuum - and i think this is probably tied to technological change - each of these artists took hold of new tech and pushed music along with it.

I think the point made about building diverse/inclusive spaces is probably a political point more than a musical one - but if such spaces fostered radical political ideas that helped overcome the political stasis this would seep into the music. That was the power acid had - bringing different people together (underoneroofblurghuh)
The young generation and the generation before are pretty conservative - people are just interested in being individuals and protecting their ego - same ties into musical expression, i doubt there is really a want in most circles for a mass movement of music like punk/hardcore/acid/jungle.
I’m just waiting for AI to develop enough to blow all our tiny minds with algorithmic infinite funk psychic viruses

[chava]

I love the Drexciya mythology, absolutely. The reason why the music still works is not because of that however, but perhaps some journalist types find that narrative easier to sell.

Following I would say that the still prevailing tendency to analyse art or cultural movements as direct result of its socioeconomic conditions is materialist reductionism at its worst. Music is music first and foremost and a metaphysical reality that transcends the mere representation of other supposedly more primary realities, such as whatever socioeconomic conditions one is living under.

Try not to politicize anything, it blocks your aesthetic sensibility. Dancing is always way more than mere hedonism or escapism from the "political’