What gives the housey feeling?
-
Phase Ghost
- mnml maxi
- Posts: 712
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:19 am
- Location: Pittsburgh, US
- Contact:
Yeah, it's pointless to argue. Good house and techno is basically the same music and can be mixed together. The sets I play are generally in the range of 120-124. Generally, somewhere in the middle. Some is more "housey" while other tunes are "techy". Also, some are obviously one or the other. Regardless, as long as it's got a raw fucking groove, I don't care what it's called. I buy it and I play it.
amazing music.nakoradiomies wrote:its not important how you do it, just try to get the feeling in to it..
here is some good examples
------------------------------------------------------
http://soundcloud.com/kirkwoodwest
http://soundcloud.com/kirkwoodwest
Re: What gives the housey feeling?
+1Torque wrote:It's purposeaciduss wrote:What makes it different from straigh serious techno?
(okay that's probably too simple of an explanation)
House music's only purpose is to make people dance. The rhythms are usually swung and more organic feeling.
Techno is a musical representation of the future. Sometimes it makes people dance but that's not really what it's soul purpose is. The beats are usually much more mechanical and it usually has a cold and dark feeling to it. I rarely hear techno that sounds happy.
i hope this made sense to somebody else besides me.
plaster wrote:you can't be a leader if are a follower.
-
MINIMALTECHNOHOUSE
- mnml maxi
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:04 pm
- Location: Birmingham
Re: What gives the housey feeling?
Someone like Larry Heard would probably disagree with this statement.Torque wrote:aciduss wrote:What makes it different from straigh serious techno?
House music's only purpose is to make people dance.
-
damagedgoods
- mnml mmbr
- Posts: 349
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:38 am
I'm loathe to resort to such a blatant cliché, but I think "house is a feeling" is about as far as you can distinguish the two. Certainly in the UK and Berlin, the boundaries are very blurred.
I mean:
- You could say house is more organic, but there's plenty of techno being made largely with acoustic samples whose feel and structure definitely fit more on the tempo camp. And there's plenty of house that's been made with very electronic sounds
- You could say house "has more soul", but lots of techno has more soul than lots of house
-....etc
The real cliché would be to say that, for example, "house has splashy hihats and instrument or vocal samples and a swung groove and jazzy chords" and "techno is darker and more repetitive and more mechanical" - that's simply not true unless you restrict your listening of house and techno to soulful house and dark, pummeling techno. In the end, you just feel the difference; you pick it up by listening to a range of stuff from the past 20 years of both genres, and judge for yourself what the lowest common denominators are between Mike Dunn and Steffi, or Basic Channel and Gaiser. To be honest in many cases the more contemporary artists are so far removed from the original house and/or techno aesthetic as to be practically unrecognisable.
Also, remember that the two were closely linked from the beginning and in many cases you simply can't say "this is house" or "this is techno". It's not worth approximating any further than necessary for the sake of giving something a pigeonhole. Genres are a bunch of bollocks anyway. These days I generally find that if I meet anyone who tells me they like "house and techno", it's safe to assume that we won't actually like any of the same music...
TJ
I mean:
- You could say house is more organic, but there's plenty of techno being made largely with acoustic samples whose feel and structure definitely fit more on the tempo camp. And there's plenty of house that's been made with very electronic sounds
- You could say house "has more soul", but lots of techno has more soul than lots of house
-....etc
The real cliché would be to say that, for example, "house has splashy hihats and instrument or vocal samples and a swung groove and jazzy chords" and "techno is darker and more repetitive and more mechanical" - that's simply not true unless you restrict your listening of house and techno to soulful house and dark, pummeling techno. In the end, you just feel the difference; you pick it up by listening to a range of stuff from the past 20 years of both genres, and judge for yourself what the lowest common denominators are between Mike Dunn and Steffi, or Basic Channel and Gaiser. To be honest in many cases the more contemporary artists are so far removed from the original house and/or techno aesthetic as to be practically unrecognisable.
Also, remember that the two were closely linked from the beginning and in many cases you simply can't say "this is house" or "this is techno". It's not worth approximating any further than necessary for the sake of giving something a pigeonhole. Genres are a bunch of bollocks anyway. These days I generally find that if I meet anyone who tells me they like "house and techno", it's safe to assume that we won't actually like any of the same music...
TJ
thats interesting mate, why do you say that ? do you not like house and techno ?damagedgoods wrote:These days I generally find that if I meet anyone who tells me they like "house and techno", it's safe to assume that we won't actually like any of the same music...
TJ
i organise a house and techno festival, (although its called an electronic music festival, the majority of the music falls in the blurred area between house and techno) and i find its not too difficult to keep the floor going the whole weekend with a variety of house/techno.
its not like the floor clears at the end of every set to be filled with a new bunch of revellers who have a slightly different taste.