are you rhythmically innovative ?

[sven laux]

let´s start a revolution!

sorry

[sauce]

let´s start a brothel!

[plaster]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6x3k4VxE2o

[victorgonzales]

that mthrfckr can drum!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Torque]

OK
Well then what you want to create is not techno or minimal because both of them have a formula when it comes to rhythm. Dance music is usually in a 4/4 time so you would probably need to step out of that and if you did it wouldn't be minimal really. There's nothing wrong with that, but asking a bunch of people that make electronic dance music if they are innovative in rhythm is kind of retarted simply because the fact that this music is created with a formula because that formula is time tested and proven to work to make people dance. Do you ask rock and roll bands if they are rhythmicly innovative, or polka bands etc...?

So just in case you don't understand the long answer, here is the short one: Nobody is........

why is it not techno ? why is it not minimal ?
i dont get it. for me and alot of people i know in music, there is no formula, and that is why we got into techno in the first place. there are guidelines maybe, and if you stray too far from those guidelines then you're making another kind of music. but this formula you're talking about, it obviously exists for you but not for me. i use an entirely different formula for every single tune. about the only thing that i adhere to that is formulaic is a 4/4 kick pattern (but not always) and yes that is very tried and tested, and yes it works. but people dance to all kinds of music that isnt 4/4, and just because there is a 4/4 feel to a tune, doesnt mean it is formulaic, its just a pulse thats all, that ties everything together.
and i'm not going to accept that minimal has to adhere to a formula, thats so depressing. minimal just means minimal.
rock and roll is so formulaic that it basically hasnt progressed for decades, for me rock and roll doesnt exist anymore.

Dude....
A guideline is a formula don't start in with double speak. If you can't see or hear that there is a formula to minimal or any of the other genres mentioned then i don't know what to tell you besides "wake up". Why do you think this stuff is sighted as a genre. It's because enough people started to work using the same formula and it's the same formula everybody has been using since the early beginnings of commercial dance music. I don't know why you would see shame in that, but to deny it's existance entirely is just straight up insane. Just because there is a formula to making dance music doesn't mean that all of it is equal. Some people are definitly better than others at doing it. If you want to believe that there isn't a formula to the way minimal of any of this other sh!t is made then you are going to have a much tougher time making it then the people that do. If your end goal is to innovate then you better step out of minimal as a genre because it's already been created. I don't make music with the intent to innovate because i'm not pretentious enough to believe that i have the power to determine what is innovation. The public will decide what innovation is and if by chance i did it then it would have been by the good graces of god, not me. I make all most of my sounds from scratch and twist the ones to death that i didn't create in order to get the sound i want but that's not because i'm trying to innovate, that's because i want to be able to take pride in my work and know in my heart that that entire track was done to the best of my ability at the time. Sound is the language i use to relate my feelings and ideas, dance music is the particular dialect i speak in but that doesn't mean i can't become more fluent over time.

If minimal just means minimal than why isn't a group like AUX 88 considered to be minimal. Technically they are much more minimal than about 90% of minimal records i hear.

[victorgonzales]

OK
Well then what you want to create is not techno or minimal because both of them have a formula when it comes to rhythm. Dance music is usually in a 4/4 time so you would probably need to step out of that and if you did it wouldn't be minimal really. There's nothing wrong with that, but asking a bunch of people that make electronic dance music if they are innovative in rhythm is kind of retarted simply because the fact that this music is created with a formula because that formula is time tested and proven to work to make people dance. Do you ask rock and roll bands if they are rhythmicly innovative, or polka bands etc...?

So just in case you don't understand the long answer, here is the short one: Nobody is........

why is it not techno ? why is it not minimal ?
i dont get it. for me and alot of people i know in music, there is no formula, and that is why we got into techno in the first place. there are guidelines maybe, and if you stray too far from those guidelines then you're making another kind of music. but this formula you're talking about, it obviously exists for you but not for me. i use an entirely different formula for every single tune. about the only thing that i adhere to that is formulaic is a 4/4 kick pattern (but not always) and yes that is very tried and tested, and yes it works. but people dance to all kinds of music that isnt 4/4, and just because there is a 4/4 feel to a tune, doesnt mean it is formulaic, its just a pulse thats all, that ties everything together.
and i'm not going to accept that minimal has to adhere to a formula, thats so depressing. minimal just means minimal.
rock and roll is so formulaic that it basically hasnt progressed for decades, for me rock and roll doesnt exist anymore.

Dude....
A guideline is a formula don't start in with double speak. If you can't see or hear that there is a formula to minimal or any of the other genres mentioned then i don't know what to tell you besides "wake up". Why do you think this stuff is sighted as a genre. It's because enough people started to work using the same formula and it's the same formula everybody has been using since the early beginnings of commercial dance music. I don't know why you would see shame in that, but to deny it's existance entirely is just straight up insane. Just because there is a formula to making dance music doesn't mean that all of it is equal. Some people are definitly better than others at doing it. If you want to believe that there isn't a formula to the way minimal of any of this other sht is made then you are going to have a much tougher time making it then the people that do. If your end goal is to innovate then you better step out of minimal as a genre because it's already been created. I don't make music with the intent to innovate because i'm not pretentious enough to believe that i have the power to determine what is innovation. The public will decide what innovation is and if by chance i did it then it would have been by the good graces of god, not me. I make all most of my sounds from scratch and twist the ones to death that i didn't create in order to get the sound i want but that's not because i'm trying to innovate, that's because i want to be able to take pride in my work and know in my heart that that entire track was done to the best of my ability at the time. Sound is the language i use to relate my feelings and ideas, dance music is the particular dialect i speak in but that doesn't mean i can't become more fluent over time.

If minimal just means minimal than why isn't a group like AUX 88 considered to be minimal. Technically they are much more minimal than about 90% of minimal records i hear.

I think steevio is talking less of breaking the rules than you might think. There are rules and he is talking about stretching them with using not "new" but less often used techniques. Such as straying from the two four eight etc. placement of ALL instruments. Many of us already do that sometimes by throwing a mote on threes or fives then throwing a double in on the thirty two so It all falls back into place for the next thirty two measures.
I may be wrong but what I think he is getting at is pushing the little non 4/4 rhythms we already use more into the front of our music instead of hiding them in the back. This rarelly works out well but most of us probably don't try it as often as we could and it might make some unique tracks if we did.

By no means is doing this going to change minimal or techno drastically because 4/4 will always be the dominant force in tracks that are saleable but it might spice things up a bit.

[Bogdan]

i'm confused. first i though you guys are talking about something really new here. then i see that its about 4/4 after all, but with different changes.

By no means is doing this going to change minimal or techno drastically because 4/4 will always be the dominant force in tracks

and i must tell you that you can't be really innovative this way.

[steevio]

OK
Well then what you want to create is not techno or minimal because both of them have a formula when it comes to rhythm. Dance music is usually in a 4/4 time so you would probably need to step out of that and if you did it wouldn't be minimal really. There's nothing wrong with that, but asking a bunch of people that make electronic dance music if they are innovative in rhythm is kind of retarted simply because the fact that this music is created with a formula because that formula is time tested and proven to work to make people dance. Do you ask rock and roll bands if they are rhythmicly innovative, or polka bands etc...?

So just in case you don't understand the long answer, here is the short one: Nobody is........

why is it not techno ? why is it not minimal ?
i dont get it. for me and alot of people i know in music, there is no formula, and that is why we got into techno in the first place. there are guidelines maybe, and if you stray too far from those guidelines then you're making another kind of music. but this formula you're talking about, it obviously exists for you but not for me. i use an entirely different formula for every single tune. about the only thing that i adhere to that is formulaic is a 4/4 kick pattern (but not always) and yes that is very tried and tested, and yes it works. but people dance to all kinds of music that isnt 4/4, and just because there is a 4/4 feel to a tune, doesnt mean it is formulaic, its just a pulse thats all, that ties everything together.
and i'm not going to accept that minimal has to adhere to a formula, thats so depressing. minimal just means minimal.
rock and roll is so formulaic that it basically hasnt progressed for decades, for me rock and roll doesnt exist anymore.

Dude....
A guideline is a formula don't start in with double speak. If you can't see or hear that there is a formula to minimal or any of the other genres mentioned then i don't know what to tell you besides "wake up". Why do you think this stuff is sighted as a genre. It's because enough people started to work using the same formula and it's the same formula everybody has been using since the early beginnings of commercial dance music. I don't know why you would see shame in that, but to deny it's existance entirely is just straight up insane. Just because there is a formula to making dance music doesn't mean that all of it is equal. Some people are definitly better than others at doing it. If you want to believe that there isn't a formula to the way minimal of any of this other sht is made then you are going to have a much tougher time making it then the people that do. If your end goal is to innovate then you better step out of minimal as a genre because it's already been created. I don't make music with the intent to innovate because i'm not pretentious enough to believe that i have the power to determine what is innovation. The public will decide what innovation is and if by chance i did it then it would have been by the good graces of god, not me. I make all most of my sounds from scratch and twist the ones to death that i didn't create in order to get the sound i want but that's not because i'm trying to innovate, that's because i want to be able to take pride in my work and know in my heart that that entire track was done to the best of my ability at the time. Sound is the language i use to relate my feelings and ideas, dance music is the particular dialect i speak in but that doesn't mean i can't become more fluent over time.

If minimal just means minimal than why isn't a group like AUX 88 considered to be minimal. Technically they are much more minimal than about 90% of minimal records i hear.

OK mate. i'd already pulled out of this post, but i'm going to answer you, because i appreciate the points you are trying to make, and your contributions to this forum, and if nothing more than the fact that the second techno label i started in the mid 1990's was called Torque.
i've been seriously misunderstood, you basically havent grasped a single thing i've said.
your quote about Aux88 perfectly illustrates my point about minimal being minimal. If Aux88 are minimal to you, then they ARE minimal, just because the people at Beatport or whatever dont pigeonhole them that way, or because the young guy recently turned on to minus or whatever, thinks minimal started there and is the definitive.
if a minimal artist is given a blank sheet of paper, he will put his little dots or whatever, wherever he likes, wherever it is aesthetically pleasing to him. you are saying he has to paint by numbers, only put them in the places the formula demands. that is such non-sense dude.
you're saying as musicians we have to paint by numbers.
Just where did this techno formula of yours come from, where is it written down ? as far as i remember it was just a lot of diverse people all over the world playing around with electronic instruments. oK you will probably comment that the first use of the WORD techno in a commercial release was 'Techno- The New dance sound of Detroit', and what an awesome compilation that was, but techno's roots go way back to the 1970's, and there is an unbroken timeline which goes up to this present day and beyond. There wasnt some moment in 1988 where a rigid system was imposed, a formula. The tunes back then were very diverse, and just one moment in one tune may have inspired a whole subgenre or new genre.
there were hardly two tunes alike back in 1990.
everyone was expressing themselves in different ways.
So why shouldnt that be the case now ? at exactly which moment did the innovation stop ? did it stop with that record ?
you seem to think i'm being pretentious, i've never said that i think i'm innovative, i just said i was bored, and when you're bored you try do something outside the system that is causing the boredom. i dont sit all day thinking how can i be innovative, i just look at the system, and look for ways to do things differently because it stimulates me intellectually. thats not being pretentious, thats me following my nature as a human being.

OK this whole 4/4 thing, not many of you understand what I'm saying.
almost every single musical piece i have ever written has had a steady pulse driving it along, and that doesnt necessarily mean a 4/4 kick drum, and it doesnt necessarily mean you can hear it, it may just be implied.
that is the guide line i'm talking about. that is no way a formula. it's a timeline, a pulse for the brain and body to follow. i dont have a formula for where the rhythmic elements fall, or what they do when they happen.
the whole point of this post was that i'm looking for people who are experimenting outside of the 16ths, halfbar, 1,2,4,8,16 'Formula' so i can release stuff on my' TECHNO' label.
its a total misconception to equate a 4/4 kick drum with a 4/4 tune, a 4/4 kick is a 4/4 kick and nothing more, every single other element of the tune can be non-4/4, but to the dancer it is still techno because of that kick.
now you've said that everything has already been tried, that is so wrong.
99% of people making music stick to the grids and formulas, the ones who dont, are almost invisible. so you are telling me that the 1% who have ventured beyond the formulas have covered every possible rhythmic combination. the reason many of these other possibilities dont come to light, is for the very reason that people stick to the tried and tested formulae that you so love, because they work, the 'if it aint broke why fix it' mentality that stifles progression.
techno must evolve like everything else or it will die. the only way it can evolve is by innovation. techno almost died at the end of the 1990's because of this closed minded mentality, and yes of course theres always a new generation that will come along and see the beauty of the early forms,
and copy them, but if that is to be the future of techno then i feel very sad.
i feel the same sadness when i see young punks nowadays emulating the pioneers from 1976, yes they will feel the power of the music, yes they will feel part of something, the fashion, the buzz, but they will never know the fresh burst of energy which created those forms, the social conditions, the rebellion, their bands will be pail immitations.
Techno has evolved and is evolving, and there are innovators out there, and i'm looking for them thats all, am i doing something wrong ? should i 'wake up' to genre-ism ? when i've spent my entire music career believing that its genre-ism which kills music.
genre-ism didnt really exist till big business got a hold of music, it was required for marketing. in the past music was passed on incrementally, it evolved with each new musician's innovations, each village had its own angle. I personally don't think anything has changed if you're a musician operating outside of commercial music.

Sound is the language i use to relate my feelings and ideas, dance music is the particular dialect i speak, but that dialect is constantly evolving like language. nothing stands still, there is only CHANGE !!
and no i don't believe in a creator, i believe that the entire universe is a conscious intelligent being of which i'm a tiny part.