techno isnt about the past, its about the future

mehta · Post by **mehta** » Fri Dec 03, 2010 2:34 pm

Torque wrote: If you think artists like Jeff Mills Juan Atkins and UR are talking about the 21st century in their music then you haven't been listening. More like the year 3000

The date or year isn't so important. The point is that techno can't be futuristic anymore, but it's very relevant. We are actually living in this decaying cyber-realm that was forecast in the 80s.

lem · Post by **lem** » Fri Dec 03, 2010 3:42 pm

steevio wrote:
lem wrote:
steevio wrote: yeah its same round here, we all bounce off each other, we keep an eye on whats going on elsewhere, but not necessarily influenced by it.
I think sometimes we are not conscious of our influences. We have probably been picking up influences our whole lives without knowing it!
yes of course, i was just talking about conscious influences.

I know, I was just making a different point relative to your post.

nakoradiomies · Post by **nakoradiomies** » Fri Dec 03, 2010 4:21 pm

making _good_ music is future

coldfuture · Post by **coldfuture** » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:25 pm

steevio wrote:i totally know where youre coming from Torque, but not everyone who has been into techno necessarily understands it from the classical purist Detroit techno perspective, where techno was invented by a couple of guys with a sci-fi concept in just one moment of inspiration.
when i listen to that early stuff, it all sounds individual, with lots of different influences, no two tracks alike, no two artists alike, real musical innovation, pushing the boundaries, but not a homogenised concept.

i was making electrofunk and running a club in 1983, and techno kind of grew out of electro, and morphed into what we consider classic techno almost imperceptibly, and at the same time in europe, we had acid house and raves where there was no clear distinction between the various genres, it was all just machine music, and we loved it all.

the concpets you talk of were only very vague, and had already been glimpsed with Kraftwerk years earlier.
no one gave a toss about the concepts, we just wanted to neck ecstacy, and go mental to this new music in fields and warehouses.
it was about change and fresh energy. it was the future but it was happening NOW.
musical ideas disseminate very quickly and concepts become lost in translation, techno evolved into other things almost before it had gotten a foothold.

techno was mainstream in the UK by 1990, the detroit guys were in the top 40, it was and always will be DANCE music first and foremost.
if you'd been part of the scene in the UK, Germany or Belgium at that time, you'd know exactly what i'm talking about, and likewise i cant see it totally from your point of view because i wasnt in Detroit at the time.
no-one is right or wrong here, its just different perspectives, i think that much is obvious.
if i talk passionately about this, its because techno changed my world, nothing was the same again for me after techno, i'm not only indebted to those detroit pioneers, but to everyone who was part of the massive UK scene at the time, the machines, the musicians, and my fellow ravers,

you just cant single out one element and say 'this is what techno is !'

This is the other half of the greatest answer ever. Steevio and Torque FTW!

coldfuture · Post by **coldfuture** » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:29 pm

mehta wrote:
Torque wrote: If you think artists like Jeff Mills Juan Atkins and UR are talking about the 21st century in their music then you haven't been listening. More like the year 3000
The date or year isn't so important. The point is that techno can't be futuristic anymore, but it's very relevant. We are actually living in this decaying cyber-realm that was forecast in the 80s.

Love both of these quotes.

Torque · Post by **Torque** » Sat Dec 04, 2010 8:25 am

mehta wrote:
Torque wrote: If you think artists like Jeff Mills Juan Atkins and UR are talking about the 21st century in their music then you haven't been listening. More like the year 3000
The date or year isn't so important. The point is that techno can't be futuristic anymore, but it's very relevant. We are actually living in this decaying cyber-realm that was forecast in the 80s.

So....
The universe has been and always will be in a constant state of decay and since our technology is part of it, it will decay just as we will and always have.
There will always be slums, there will always societies collapsing, this is all part of the natural condition.
To me Techno still sounds like the future i imagine. Not because of the sounds used but because of the mood it conveys and the pictures and landscapes the best pieces play in my head when i listen to them.
If Techno can't be futuristic anymore than what is Interstellar Fugitives or Drexciya?

eggnchips · Post by **eggnchips** » Sat Dec 04, 2010 9:31 pm

I say balls to all this philosophy.
Kick drum, hats, snare, some rides, few crunchy samples and we're all laughing!

AK · Post by AK » Sat Dec 04, 2010 9:59 pm

Hmm, why would one wish to write music about the year 3000? That in itself doesnt define techno in my book. By that definition, ANY music based on futurism is potentially techno. And I dont think so.

I thought it was odd to say techno isnt 'dance music with techno sounds'. If its not, what is it? If i said, heres a track based on a post apocalyptic world in the year 3000, is that then techno?

Why all the fuss about what is what? sh!t, just take your influences and make interesting and exciting music, if some moron wants to pigeon hole it, let them do it. Personally, i think these people have far too much time on their hands and just need to get out more.

Anyway, by the year 3000, all life on earth will have ceased to exist so there will be no sound so you cant write music about it. If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? No.

Year 3000 = no life = no sound = no music = no point using extreme futurism as a concept unless you are gonna do a john cage and make several minutes of silence.