DYNAMIC!!!
AREAL RECORDS----> METOPE, BASTEROID, ETC...
masters of dynamism xD
dance musik
i know what your saying, and ive experience the same thing at minimal nights myself, but if you dig a little deeper beyond the obvious and trendy 'minimal' labels there is funky stuff out there.
in the mid 1990's we used to call the music you're talking about 'Plod' .
i find alot of the labels that seem to get the attention on this forum very 'ploddy'. i usually find if i go to a minimal night, i dance flatfooted most of the time, but every now and again a tune will just pick me up and make me dance. its all just about quality i reckon, there isnt enough of it about, and too many DJ's just rely on the obvious labels, and they arent necessarily the most funky.
bring on the minimal funk !!!
in the mid 1990's we used to call the music you're talking about 'Plod' .
i find alot of the labels that seem to get the attention on this forum very 'ploddy'. i usually find if i go to a minimal night, i dance flatfooted most of the time, but every now and again a tune will just pick me up and make me dance. its all just about quality i reckon, there isnt enough of it about, and too many DJ's just rely on the obvious labels, and they arent necessarily the most funky.
bring on the minimal funk !!!
me neither. it is more like a natural progression. original chicago house and detroit techno were minimal by nature. sounds progressed and become more busy from swedish techno to ragga dnb. now things are getting more stripped down. i can't wait to see what is next... and after that... and...Measax wrote:i don't consider minimal a genre
The reason I got into techno was people/things like this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... nsin&hl=en
Daft Punk was a huge influence. (For people who don't know - "around the world" and all the modern pop stuff is irrelevant and not really the daft punk i'm talking about).
So good live. Even today with their pop edge - they know how to perform and lucky for us, they play their old with the new. They were doing some things that people have been doing more recently as far as tracks go.. back in the early 90s. And did it a lot better, too.
Moving on.
The "minimal" thing can and does rock just as hard, when in the right hands. I think sometimes people have forgotten some things - like the thump of a bassdrum...it's not just a thump of a bassdrum. If you know what you're doing, a 4/4 thump can become something totally refreshing and powerful and crazy/hypnotic instead of a boring, non-unique vehicle for song elements to sit on top of. Too many people though confuse sloppy digital house music with tiny sounds in it with "minimal". There's also the more listening environment/headphone appropriate music that maybe works on the dancefloor sometimes but isn't neccesarily meant for it. There's a lot of that. But I think there's a lot of really good techno out there... maybe classifiable as what people call "minimal" but the words has little meaning anymore. And so I think to sort of more directly address the original post - a bit of blurring of the lines is neccesary in determining what makes good ass-shaking music. Some things that people call minimal that makes people dance isn't minimal. There's some minimal that is minimal and rocks. There's also a lot of shitty producers out there that really don't know how to make people move. What it comes down to in DJ land though is just finding what works and it's often a bit of both worlds - that is, minimal and...non-minimal?
Sometimes I think "minimal" is just a word people use instead of calling it all "nu techno"
There is some real minimal out there that rocks. Just as unfairly broad the word minimal has become, it's just as unfairly general of someone to suggest that it's not capable of making people really shake ass.
Done saying the word "minimal" for a really long time,
Adam.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... nsin&hl=en
Daft Punk was a huge influence. (For people who don't know - "around the world" and all the modern pop stuff is irrelevant and not really the daft punk i'm talking about).
So good live. Even today with their pop edge - they know how to perform and lucky for us, they play their old with the new. They were doing some things that people have been doing more recently as far as tracks go.. back in the early 90s. And did it a lot better, too.
Moving on.
The "minimal" thing can and does rock just as hard, when in the right hands. I think sometimes people have forgotten some things - like the thump of a bassdrum...it's not just a thump of a bassdrum. If you know what you're doing, a 4/4 thump can become something totally refreshing and powerful and crazy/hypnotic instead of a boring, non-unique vehicle for song elements to sit on top of. Too many people though confuse sloppy digital house music with tiny sounds in it with "minimal". There's also the more listening environment/headphone appropriate music that maybe works on the dancefloor sometimes but isn't neccesarily meant for it. There's a lot of that. But I think there's a lot of really good techno out there... maybe classifiable as what people call "minimal" but the words has little meaning anymore. And so I think to sort of more directly address the original post - a bit of blurring of the lines is neccesary in determining what makes good ass-shaking music. Some things that people call minimal that makes people dance isn't minimal. There's some minimal that is minimal and rocks. There's also a lot of shitty producers out there that really don't know how to make people move. What it comes down to in DJ land though is just finding what works and it's often a bit of both worlds - that is, minimal and...non-minimal?
Sometimes I think "minimal" is just a word people use instead of calling it all "nu techno"
There is some real minimal out there that rocks. Just as unfairly broad the word minimal has become, it's just as unfairly general of someone to suggest that it's not capable of making people really shake ass.
Done saying the word "minimal" for a really long time,
Adam.