Syntaxed

It's only ten days old, but already, 2008 has claimed its first victim, according to Tom and friends. On first appearances, it suggests more doom and gloom for that tiny part of the worldwide music industry that electronic music accounts for, but as Tom points out, this development is part of a necessary bloodletting process rather than something more sensationalist. Like Pipecock, I'm still a vinyl buyer and, as he suggests, high vinyl prices have meant that non-digital consumers have become far more picky about their purchases. It's a fair point: ten years ago, when I didn't even have a quarter of the disposable income that I do now, I bought far more records. Maybe that's because there were a number of great underground music stores in Dublin at the time and it had also something to do with the fact that at the time, I was on a journey of discovery, educating myself about electronic music. Nowadays, I am more inclined to only buy fewer records (always online too: I love Hardwax, but I will always miss that personal touch, when a friendly buyer - yes, they do exist - will pull out a rare gem from under the counter that never made it onto the shelves), but I make sure to choose more astutely, making sure that these are timeless records, music that I intend to come back to in ten years time and still love. Of course music, like art, fashion or literature is beholden to a set of cylical circumstances: as Tom also points out, the same kind of shake-up will inevitably affect digital distributors in the year ahead, with the result that digital collectors will also become more picky. In the meantime, here's a question for users of services like Beatport, etc who were originally vinyl collectors: do these websites' lower prices mean that you find yourself buying more music - or do you buy the same amount and save yourselves more money? I'd be interested in hearing your answers...

Comments

[b0b]

"the "best records" and the ones that stand the test of time are the ones you or I decide that we like in 10 years time. that could be any type of record."

There are still semi-objective to find better records:

- is the song writing great or is it just random and even the artist did not know what to do with it ? Sadly a big amount of tunes are in the second category and go absolutely fucking nowhere.
- is it just dancefloor fodder to catter to the market and because the artist needed some quick $$$ (see the amount of useless remixes) or more than that ?
- did the artist really put its soul into the music ?
- does it have some emotional power ?
- does it sound with every current *now* gimmick and production technique that scream "hear me, i'm there!" ?
- etc...

[Ronan]

those are all completely subjective!

[Brophy]

thanks for all the replies. I really didn't expect so many. Truth be told, I'm not sure this post would generate so much interest. I haven't had a huge amount of free time to reply to comments on other recent posts, but I just want to clarify a few things on this one:

the higher cost now of buying vinyl - this means killer shipping costs as I 99% buy online - means I buy less now, but I would also hope it's a result of being stricter, more refined tastes, less tolerance for records that are good and not outstanding or a combination of all of them. Regarding the whole timeless argument, I feel that there are production styles and sounds in electronic music that have stood the test of time over the past two and a half decades or three decades if you want to push it. I know it's not a very long period, but i feel electronic music is very fast changing, so in its lifetime until now, these styles are timeless (or evergreen). I see new (and old) producers go back time and time again to styles like Chicago house - look at the big resurgence in music inspired by this in Germany in the past year or so - or the Italo Disco and electro (eg stuff from Detroit and Miami)-inspired music from Holland since the late 90s. Of course it should be the aim of the contemporary producer to take influence from these styles and move it forward, create his own take on it, which in turn means he has a new style.

That's why artists like Redshape and say 2000 & One are red-hot at the moment: they look to the past before they move into the future. I included 2000 & One's 'Work' in my top list for 07 because he synergises NY and Chicago house in a unique, modern way. Sure, he looks to the past - the guys at Tape were astute enough to spot that the 'work' sample is from 'work that motherfucker' by stevie poindexter, one of the great Chicago house records. This is the same methodology at play that bambaata used to create 'planet rock', 'borrowing' the bassline from kraftwerk and turning it into something new.

One of the problems, I feel, with a lot of contemporary electronic music - and this was also a problem in the past, but all that stuff is now forgotten about - is that it lacks any understanding of the roots, of what went before it, that it only exists for the here and now. If you don't know your past, you can't map out the future. I still listen to and love music I listened to 20 years ago. Bands like Can, The Fall, Depeche Mode to me are timeless - their music from the 60s (Can), 70s (Fall) 80s (DM) is still ahead of most of what is released nowadays. I think people need to crate dig more and more - and I hope that what I'm buying now will indeed stand the test of time and that I will be listening to records by Soultek, REdshape, 2000 & One as well as The Fall, DM, Can etc etc in 20, 30, 40 years time, as long as I'm alive. I'm sure there will be other great producers who will appear along the way, but they will just add to what I listen to and play now. Obviously, this is all just an opinion - agree or disagree if you will.

[Kenny]

"erm...you obviously give a fuck about the grand scheme of things since you worry about how the future will regard the records you buy, rather than simply saying "what I think is the most important"

Maybe I wasn't clear, but I dont care about the grand scheme. Richard said it right regards Redshape etc and how some sounds have continued to last and be built upon. That will last more than 20 records churned out by your Dubfires of the world. You need to know your past, and not be obsessed with what his cool at the moment. I dont care what others will think about stuff in the future, but when I am spending MY money on music, i try not to bother with records I (just ME) feel will be redundant and that I (not anyone else) will be bored with quickly. As your tastes grow and develop you do find certain stuff you prefer and get less bothered with what is being percieved as being in at the moment. I'm sure there are people who find the chicago sound utterly redundant and boring nowadays, some of us don't.

[Ronan]

But originally dance music was a futurist genre.

It's quite sad to hear all this talk of "knowing your roots" and "knowing your past", it's so anti-innovation.

I say that even though I actually believe that almost all of the house/techno around now is mining some area of the past, whether Wild Pitch or Detroit techno or whatever.

But is that a sign of good health? The original house/techno guys may have had a love for old music, but their entire agenda and the way they marketed themselves seemed to say "this is the future".

And I do think there is a fine line between music which does something new with an old idea, and shamelessly retro stuff which makes dance music seem as staid as rock and roll.

I'd also like to add that sometimes what is "in" at a given time is also good, and is also rooted in the past (since as I said, in my opinion, in dance in 2007, almost everything is rooted in the past)

Plus even within the big bracket of stuff you might perceive as "trendy" or whatever, there are always levels of originality and quality. Just because something is "in" does not mean it is shit.

Similarly, it's not like "knowing your past" doesn't involve trends either. With dance constantly recycling itself the trend jumps around from genre to genre all the time. Even old stuff is "in" and stuff like Detroit techno or Chicago house is permanently trendy and hip, even if people like to pretend it's some hated underdog. (that just makes it even trendier)

All this discussion is very abstract though. I trust that most people listen to records and buy them because they like them, regardless of whether I like their choices or not.

I don't believe people say "this is trendy so I'll buy it" because I'm not a misanthrope.

It'd be nice if people who didn't like the music I do had some secret agenda like that, rather than just different taste to me, but they really don't!

[Ronan]

oh and just one other point...when people started making house and techno you can be 100 per cent certain there was a huge long queue of guys saying "you don't respect your roots, what is this machine soulless bullshit" etc etc etc.

good new music seldom comes from having a huge respect for the past. and every single new genre has had somebody saying "this will be gone in 3 months, this has no connection the real stuff, this is vapid, blah blah blah"

same goes for the best rock bands, they tend to be innovative because they are irreverent, not because they know their roots and act with religious respect.

[Chymera]

"the fact is, nobody (even you guys) can tell what records will survive the test of time, but given the lack of attention dance music gets in the mainstream media it certainly won't be up there with million selling album acts who've toured the world and been in the newspapers for their entire careers."

What does touring and selling millions and the mainstream attention thereof have to do with making a record timeless?? Sure there's plenty of great records by million selling acts out there that are timeless but equally there's many timeless records by virtually complete unknowns who churned out tracks for a pittance on underground labels and have been eternally ignored by the mainstream public and press (and always will be, that's the nature of this music)

[Ronan]

I agree with you.

My point was that in years to come, most of the factors that render a record "timeless" are to do with sales/success/received wisdom, not personal opinion or their actual worth.

History forgets great records all the time.

The whole process by which records are venerated/remembered in the future is faulty, so why say "this record will stand the test of time" since that would depend on other factors that are nothing to do with your opinion of it, or how it sounds.

[hum3]

"I feel techno is an evergrowing tree and we should never forget that deep underground the roots of our music have grown from other kinds." (Laurent Garnier)

Though I've written this down before on my own blog: for me, this quote pretty much sums up the way I see 'techno', and it explains which kind of records I appreciate the most: the ones that cherish the past and celebrate the future. Indeed.

[tom/pipecock]

"But originally dance music was a futurist genre."

bullshit.

"It's quite sad to hear all this talk of "knowing your roots" and "knowing your past", it's so anti-innovation."

bullshit again.

"I say that even though I actually believe that almost all of the house/techno around now is mining some area of the past, whether Wild Pitch or Detroit techno or whatever."

bullshit a third time. i'm already tired of you whining about the wild pitch similarities that just arent there. and where are all these detroit techno knockoffs? i mean *I* know them, they are their own little "scene" but they are very very far from being popular in any way shape or form.

"But is that a sign of good health? The original house/techno guys may have had a love for old music, but their entire agenda and the way they marketed themselves seemed to say "this is the future"."

what exactly is this statement based on? none of these guys was originally playing their records in a set with nothing but new records, they knew their place in the larger scheme of things. you might mistake some of their concepts for a hard line philosophy, but i think that is a huge mistake in understanding what was going on. these guys were using old technology: drum machines that were not used by "real" musicians because they didnt sound "live", turntables and mixers, etc. nothing was really "new" about it except the way they used the old things.

"And I do think there is a fine line between music which does something new with an old idea, and shamelessly retro stuff which makes dance music seem as staid as rock and roll."

i dont think there is a fine line at all. all ideas are old, a lot of new dance music tries to act as if that isnt true, as if you can rewrite what makes a song good by using some new plugin. people shouldnt sit there trying to copy Mr. Fingers tracks note for note, that is just retarded. but instead what you get is people substituting technology for ideas. they take the most simple structure of a dance song and throw some sounds on it made from hot new program X and call it a day. "no one has ever done anything like this before" blah blah blah, go the critics.

"Plus even within the big bracket of stuff you might perceive as "trendy" or whatever, there are always levels of originality and quality. Just because something is "in" does not mean it is shit."

certainly not, thats why this is not about things being trendy or not: its about music being timeless or not. the "broken beat" thing that was HUGE in the early 00's was quite popular with namy questionable morons, yet there are many great timeless beautiful records that came from that scene. when you compare it to things like "microhouse" and now "mnml" and whatever name theyre going to call this same soulless garbage next year (deep house?? hahahaha. what a fucking insult.) the number of great records is nearly zero. the things that are accepted that are a little more interesting than the usual seem to be almost accidentally popular (Sleep Archive, Marcel Dettman, Redshape, etc, all of which are most certainly rooted in the past moreso than all this DSP fodder) instead of the music that is leading the way.

"Similarly, it's not like "knowing your past" doesn't involve trends either. With dance constantly recycling itself the trend jumps around from genre to genre all the time. Even old stuff is "in" and stuff like Detroit techno or Chicago house is permanently trendy and hip, even if people like to pretend it's some hated underdog. (that just makes it even trendier)"

you seem to be unable to distinguish between something having a stable (and not necessarily small) and rabid fanbase from something being trendy. i'm really not sure what to tell you there.

"I don't believe people say "this is trendy so I'll buy it" because I'm not a misanthrope."

you're not a misanthrope, you're a moron. people buy trendy music because it is all they know. it is all that is hyped up by the media, it's all you can hear in the "cool" places to be, it's what people who have no idea about the history of dance music and what it is all about hear and then they know nothing else. and when you mix in the drugs and the communal feeling of being in a club with lots of other people, you get these ridiculously blown out of proportion trends. and then in just a few years when something else is "cool" they will say "oh yeah, mnml, that's what i liked when i was a kid. i like much more serious music now." and shit like that. i've seen it 1000 times in any genre of music you can think of, not just dance music. but it is only in dance music where the focus is so myopic that it excludes nearly everything outside of the very narrow window of what is hot "now".

"It'd be nice if people who didn't like the music I do had some secret agenda like that, rather than just different taste to me, but they really don't!"

the difference is that the people who like the music that is trendy (like yourself) have a very simple singleminded agenda: make as much money as possible while you can. the people who like the music we're talking about largely arent making shit from it, they do it because they love it.

"oh and just one other point...when people started making house and techno you can be 100 per cent certain there was a huge long queue of guys saying "you don't respect your roots, what is this machine soulless bullshit" etc etc etc."

except of course that those critics were demonstrably incorrect. in fact, those early techno and house cats were some of the most knowledgable people around in regards to music because they spent all their time and money in record stores. it couldnt be any more different than it is now with joe blow on his mac laptop using program X and sample packs they download from the net to make tracks that sound just like the mp3 they got from that guy from trendy location Y.

"good new music seldom comes from having a huge respect for the past. and every single new genre has had somebody saying "this will be gone in 3 months, this has no connection the real stuff, this is vapid, blah blah blah""

again, nothing these trendy techno and house guys are doing is "new". NOTHING. everything that they try to do has been done better by other people for a long time.

"same goes for the best rock bands, they tend to be innovative because they are irreverent, not because they know their roots and act with religious respect."

like led zepplin, the rolling stones, etc, right?

"My point was that in years to come, most of the factors that render a record "timeless" are to do with sales/success/received wisdom, not personal opinion or their actual worth."

you are either insane, or you're playing opposites day. THE TIMELESSNESS OF A RECORD HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH "sales/success/received wisdom", THAT IS THE DOMAIN OF TRENDY MUSIC. TIMELESS MUSIC IS TIMELESS BECAUSE IT IS AN EXPRESSION THAT IS EFFECTIVE WITHOUT ANY REGARD TO THOSE THINGS.

"History forgets great records all the time."

no, idiots forget great records all the time. the deejays (well, the good ones anyway) are the people who are supposed to stop that from happening. that is our job. the only reason "history" forgets anything is because the history is written down by numbskulls who don't know shit about music and can't differentiate good music from bad so they write about the popular.

"The whole process by which records are venerated/remembered in the future is faulty, so why say "this record will stand the test of time" since that would depend on other factors that are nothing to do with your opinion of it, or how it sounds."

what garbage. the reason classical music is still listened to is because it is effective at expressing something. the reason classic rock is still popular is the same. the reason anything old is popular (outside of course those trendy bits, most of which today seemed to be concerned with liking old things that were purposely bad in order to be ironic) is because it still does the job. that is all that is important, you have to filter out the extraneous information that seems to be more important to the trend followers than the actual music and concentrate on the quality of the expression that the artist is making.

[Kenny]

Pipey, your really starting to piss me off lately, I find myself agreeing with you more these days ;)

Regards these people not knowing thier past etc, all the detroit gang grew up listening to Electrifiying Mojo, who played accross the board new and old, as varied a radio disc jockey that you could get.

[Brophy]

Pipecock - wow, what a post!

Ronan - just one thing I don't understand with one of the last comments is this "It's quite sad to hear all this talk of "knowing your roots" and "knowing your past", it's so anti-innovation. I say that even though I actually believe that almost all of the house/techno around now is mining some area of the past, whether Wild Pitch or Detroit techno or whatever."

I just didn't get why you find it sad about people talking about knowing their past/roots seeing as you then go on to say that a lot of the house & techno of the moment is 'mining' some area of the past. A good example of this is a lot of the house coming from Germany /Europe at the moment, the stuff that you are into (like a good lot of your end of year top 30). How can you find it sad on one hand yet at the same time chart/play/write about it? As far as I can hear, this (the stuff on the top 30) borrows from the past yet gives a contempoary slant to classic house and techno (in the same way that redshape and 2000 & one do)- and there was one record (I forget the name, sorry) that was a pure retro track (not that there's anything wrong with that either if it's done properly). Am I missing something here - I'm genuinely interested if I am...

[b0b]

@pipecock: excellent post ! too bad it's lost on a second page of comments of a blog :)

[Ronan]

"you are either insane, or you're playing opposites day. THE TIMELESSNESS OF A RECORD HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH "sales/success/received wisdom", THAT IS THE DOMAIN OF TRENDY MUSIC. TIMELESS MUSIC IS TIMELESS BECAUSE IT IS AN EXPRESSION THAT IS EFFECTIVE WITHOUT ANY REGARD TO THOSE THINGS."

This isn't a point, you're just shouting me down. There isn't in fact a single "point" in that exceerpt, it's just a rant.

If you're really so sure of yourself, then show me the "timeless" records that sold 300 copies.

Or even better, if "timelessness" is some objective quality, then tell me the common qualities of all "timeless" records, as in (to borrow the all caps) HOW DOES A TIMELESS RECORD SOUND?

Cos I see no similarity between Beethoven, Basic Channel, the Beatles musically, none whatsoever in terms of sounds.

Which leads me to suggest something else leads to acts being branded "timeless", something external to their music.

"the only reason "history" forgets anything is because the history is written down by numbskulls who don't know shit about music and can't differentiate good music from bad so they write about the popular"

Exactly my point. Hence, in years to come plenty of great music will be largely forgotten. You constantly gripe about how artists aren't getting their due right now, so how can you actually believe they will in years to come?

If, on the other hand, you're saying that "timeless" music is a matter of opinion/subjectivity, then fine. But then it's as ultimately worthless a description of a record as saying "I like it", and indeed as worthless a criticism.

Furthermore whether or not classical music is "effective" is just a matter of opinion. What is not a matter of opinion is that it is heavily lauded above and beyond any other music from its era.

Does this mean no other forms of music from that era were worthwhile or worthy? I severely doubt that, not least because history was even more faulty back then and skewed towards the rich.

Just because nobody is vouching for other music of that era today, does that honestly mean all of it was completely worthless by some objective standard?

"you seem to be unable to distinguish between something having a stable (and not necessarily small) and rabid fanbase from something being trendy. i'm really not sure what to tell you there."

Sorry I forgot, if you like it, it can't be trendy, since the beginning of your position on everything is "I am Tom defender of all things unfashionable".

Trendiness is all about perception. Just because you believe only what you say is bullshit and trendy does not mean that is the case. Get that into your head and you might actually enjoy music more than you do feeling indignant about it.

In response to Richard, that's an interesting point that you raise.

Firstly I should clarify that I said I find people talking about "respecting your roots" sad, because it seems so contrary to progress or innovation or the future for any of this music.

As for the artists, well, are they "respecting their roots"? You agree that some of them on the top 30 list are, but clearly others on this thread would say that's the last thing they are doing.

Certainly the level of debate about the European/German house and techno of the last year or two suggests there is something new to it, if it was imitating the past exactly nobody would denounce it as trendy here today gone tomorrow bullshit etc etc...

So clearly there's something about it that's different, whether you hate it or like it.

But since you value people "respecting their roots" I'm very glad you think the artists on my list are doing so!

Now I need to have a lie down, that took a while to write :) But I know the world is a better place having finished it.

[Ronan]

"You gotta look at it like, techno is technological. It’s an attitude to making music that sounds futuristic: something that hasn’t been done before"

Juan Atkins

[tom/pipecock]

"This isn't a point, you're just shouting me down. There isn't in fact a single "point" in that exceerpt, it's just a rant."

that is one interpretation of what i wrote.

"If you're really so sure of yourself, then show me the "timeless" records that sold 300 copies."

are you for real? i would like to think that the funk reissue scene is a perfect example of that, many of those records received minimal local distribution and didnt press even 300 copies in many cases. and yet it still moves people today. but here's a case in the house world:

http://www.discogs.com/label/Target+Records+(US)

i couldnt tell you the exact number of copies of these out there, but it is pretty small. and now those are getting booted and comped because theyve been deejays secret weapons for so long. the number of disco records that ended up getting booted in the same way is countless. here's another good example:

http://www.discogs.com/label/Missing+Dog+Records

and more:

http://www.discogs.com/artist/Glass+Domain

these are things i can think of off the top of my head. so many great house and techno records have sold around 500-1000 copies. when you consider the size of the worldwide techno scene, that isnt much of shit.

"Or even better, if "timelessness" is some objective quality, then tell me the common qualities of all "timeless" records, as in (to borrow the all caps) HOW DOES A TIMELESS RECORD SOUND?"

it sounds like a real person's very personal expression. "soul" if you will.

"Cos I see no similarity between Beethoven, Basic Channel, the Beatles musically, none whatsoever in terms of sounds."

because sounds are nearly completely irrelevent.

"Which leads me to suggest something else leads to acts being branded "timeless", something external to their music."

soul is not external to music.

"Exactly my point. Hence, in years to come plenty of great music will be largely forgotten. You constantly gripe about how artists aren't getting their due right now, so how can you actually believe they will in years to come?"

because in the years to come, the media that is hyping up the nonsense now will have moved on to something else altogether. everything that made the sounds that were popular appealing to people will be forgotten because it's not on the actual records! people who dig through old records will listen for something that speaks to them, and it won't matter if it was hyped in its day or not.

"If, on the other hand, you're saying that "timeless" music is a matter of opinion/subjectivity, then fine. But then it's as ultimately worthless a description of a record as saying "I like it", and indeed as worthless a criticism."

there is no subjectivity in music, so how could that be? it's a matter of whether there was something being expressed in the music, some content outside of simple "sounds". anyone can make sounds, not everyone can make music.

"Furthermore whether or not classical music is "effective" is just a matter of opinion. What is not a matter of opinion is that it is heavily lauded above and beyond any other music from its era."

but that is due to more critics and other nonsense. the fact is that people still dig it. and people will continue to dig it. it's the same with folk music, some of that shit has been around for hundreds of years! it doesnt make it less effective now. it expressed something, that doesn't get old.

"Does this mean no other forms of music from that era were worthwhile or worthy? I severely doubt that, not least because history was even more faulty back then and skewed towards the rich."

folk music is exactly the same kind of thing. it may not have been notated, so it was only passed down by the common folks. but it had nothing to do with the rich, and nothing to do with critics.

"Just because nobody is vouching for other music of that era today, does that honestly mean all of it was completely worthless by some objective standard?"

i think an obvious difference is that music was not a commodity then as it is now. you couldnt make a record and sell copies of it. you had to do something that moved people, and the things that were successful stayed, things that werent were lost. maybe we lost some great music, but there is no way to tell. now that we have recordings, nothing is ever truly lost.

"Sorry I forgot, if you like it, it can't be trendy, since the beginning of your position on everything is "I am Tom defender of all things unfashionable"."

i hope and pray for the music i love to be as popular as possible. not in a trendy "oh this is cool this week but not next" kind of way, but in the way that jazz and soul music are popular. music that people live and keep with them.

"Trendiness is all about perception. Just because you believe only what you say is bullshit and trendy does not mean that is the case. Get that into your head and you might actually enjoy music more than you do feeling indignant about it."

i have no problems with good music being popular. i have problems with people liking music for reasons other than the fact that it is good. it didnt bother me when broken beat was trendy, it was about time that people liked something that was actually good again. but it dissappoints me that it got thrown to the side when people were "done" with it.

"Certainly the level of debate about the European/German house and techno of the last year or two suggests there is something new to it, if it was imitating the past exactly nobody would denounce it as trendy here today gone tomorrow bullshit etc etc..."

hahahahaha. that is some great logic there. there is nothing new to it. it is trendy because people say it is. stylistically it is not very different from progressive house. it is just a whitened version of a black american dance music.

"So clearly there's something about it that's different, whether you hate it or like it."

different /= new. or good for that matter.

Re: Juan's quote, youre still confusing his personal ethos for some hard line philosophy for techno. you really should read Techno Rebels, man.

[Ronan]

You are so deluded! I mean...you present blatant subjectivity as fact and then come out with "because sounds are nearly completely irrelevent."

As for "i have problems with people liking music for reasons other than the fact that it is good."

The day you stop believing you know why others like the music they like ("because they are idiots, not tom/pipecock") is the day you might hate people a lot less.

At which point I'm out....you can't argue with somebody who doesn't believe in subjectivity.

[Sotek]

pipecock likes Frankie Bones

[Sotek]

"THE TIMELESSNESS OF A RECORD HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH "sales/success/received wisdom", THAT IS THE DOMAIN OF TRENDY MUSIC. TIMELESS MUSIC IS TIMELESS BECAUSE IT IS AN EXPRESSION THAT IS EFFECTIVE WITHOUT ANY REGARD TO THOSE THINGS."

great line. i'll write that down.

[Sotek]

Oh, and speaking of timeless records, this one does it for me all the time:

http://www.discogs.com/release/66303

Not a limited release, though..

[Brophy]

As for the artists, well, are they "respecting their roots"? You agree that some of them on the top 30 list are- sorry to keep this thread going, but yes, I do feel that a good chunk of the people / releases on that list are 'respecting' or at least are 'referencing' or are aware of the roots of house and techno, while some of them are also trying to push the music forward - I don't think both of these things are incompatible: on the contrary, most of the best music does both - which was the point I was making way back when!

Certainly the level of debate about the European/German house and techno of the last year or two suggests there is something new to it, if it was imitating the past exactly nobody would denounce it as trendy here today gone tomorrow bullshit etc etc...- I think the problem is that some people feel that it is 'trendy here today gone tomorrow bullshit' and that it does 'exactly imitate the past' , which is why they denounce it. I think some of it does fall into this category. The good stuff is also referencing the past, herbert, dbx etc, but the advent of new technology means that these infleunces can be expressed/interpreted in a way that sounds somewhat different - which is also the point I was making in the first part of this post!

Over and out

[Ronan]

Well I'm going to enjoy the fact that I largely agree with you!

[Brophy]

Hurray! Does this mean I can finally finish this thread? Please!

THE END