"popularity is no justification for a practice
the justification for "hardcore" djing, i always thought, was the development of new sounds and experiences. only by radicalizing rhythm, only by pursuing bpms, only by relentlessly running against the constraints of form, could dance music move forward."
Well, if we're discussing club DJing, it doesn't actually exist unless it's popular. So fine, in theory, you don't like DJs sticking to a single aesthetic. But in practise this is generally the only way any of the subcultural power of dance music is unleashed.
I'm saying that the value of DJs playing one aesthetic and one style of music (within which, as I have already argued, there is quite a wide range of sounds, perhaps inaudible to those on the outside such as yourself) is the scene itself.
I think that you're wrong on two counts. 1. that there is no interest in new sounds or moving dance music forward in the minimal house scene. and 2. that this has always been the justification for "hardcore" djing. (this is just ludicrous, the justification for "hardcore" djing is that the DJs and the people they play for only want to hear that music when they are out, that they define themselves as fans of that sound, that this is their gang, I don't really think that's worthless)
I also think a major part of the problem with this discussion is you assume that 1 and 2 are agreed before opening your mouth. what do you personally define as "minimal house" or a typical house/techno DJ nowadays?
I also think your idealised idea of what you'd like to see DJs playing is something you haven't even thought about until such time as this, a thread about house music, came up.
I'd like to see how you would have reacted to some "funky house" a week or two ago, before woebot's post.
the justification for "hardcore" djing, i always thought, was the development of new sounds and experiences. only by radicalizing rhythm, only by pursuing bpms, only by relentlessly running against the constraints of form, could dance music move forward."
Well, if we're discussing club DJing, it doesn't actually exist unless it's popular. So fine, in theory, you don't like DJs sticking to a single aesthetic. But in practise this is generally the only way any of the subcultural power of dance music is unleashed.
I'm saying that the value of DJs playing one aesthetic and one style of music (within which, as I have already argued, there is quite a wide range of sounds, perhaps inaudible to those on the outside such as yourself) is the scene itself.
I think that you're wrong on two counts. 1. that there is no interest in new sounds or moving dance music forward in the minimal house scene. and 2. that this has always been the justification for "hardcore" djing. (this is just ludicrous, the justification for "hardcore" djing is that the DJs and the people they play for only want to hear that music when they are out, that they define themselves as fans of that sound, that this is their gang, I don't really think that's worthless)
I also think a major part of the problem with this discussion is you assume that 1 and 2 are agreed before opening your mouth. what do you personally define as "minimal house" or a typical house/techno DJ nowadays?
I also think your idealised idea of what you'd like to see DJs playing is something you haven't even thought about until such time as this, a thread about house music, came up.
I'd like to see how you would have reacted to some "funky house" a week or two ago, before woebot's post.
Last edited: