Another side effect (and maybe a contributing factor) to this is the dumbing down of DJng. I learnt to mix via jungle in 95/96, and it has to be said that the average jungle DJ's job was much harder in those days. The sheer range of production styles, lack of any real formal structure, and variation in breaks and rhythm made things much more difficult - especially playing out in a club with a shit monitor... learning how to mix thru a super clean Photek production to an early Emotif tune to a dirty Bristol amen to something by Alex Reece etc, is a lot more challenging than mixing a load of Diilinja, Bad Company and High Contrast tunes.SIZZLE said:One thing my friend Timeblind (who has been on the rave scene for many eras) said to me once that resonated strongly was: "DJs killed techno". I think maybe it was a quote from Moby, actually. The basic point being, most DJs can't beat match melodic tracks, wierd rhythms, strange arrangements and therefore wouldn't play tunes that featured these things. This lead the music into a cul de sac of tracks designed to be DJ friendly (same tempo, rhythm, arrangement, lack of complex melody) so that they would be sure to be caned by as many djs as possible, sell records, get the producer more DJ gigs, keep the lights on in the studio and food on the table. I think this definitely could be applied to the dumbing down of jungle into drum and bass' sped up boom bap 2 step rhythm. Which I hate like the bejeezus compared to what came before.
TESTIFY!Brokeman said:Rather, I want to argue that there is still something present in a proper Jungle night where the sense of chaos and disorientation caused by a top notch DJ still captures the ecstatic quality of the music in a powerful way. Many of the individual tracks may be formulaic but in the context of the mix, when the tracks are unknown to you as a dancer, there can be a lot of good voodoo left in Jungle.
Kid? You shouldn't! The fetishism of technical perfection is the death knell of a great many musics. Listening to people talk a blue streak about Andy C because he's technically brilliant ("Flawless mixing!") makes me feel terrible! This is long standing beef for me with a lot of discourse in dance music because it's so at odds with every other aesthetic evaluation I bring to music. I'm personally of the belief that people choose to talk about DJ's skills in terms of technical perfection because they still don't feel completely comfortable with the artistic justification of the DJ as an author of music. Without an aesthetic language to discuss what the DJ does, people fall back on the same language they would use to describe Joe Satriani. This is especially true of DJs themselves in my experience; they will shit talk another DJ's skills all night long in a club because they realize that their own credibility rests on very little that they or the audience can put into words.ripley said:seamless=death. (I kid! I kid!)
hmmDigitalDjigit said:Have you guys heard Debaser? You could swear his records came out in 1994 but it's all brand new stuff. Authentic ragga jungle.
graphs, charts, pie-charts rule!Brokeman said:If anyone's interested in helping with the graph (I think I'll try doing a proper thread on this soon) I'm going to gather 50 or so tracks from each year and average the tempos across them. I'm thinking about using the colours and design style of the London Underground Tube map as a little homage to the roots.
I think that works for other forms of rave music than the London bass-continuum too. For instance, the whole knotty area of hardtrance/nu-nrg/hard house/acid techno etc. - in the mid-90's when that scene was getting going it was fucking fast. EDM, Choci, Noom, Stay Up Forever - all that sort of stuff raced along. Most nights I went to would start at over 150 bpm and head north quickly. Then there was the big Gatecrasher candy trance thing, which turned trance from ear-eating music for lunatics into a series of cotton candy avalanches. The side effect of that was to turn hard house into oink-oink basslined circus showtime music that was quite a bit slower than the screaming hoover/acid mayhem of before. End result - much bigger scene (with shit like the Lisa Lashes' Euphoria cd's doing hundreds of thousands of copies) and much lighter music, with both bouncy hard house and 'uplifting' UK hardtrance. Then that passed and the music then headed straight back into teeth-grinding 160 bpm hoover tunes and most of the casual boy-racer type listeners disappeared.blissblogger said:so yeah, 25 bpm, as a fraction of from where it started around 125 bpm is, what a 20 percent speed hike - i'd be surprised if there was as steep an acceleration at any other point in the genre's history
i think that is the foundational speed-rush, the surge that drove most people away, back to house and the clubs, and the people that remained were the headstrong hardcore, the rave vanguard
Glad I'm getting a good first response to the graph idea, I hope this means I'll have tonnes of replies when I start calling for data!blissblogger said:graphs, charts, pie-charts rule!
so yeah, 25 bpm, as a fraction of from where it started around 125 bpm is, what a 20 percent speed hike - i'd be surprised if there was as steep an acceleration at any other point in the genre's history
A year is too long, you gotta do months. The change from summer '91 to december '91 was huge. Makes me think did bpm's grow more in the winter and stayed pretty constant in the summer. It kinda reminds me of something I heard about all the good tracks in the techno scene being released in the spring for the summer season and then the productions kinda dying off for a little bit.Brokeman said:If anyone's interested in helping with the graph (I think I'll try doing a proper thread on this soon) I'm going to gather 50 or so tracks from each year and average the tempos across them. I'm thinking about using the colours and design style of the London Underground Tube map as a little homage to the roots.