Problem I see with the naming of 'conceptronica' and maybe why some fans of the artists umbrella'd wthin have got their backs up ( I havent read through twitter s I dont know) is its putting the concept at the forefront as if that's the key unifying thing. This stuff doesn't bare much similarity to conceptual art, you can't really make any music without a significant amount of labor and time put in. Regardless of whether you like it or not putting together these projects with live performance, interfacing with audio-visual tech putting together large scale recording projects AKA Holly Herndon and learning to work with complicated tech to put something together, its obviously huge amount of work. Being dismissive purely because its made by art students some of whom are blurbing pretentious shit with their releases seems woefully ignorant. Not saying this is the vibe I got in the article but definitely in some peoples response. I like some of the artists mentioned dislike others, i haven't read any of the stuff written by the artists about their releases and I rarely do generally.. I think allot of the time it's irrelevant and an adjunct, if philosophy or whatever was their main focus and passion they'd be doing that not making music. I suspect as mentioned in the article the need to present some conceptualized complete package is part of the audio-visual arms race and far from the driving force behind the actual creative output.