Talk:Techno

Discussion archives

Archive

• February 2002 – December 2006 – Topics: Terminology · Trance vs Techno · Jazz in Techno / IDM · Beginnings and House Influences · Links and Misc · Yorkshire Bleeps and Bass · Technopunk · Moby et al as techno "pioneers" · Detroits Role · Hardcore genres · Points of Contention - Styles · Somewhat confoozled · Redirection proposal · Genre Classification · Americans · History and artists · Loveparade · Nonsense · Krasimir loves Techno · Techno-holic concerns · POV statement · Really needed? · Influenced by progressive rock? · Bruce Haack · Journalistic hype based terminology verses genuine musicology

Origins

The entire origin section should be rewritten. Techno existed for at least 10 years prior to when the article alleges it was "invented" by the 3 guys in Detroit. It's insane to only mention Kraftwerk and Tangerine Dream (and Cabaret Voltaire, etc) retroactively. Get over it guys, it existed in Europe for years prior to it being "invented" in Detroit. It is probably the only thing the Euroweenies have actually contributed to human society in the last 50 years :-) Etmarkt 03:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Etmarkt

Agree that the lack of Cabaret Voltaire is a glaring omission, and that other artists did exist that were producing similar music - but the Detroit genre effectively gained the Techno "tag" first. Many UK/Euro acts were actually being described as Industrial at that time. A man who knows what he knows and knows what he doesn't know, is the sign of a man who knows. 21:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that techno was founded in Germany by the likes of Kraftwerk and Tangerine Dream, and modern techno is only influenced by these Detroit people. This article puts all of the credit towards these individuals, while the core essence of Techno was founded in Germany.

I agree. Though I'm a huge Detroit techno fan and would love to perpetuate the bias, I think that realistically, the "three" didn't "invent" techno, but refined and focused it. Here's a quote from Juan Atkins:

"In fact, there were a lot of electronic musicians around when Cybotron started, and I think maybe half of them referred to their music as 'techno.' However, the public really wasn't ready for it until about '85 or '86. It just so happened that Detroit was there when people really got into it." - wired interview - http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.07/techno_pr.html --AlexandertheP 19:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well ... this article is at least very "US centered" to say the least. I whould not say that KRAFTWERK or TANGERINE DREAM are techno at all, but never the less, you cannot tell the story of techno without mentioning Frankfurt (Germany) and Rotterdam (NL). BTW, the WORD "techno" was used first in Frankfurt AFAIK. UltraBlonz 16:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Karlheinz Stockhausen has yet to be mentioned, which is quite suprising, given that he was composing electronic music as early as 1953. As for the name; Techno, as has been mentioned elsewhere within these discussions, Network/10 Records' Neil Rushton was the first person to actually "tag" the genre with the name Techno. A man who knows what he knows and knows what he doesn't know, is the sign of a man who knows. 21:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, techno was not "founded in Germany". Techno, just like rock itself in which there would be no Kraftwerk or Tangerine Dream, are American creations. The "core essence" was founded in Detroit. And techno's influence is more than just Kraftwerk. Pete Townshend, Stevie Wonder, Wendy Carlos, soul music, funk, disco, etc., all have their tremendous roles. "Techno" was not even used first in Frankfurt either. It certainly was being used before Kraftwerk even recorded a single song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.125.133.75 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing a completely random spam fragment from the Origins section. 24.145.176.125 19:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Anonymous

" It certainly was being used before Kraftwerk even recorded a single song." LOL! You mean Amerikans had Techno music before 1978? ROFL. Very very funny. The rest of what you said is true but trivial. So as if whould say "Rock´n Role whould not have been possible without the tremendous influence of ...say... Beethoven". Thats uselless information. UltraBlonz 18:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The Belleville three? Okay, let's be specific, what instruments were they using. Please tell me they weren't just playing other peoples records. I know German music isn't cool, but let's get to the truth here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.37.217.123 (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll lay my cards on the table. Detroit has NOTHING to do with techno. The Belleville three are SHIT. There you go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.37.217.123 (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"The Belleville three? Okay, let's be specific, what instruments were they using. Please tell me they weren't just playing other peoples records. I know German music isn't cool, but let's get to the truth here."

The 707, 808, 909, 303 and a few other Roland synths/drum machines.. I don't know about the non-roland stuff though.

Ash256 20:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The article says that the initial blueprint for techno was developed during the mid 1980s in Detroit, but Andreas Tomalla (alias Talla 2XLC)published electronic music records and used to call that style of music techno already in 1982! I think the article should be completely rewritten. The german version is much better, and I would take that one, as it's discussing techno under a more "evolutive" approach, and it's exploring the music genres that lead to techno. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.0.202.151 (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• I can't find any support for the claim that Tomalla created a style of electronic dance music that he was calling techno in 1982.If this is true, and you have a verifiable source, please provide it. He did open club called Technoclub in 1984. But then again, Cybotron (Juan Atkins) releasedc a record called Techno City in 1984. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still trying to get the name of the publishing company, in order to check the claim. In germany looks like that claim is well accepted, as many websites are reporting it, but I would like to find an article, a record.. something!! .. published in 1982 or earlier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.0.202.151 (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Without a verifiable source such claims cannot be supported in the article. Also, it appears the German Techno page does not provide any references or citations so it amounts to WP:OR and WP:POV which is surprising considering that a number of German books on the subject have been published. The version here is still developing, there is much to be done, but editors are encouraged to provide sources for entries so issues with hearsay based assertions can be avoided. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but we should put in the article references regarding the use of the term techno before 1984 in Detroit too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.108.217 (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• There is a clear distinction between the use of the term techno to describe a distinct genre of music and the use of the word techno as a general descriptor. Atkins is reported to have used the word techno to refer to Kraftwerk, and other electronic music, prior to 1984 and this is mentioned in the text, but it is not well supported. There are a number of published sources that support the claim regarding the first mainstream use of the word techno; in referring to a genre of music. It was clearly the release of Techno:The New Dance Sound of Detroit in 1988 that put the name on the map, and that's how the history has been written, unless there is documentation to prove otherwise. Semitransgenic (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of who influenced the belleville 3, techno as we know it today was invented in detroit. I remember a quote somewhere from juan atkins(i think) saying that techno was the result of george clinton and kraftwerk stuck in an elevator and with only a sequencer between them. Basically, the word "techno" describes the music from detroit in the 1980's and any derivative forms(germans wouldn't have developed techno the way they have it on their own, all of europe's techno was imported from detroit originally, tangerine dream, kraftwerk, george clinton, even though they all influenced the belleville 3, are definitely not techno)

America-centered

I personnaly find this article a little bit america-centered. It would be interesting that some English user put their part of the history to it... --Kastor 20:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

How is it america-centered? Detroit WAS a large part of the forming of techno. Obviously, it wasn't entirely.

--User:Freeeekyyy 17:17, 21 May 2007

With Yahoo! Babel Fish, you can translate the German edition of this article. There's also a history of techno here that you can translate. It would be good to make sure the American and German versions agree on the facts. --JHP (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I nearly stopped reading the techno.de article after it said Electro is a subgenre of techno invented by Afrika Bambaataa. It has no hard facts, is uncited and doesn't even have an author credit, and what little info is in it is already here.

The German Wikipedia article has numerous problems, not the least of which is that it's completely without sources, whereas we've been holding ours to a much higher standard for a while now. That article's historical info is poorly researched and contains a lot of speculation; for example, peripheral genres and the earliest pioneers of electronic music in general get linked with certainty to techno, whereas our research for the English article I think much more neutrally characterizes this kind of "searching for antecedents" in the Proto-techno section. The only thing of interest that I spotted was more techno-centric info about "tekkno" (better described in its own article, Tekkno, although still completely without references). We should look more into that.

A friend of mine fluent in both languages is working on a translation of Ansgar Jerrentrup's "Techno: vom Relz einer reizlosen Musik" (Google for it) which I hope will provide a detailed musicological analysis of late '80s/early '90s techno. I'm trying to track down his other articles, "Techno Music: Its Special Characteristics and Didactic Perspective" (2000), and "Das Mach-Werk: Zur Produktion, Ästhetik und Wirkung von Techno-Musik" (2001), both of which sound promising. —mjb (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hardcore techno

how is hardcore tecno distinct from tecno? thisa maka noa sensa. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.176.14.100 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 14 May 2007.

The preceding comment was moved from the top of the page (heading added). +A.0u 02:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Try listening to a jeff mills record and then a rotterdam terror corps record. Tell me they arent differnet... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.37.124 (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again on the "origins"...

Hmm... I think real Techno is a fusion of African rhythms and German electronic musique concrete. The difficult thing when pinpointing the origins is that Kraftwerk (who really were techno by "Computer World" and not Krautrock as in their early albums or Moroder-esque disco in "Man Machine") - anticipated the rhythms Atkins brought - Atkins simply enriched the simplicity of records like "Numbers" and added soulful strings. Listen to the polyrhythms and the hemiolas of Computer World or the early Metroplex back catalogue. They are very African sounding, but you don't realise it because of the dogma that this is "futuristic" music. It is futuristic, but the avant garde always borrowed from the past - thing of art nouveau and Hokusai, or Picasso and cave paintings. The unique thing about techno was and is its special way of putting you into a trance - this differentiates it from all its cousins, even electro-funk. AUX 88 hypnostizes you in a way that the Sugar Hill gang doesn't.

A lot of the 140 BPM, 4/4, 909 kick drum, danceable (but not listenable) music that came out since the early 90s imitates Techno and House. Actually it imitates Chicago acid more, but calls itself Techno because it sounds more "macho" and house sounds "gay". House doesn't use the same rhythmic techniques to hypnotise - its rhythms are much simpler (and for some, more effective).

Meanwhile a lot of the music which real Techno actually inspired actually sounds less like it than cheesy shit does, because the influences are more subtle. The crucial thing is that this harder and more minimal style is not related to the cheesy stuff, and was definitely inspired by early Detroit.

IMO Atkins and Kraftwerk were the true Techno inventors. The thing is, Techno is just a word that too many have co-opted (for both honest and dishonest reasons) while coincidentally making simple, aggressive dance beats - without the subtlety that made the originals listenable and good.

PS I'm a white Glaswegian.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.210.178.55 (talk • contribs).

Japanese invented Country-Music

and Jazz war first played in Calcutta by three Guys named Apu, Sing Sing and Ranshi . O.K. let us be serious, everyone on earth knows, that Techno comes from Europe. That Bullsht that I read in this Article cannot be left as it is. I guess it is one of the 3 Detroit Guys, who edits everything over and over again. Look, I'm sorry if you got fired by General Motors, but you need to do something "real" in your free time .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.76.19 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And your point is? The article clearly states that techno had its beginnings in Europe before it became popular in Detroit. Which "bullshit" do you refer to? - Zeibura ^(Talk) 17:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, 62.143.76.19 made those Europe additions at about the same time as posting this topic. Just64helpin 17:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"Techno is characterized...

...by heavy use of percussion and a minimal amount of melody." Total rubbish. Can someone who has access to this section (2nd paragraph, can't seem to edit it) remove that garbage please?

Thanks

86.134.247.100 02:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Care to explain why it is "rubbish"? Just64helpin 02:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not true at all. Some of the best-known techno tracks (Strings of Life, for example) are characterised by their melodies! Many of the techno artists out there work using more than what could be called "a minimal amount of melody" - just listen to some Carl Craig or Derrick May tracks to hear what I mean. Maybe this statement is true of schranz, or the particular streak of hard techno that was famous around the 00s (Beyer, Liebing type stuff), but as a general statement (and especially a characterisation of an entire music genre) it's trash.

86.134.247.100 04:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 86.134.247.100 that "minimal amount of melody" is unfortunate. Especially early techno and Detroit techno is often very melodic (with 'Strings of life' a good example), even if it's true that a lot of the techno produced around the turn of the century were less melodic. It also seems that the new wave of techno emerging is again more melodic. I took the liberty to tone down the lack of melodies and added the most obvious characteristic: the electronic sound. Sebisthlm 09:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 86.134.247.100, hence my edit (Which was undone). I don't see how "often a minimal amount of melody" and "heavy use of percussion" applies to Techno. @ Just64helpin, can you tell me why you insist that this is true? I can name 10 well-known techno tracks off the top of my head that prove that that sentence is untrue.

Oh - and also there's a decent amount of Techno to be found in the 125-130bpm range.. I'm just looking for some reasons behind this undo before I re-undo it.

Ash256 03:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this information? Your contribution added the word "lively", which comes off as vague and POV. Just64helpin 10:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: The link above should be WP:NPOV Just64helpin 12:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I unfortunately don't, only a lot of tracks that go into that bpm range.

Is there a source saying that techno is 130-140bpm and that it often uses a minimal amount of melody/heavy percussion?

Btw, I'm new to wiki so excuse me of I make a few mistakes here and there.

Thing is, it's difficult to define an underground genre of music when you have to cite everything with sources such as news articles, etc. especially given that the media generally know very little about it. Hell, bastardisation by the media is what has given techno such an ambiguous name. Ash256 13:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the segment until a source is specified. The section containing the BPM already has an OR tag at the top, so I'll leave it the way it is. Just64helpin 14:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream popularity

How do I edit the info-box? It seems to have been written three or four years ago, when deep house was in and techno was hopelessly out. I would say that the Mainstream popularity is definitely on the rise, if not at its highest since the early 00s - at least here in Europe. House is getting increasingly electro-fied and techno is having a resurge. Look for example at the main-stream success of indietronica band the Knife with their arty techno. You can also see the influence on other genres from ghetto tech to main stream hip hop producers like Timbaland. Sebisthlm 09:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry But...

If Basic Channel aren't on the list of notable artists, then I don't know who should be. You haven't got a clue one this one. Just go and listen to your Moby records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.192.26 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Redefinition of past artists

Who have redifined Donna Summer and Kraftwerk as Techno, and when? Sure, Moroder's hi-NRG and Kraftwerk's electro/synth hav been instrumental influences, but techno is (a bit simplified) Atkins', Saunderson's and May's fusion of white European synth music (sound and instruments) with black American dance music (rythm). Sebisthlm 12:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I believe the "proto-techno" section should be in the part about the belleville 3 as their influences instead of its own section. 75.111.63.195 (talk)

Definition

I've corrected the definition to make it more neutral. There is certain type of music and there are ones that influenced its sound. Mixing those two is wrong. -- 82.209.225.33 (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

i think that these dance music pages should have a list of big tunes in the genre 79.70.112.9 (talk) 08:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Rename / Focus

This whole article should be renamed to detroit techno, and a new techno article that represents the whole range of techno music and culture (maybe similar to the techno articles in other-language wikipedias such as the german one) is needed. While the influence and important of detroit techno is undisputed, this article makes it seem as if there is hardly anything else.

I sense some in-fighting between european and american techno followers about where the credit goes... this is unproductive and nonsensical especially in this case. Techno is global music that evolved in many places in many forms.

Also, Acid house is mentioned only once on a side note, same with minimal, and the whole explosion of techno and related music styles in the early 90ies, related to the rise of was then called 'rave culture', is told 'out of focus'.

And in response to another comment, techno music and culture is all over europe, and has been for 15 years. I doubt there's a city in europe where the number of techno clubs is doesn't surpass the number of all of the rock and hiphop clubs together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.162.84.17 (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There already is a Detroit techno page, the Techno article is far from complete, but it also tries to clarify what exactly techno is, relative to the many divergent styles that have emerged in the last 20 years, some of which are incorrectly refered to as techno, has nothing to do with in fighting, the developments section will be eventually expanded to include major European trends since 1990. Please contribute with verifiable sources if you feel it is inaccurate. Please also sign your comments. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Move some content

People on this discussion page have probably already talked about this, but much of the content in this article seems like it would fit better on Electronic music or Electronic dance music. This article seems really bloated, it should just be about techno. Meanwhile, the electronic dance music article is really lacking. What do other people think about moving some stuff? Bognan72 (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Aside from the production techniques section (which is pretty much the same for all EDM), it is just about Techno. Bloated?? there is at least 25 years of history to cover, and the article is currently only scratching the surface. Do something about the lack of content elsewhere by sourcing and adding relevant information, don't just move content that is already well established here. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

My two cents

I think the reason some individuals (which are in a very small minority) think techno was created in Germany is because of three reasons: 1. They don't like the idea of blacks creating a form of music 2. They don't like Americans 3. They're very ignorant to its history. Techno music was created in Detroit, Michigan, United States of America. Period. End of story. I have checked many sources and websites like Google, Yahoo, even Youtube. Not one of the sources I found says techno was created in Germany or any other part of Europe. I did, however, find an astronomical amount of data and sources proving without a shadow of a doubt and hardcore evidence that techno music was created in Detroit, Michigan, USA by Juan Atkins, Derrick May, and Kevin Saunderson. Did Kraftwerk have an influence on them? Yes. They have said that themselves. But, this music was exclusive to the American city of Detroit. Why? Because these guys, who are considered pioneers by fans all over the world, combined the European synthesizers and sound with funk music, soul music, and Chicago house. Derrick May described it as "George Clinton and Kraftwerk being stuck in an elevator with a keyboard between them." Speaking of Kraftwerk, they never called their music techno. They always called their music Krautrock and electro. Go to Youtube and type "Derrick May Strings Of Life." It's a great tune and is considered by fans and musicians (Fedde Le Grande with his song "Put Your Hands Up 4 Detroit" and Goldie are examples) around the world to be a techno classic. You could also type "Juan Atkins" or "Kevin Saunderson" to hear their music. Also on Youtube, type "Daft Punk Teachers" to see them give thanks to the pioneers of house and techno music. While I'm here, check this out: [[1]]. It's a European writer who made that. Techno music is an American creation and a black American creation. So, if anybody should "get over it," it's these misinformed people (who are in an extreme minority). Know the history. Fclass (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you search the German version of Google, or just the American one? --JHP (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

A less notable Derrick May quote

I'm wondering if the "Derrick May views this as one of his busiest times" paragraph can be removed. It talks about several seemingly trivial things: he was busy around the time the Techno! compilation was being put together, this busy time followed "years" of "no one" caring about techno (debatable), and he contends that other people were now jealous of him. Seems like things that we don't really need to draw attention to. I don't want to just drop it though if there's a good reason for it to be there; maybe it can be refactored a bit or used as a reference. —mjb (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

useful for a number of reasons, identifies other key players, mention of involvement with Craig notable as a lead to the second wave (which could be expressed in more detail later on), mention of May's radio show, which is not touched on elsewhere in the text. Statement: For years no one cared about what Juan and I were doing in Detroit, and then I found myself dealing with people that were jealous, out of the clear blue sky could loose the I found myself dealing with people that were jealous, out of the clear blue sky. He doesn't say no one cared about techno, he's talking about the lack of interest in Detroit. Semitransgenic (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Composition

The information on composition is very ponderous and complex. The article could be better organized to explain to a novice how to compose a basic techno mix. I tried adding some text with basics on how to compose a techno mix. I intended to return and build on the basics but was deleted the next day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.63.195.2 (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There were two problems: 1. nothing you added was attributed to a reliable source nor did it seem like you were paraphrasing a reliable source and just hadn't gotten around to citing references; rather it seemed more like original research, which is forbidden; 2. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. A good place to start authoring a how-to guide is wikiHow or Wikibooks, and once there's something there, we can link to it from here. In the meantime, the information that's already here is intended to expose the reader/researcher to the instrumentation and general method of composition common to techno, saying "this is more or less how it tends to be done" rather than addressing the reader directly with instructions on how to do it. —mjb (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

More research needed on related genres

The article currently skims over the relationship between techno and trance, UK hardcore, and commercial/"ravey" techno. I'd like to see mention of 1988–1992 developments like the infusion of "rave" clichés like piano & breakbeats into techno; the subsequent emergence of jungle and happy hardcore; the cross-pollination of industrial, acid house, and techno in the post-New Beat UK/European techno-rave aesthetic of the late '80s/early '90s; the evolution of trance into its own genre; chart positions for the big techno hits (2 Unlimited, LA Style, etc.); and so on. I'd be happy to help find sources for this kind of information, but I've got a lot on my plate, so I'd like to put it out there as a request for others to help out. —mjb (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Nominate example tracks

We have the option of adding audio clips to the article. This could be a huge can of worms, but I'd like us to begin nominating some tracks which would make good examples to help someone with no knowledge of techno understand what techno is (or was), and to do it in such a way that they'll get a sense of how it's different from other forms of EDM. I'm afraid that we'll have clips that aren't sufficiently unambiguous on their own because they could be confused with other genres (trance especially), but maybe it won't be an issue. So start naming some tracks that you think would be good to include as educational examples of what techno is, not a top 10, but just things you could play for someone and say "now that is techno." —mjb (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm.. The track that keeps coming back to my head for "now this is techno" is Juan Atkins's "The Mission". Someone with a larger and older record collection might want to be deciding this though, I'm sure there are many other tracks by Atkins which are more suitable which I haven't heard. On a different angle, underworld - born slippy:NUXX might be a good example of a track which had a lot of chart success. - filelakeshoe 00:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Strings of life by Derrick May, The Bells by jeff mills, and maybe something by cybotron...cosmic cars or clear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.37.124 (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Description of the genre?

I came here looking for a quick description of the genre such as "techno is characterized by...", but instead I just find a bunch of history. This article needs a short description of what techno music is in the first paragraph! I would do so myself, but obviously, I don't know. Thanks! --Jeiki Rebirth (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

ummm, "Techno is a form of electronic dance music (EDM) that emerged in Detroit, Michigan, USA during the mid to late 1980s", that's a quick description: there's a "bunch of history", because, there is a bunch of history, read the article, it answers your question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.228.238 (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Jeiki was referring to a description of what the music sounds like. When and where it was conceived does not answer that question. - filelakeshoe 00:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to write that kind of thing and adhere to Wikipedia policies of citing reputable sources. Very few people have written anything coherent or meaningful about what techno actually sounds like. A typical music journalist only tries to relate it to other forms of music, and doesn't have the vocabulary to explain it in terms which a student of music theory would understand, or which wouldn't also be applicable to house, trance, etc. That's why it's not in the article. It's possible some of the musicological analysis by Ansgar Jerrentrup could be cited (like "Techno Music: Its Special Characteristics and Didactic Perspectives"), but it's only in expensive academic journals, and might be biased toward the kinds of techno popular in the author's home country, Germany, at the time it was written. That's why I'm advocating (in the thread above this one) the nomination of clips to serve as examples. —mjb (talk) 04:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the way it SOUNDS. Isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia to inform? It seems like we are getting bogged down with rules if we exclude very basic information. The type of information I was looking for is what tempo is it, is it melodic, is it repetitive? Etcetera. --Jeiki Rebirth (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

are you actually suggesting that the article is not informative? have you read it at all? and, the information is not excluded, the three queries you have here are discussed in the section entitled Music Production Practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.238.248 (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, the information is in there, yes. And I didn't read all the way down to there. My suggestion is to move a summary of this information up to the intro paragraph. My guess is that most people who come to this article want a very basic description of what the genre sounds like, rather than an in-depth history.--Jeiki Rebirth (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Post-disco

the point being "post-disco dance music in which most or all of the sounds are electronically generated" = EDM. That's pretty clear from my reading of it. Adding the description in the lead implies that there is a direct sucession, but it is not that simple. 78.105.238.248 (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think, you're wrong, source says: "post-disco dance music in which most or all of the sounds are electronically generated", but source doesn't say: "post-disco dance music in which most or all of the sounds are electronically generated = EDM". That's the difference, and please avoid from WP:OR. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between OR and making necessary assumptions. Is there any electronic dance music which isn't "post-disco"? We already have a source calling techno EDM, and saying that the name EDM came in to use to describe what was formerly known as house music, and there are plenty of sources out there which will tell you that house music came after disco. You won't find a source calling techno "post-disco EDM" because that's completely redundant, which is why we shouldn't use it here either. - filelakeshoe 01:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Yes, Disco.. Hi-NRG and Eurodisco.. these three (and probably more) genres that have been originated not in post-disco era (1979-present) but in ... disco era. So you're right. However, there is also a genre with the same name that could influenced techno music. But, you know, that is contentious. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that with regards to the word "disco", I think we have a bit of a language barrier issue. In Czech, people use the words "disco" and "diskotéka" commonly to refer to pop-influenced dance music and clubs that play it, whereas in English, "disco" as a type of music refers to the 70s movement and that is it, and the word "discotheque" in English has long since fallen out of common use to refer to a nightclub. I'm not sure if an equivalent to "post-disco" is in common use in Czech language, and it may well be, but in English definitely not. - filelakeshoe 14:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. European (eastern [more often]) people often use the word "disco" in relation with "discotheque" and discotheque music, so when some czech say "disco!" he probably means a variety of EDM styles like techno, house, trance. In Europe the word "disco" is just umbrella term for EDM. The term "post-disco" is in Europe (except UK, of course) absolutely unknown. Post-disco is an umbrella term for characteristic post- disco (I mean .. after disco, you know) music, that have "stripped-down" sound due to 1979 backlash and new musical techniques. It is a New Wave of disco (70s music) (so literally sweet!), that gave birth to techno, contemporary R&B (r'n'b), dance, hi nrg-eurobeat, house, boogie, etc.. and helped with creation of all modern musical styles. But there is a question, that post-disco had direct influence to techno as post-disco "boogie" or post-disco movement. If second is correct, so "is a form of electronic dance music" lasts, if first.. so "post-disco" is in the right place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk • contribs)

Let's try and get this straight: there is no genre of music called "post-disco"!!

The source responsible for perpetuating this myth is Allmusic (and it provides no attribution for the claims made).

The article on Boogie you appear to suggest supports this myth does not state anywhere that post-disco = Boogie (note also that the source is WP:SPS so whatever it says it has no place on wikipedia).

There does not appear to be a single reputable musicological source available to support this myth.

Can you provide a single reputable citation to support the claim that post-disco is a genre of music?

Consistent throughout the research literature on popular music/dance music is the occurrence of "post-disco" (or simply postdisco) in reference to the era succeeding disco (during its period of decline in the early 1980s).

Yes, a number of notable genres surfaced in this period but "post-disco" is not one of them.

Techno is not simply a post-disco genre, it is a fusion of genres that arose during the post-disco era, this is the point you are missing here. More correctly, the line of inheritance would run: disco->postdisco->techno (postdisco being a collection of genres).

Finally, stating that Techno is "post-disco electronic dance music" is incorrect; however, there is in fact one source (Starr, Larry. American Popular Music : The Rock Years) that uses this exact construction, but that same source calls Moby's 1999 album Play the work of a "techno musician". The source adheres to the use of the term techno as a grab bag for all electronic dance music (viewing the term as interchangeable with "electronica"), therefore displaying ignorance of the advances other musicologists specialising in dance music have made in delineating various dance music subgenres. 87.198.250.34 (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

OMFG, this absurd debate kills me so much.

Post-punk, post-rock is a genre.. so the post-disco. But we can also understand "post-disco" as a term referral to after-disco [era, movement].

Too bad, that post-disco references are hard-to-find. That's the main problem. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For you to continue to suggest that post-disco is a genre, despite being unable to provide one single citation, other than an anonymous Allmusic description, simply evidences a shameful and willful disregard for scholarship. Take a look at the sources, look at the level of research out there, on all aspects of dance music, why is no one proposing that a genre called post-disco exists? because it doesn't. If you can prove otherwise I will happily retract all of the above. 87.198.250.34 (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it does. But just missing additional references, that's all.

Your comment about post-disco existence or post-disco non-existence is WP:POV. This is Wikipedia and we doesn't care about your/our point-of-view comment. Sources something says.. and that's all. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Footers

Please check WP:LAY & WP:FOOTERS the additional footers are not warranted. 78.105.238.248 (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

EDM

I suggest removing "(EDM)" from the titular sentence. It is quite clear what EDM is, and "Electronic dance music" article is the only right place to list alternative names for this, say, metagenre -- Appletangerine un (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

techno or edm?

I don't really have any evidence of this, but it seems to me that the article is a little to general still. When it says "commercial varieties of techno" the music it's referring to isn't techno. It's more likely some other electronic dance form.Freeeekyyy (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)