techno isnt about the past, its about the future

[Torque]

Nobody is denying that futurism hasnt played a role in the evolution of techno. Id simply argue that it's a lot more than that, its not the defining factor and its relevance as a concept in modern times is debateable. It must be remembered that the influx of mass synthesizer technology which was affordable to the masses at that time, could have had no other outcome but to provide the pedastool for groundbreaking and electronically forward thinking music. The whole electronic 'revolution' was inevitable. Technology made it happen.


The very nature of the machines gave rise to music based around concepts such as robots, sci-fi, futurism et al. These things were inevitable in this mass birth of synths and drum machines because their very nature gave a distinct nod to the future, a technological age and a milestone in music composition. Anybody of sound mind would have been making music 'of the future' when using this technology. But now, the concept of futurism doesnt have the same impact.

All of us have probably grown up in a world where synths and electronic music are commonplace, its no longer the 'technology of the future' its as bog standard as any other instrument. So the 'sci-fi', 'man machine', 'futurism' type of application doesnt really apply as it did back then. That time came and went and if anything, we ARE that time that they may have been inspired by.


Hold on a second there...
The reason the technology was used allot in detroit was completely a different motivation than what you're talking about. Allot of these guys were playing in funk and rock and roll bands and allot of that kind of stuff coming out of detroit was based on futurism as well, just listen to P-Funk. When the drum machine came around not everybody said "wow now i can sound like kraftwerk!" they were saying "sweet, now i can fire my drummer and take his cut of the money at gigs!". When sequencers came around some of them were like "hell yeah!!, now i can fire my keyboard and bass player too!!". It was never the equipment that made the music it was the guy working it. The subject matter of allot of funk music from that era around here and techno were essentially the same just the instruments were different. Technology did not make the mindset happen all it did was make a noise.

So for me, the concept of futurism and its value in this argument about techno, is only really relevant at the time of the electronic music pioneers. Not now, not in our day and age. In a nutshell, the technology that became affordable to mass musicians, was 'out of this world'. It was an evolutionary step in the musical world and an extremely exciting and potentially groundbreaking time for musicians. But, it was always going to inspire the future, the 'electronic revolution' dictated that. The instruments and the future went hand in hand.


I disagree personally
It may not be relevant to the way you make music but it definitely is to mine. Technology doesn't make the future, it's merely a tool for the people that think up the next thing. Music is human, not machine.

But like i was saying, to us, its not new technology and thus, doesnt inspire that same concept of futurism. To define techno as nothing more than futurism is kinda like trying to take the eggs back out of a cake. Its inseperable from all other ingredients and the only reason futurism existed as a form of inspiration was due to the synth 'revolution' and the birth of electronic music. We are well beyond that now and whilst techno is still going strong the themes it is based on must change. It was easier to come up with groundbreaking sounds and musical ideas back then because the technology was in its infancy and had yet to be explored. Potentially, it would have been relatively easy to have become a 'modern genius' if one were so inclined as it was all new undiscovered territory.

Again you're giving far too much credit to the tools and not the person using them. The best artists i know are in constant battle with machines to do what the artist want, not the other way around. The second you give up control of art to a machine it becomes like a machine and is emotionless and flat like a machine. Maybe that's what we're all hearing in modern electronic music and maybe that's why everybody is getting bored. How is a human supposed to relate emotionally to a device with no emotion?

But yeah, futurism, it somehow doesnt carry the same weight in 2010, theres no historically groundbreaking music technology thats come about to support and warrant the use of the term like it did then.

Ive actually argued the term futurism but its still only a small slice of the cake. We have yet to mention funk, soul, electronic pop and jazz, delia derbyshire, kraftwerk, theres so much more to electronic music that isnt getting a mention.

I never made the claim that "Futurism IS techno" in fact i said something very different. I make the claim that techno at it's very core is built upon futurism. Other music can be based upon futurism as well, there's no rule against it. Techno without futurism is just music done with machines to me. There's nothing wrong with that people can do what they want, but to me it ain't techno.

[eggnchips]

Proof:
http://soundcloud.com/franklinxabs/sets ... lete-album

[Torque]

all sound which we percieve is in the past. all music is about the past, it was created there.

This is true, everything recorded is a snapshot of something that already happened.

i think, like many works of science fiction, that when we speak about futurism, that we are really just evaluating the present.

sci-fi written during the cold war almost always falls into using that era's tired rhetoric and propaganda, good vs. evil crap. this is also true of modern sci-fi, battlestar galactica was a wonderful meditation on religion (monotheism/polytehism) and war (america/afghan/iraq). i, Robot, a great example the fear in american culture that by being consumers that we are selling out, that we are killing the precious idea of individuality.

no scientific or mathematic evidence supports superluminal information. religion might suppose such a thing is possible, but journalism has no need for futuristic speculations. i acknowledge that we are digging into our present and past, looking for some path or clue that points the way beyond what we already know.

detroit techno's early imagery, as well as our modern perspective on that part of music history, all heavily reminds me of william gibsons short story "the gernsback continuum". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gernsback_Continuum. 1950's america was also fascinated with the possibilities of streamlined, dynamic, and gaudy futuristic landscapes. in hindsight it seems clear that the suburban gothic was an evaluation of america's value system at that time.

I agree
Techno examines the present through what the artist imagines to be his perceived effects of what is going on in the present upon the future. It's very political music in this respect.

[Casanova808]

This thread is why white people shouldn't be allowed to talk about techno.

[Phase Ghost]

This thread is why white people shouldn't be allowed to talk about techno.

Not sure what to say, but this has me laughing. Could be the 5 IPA's I drank tonight.

[steevio]

Again you're giving far too much credit to the tools and not the person using them. The best artists i know are in constant battle with machines to do what the artist want, not the other way around. The second you give up control of art to a machine it becomes like a machine and is emotionless and flat like a machine. Maybe that's what we're all hearing in modern electronic music and maybe that's why everybody is getting bored. How is a human supposed to relate emotionally to a device with no emotion?

but youre not taking into account that all musical instruments are machines, a violin, saxophone, piano is a machine, no-one is talking about giving up any control here.

and why is it a battle ?, its a relationship like with any instrument.

synthesizers are no different.

[steevio]

Hold on a second there...
The reason the technology was used allot in detroit was completely a different motivation than what you're talking about. Allot of these guys were playing in funk and rock and roll bands and allot of that kind of stuff coming out of detroit was based on futurism as well, just listen to P-Funk. When the drum machine came around not everybody said "wow now i can sound like kraftwerk!" they were saying "sweet, now i can fire my drummer and take his cut of the money at gigs!". When sequencers came around some of them were like "hell yeah!!, now i can fire my keyboard and bass player too!!". It was never the equipment that made the music it was the guy working it. The subject matter of allot of funk music from that era around here and techno were essentially the same just the instruments were different. Technology did not make the mindset happen all it did was make a noise.

is this the official line from the Detroit pioneers ?

i thought it was common knowledge that Kraftwerk were an influence on those guys.
and electrofunk was a very deliberate use of machines to make music.

sacking your drummer ? it sounds so implausible, are musicians so shallow ?

in the UK the early drum machines and machines like the TB303 were seen as completely inept at replacing musicians, they languished in second-hand gear shops at give away prices only a few years after they were released.

and the people who were using the new digital machines were dedicated to making electronic pop music, it was huge in the UK in the early 1980s.

if you bought a synth or drum machine at that time, you wanted to be the next Duran Duran, Orchestral Manuevers in The Dark, or whoever.

[lem]

you know i dont think there are less dancers, well at least in the UK.

tbh i'm starting to get sick of not being able to dance at clubs because the dancefloors are too full.

+1 it puts me off going to a lot of the big nights with stellar line-ups. Would much rather save money and go to one of the big outdoor festivals.
I need space to dance!