File: 36 KB, 500x493, cover.jpg [
Show reposts] Image reverse search: [
iqdb] [
google]
No.55419413 [
Reply] [
Original]
Hey /mu/, I wanna get deeper into electronic music, will you help me out?
Artists I already like:
Aphex Twin
Autechre
Boards of Canada
Brian Eno
Flying Lotus
Justice
Moby
Oneohtrix Point Never
The Prodigy
| >> | No.55421283
>>55421122
>>55421240
>Electronica
In North America, in the late 1990s, the mainstream music industry adopted and to some extent manufactured electronica as an umbrella term encompassing styles such as techno, big beat, drum and bass, trip hop, downtempo, and ambient, regardless of whether it was curated by indie labels catering to the "underground" nightclub and rave scenes,[2][3] or licensed by major labels and marketed to mainstream audiences as a commercially viable alternative to alternative rock music.[4]
By the late 2000s, however, the industry abandoned electronica in favor of EDM.
|
| >> | No.55421502
File: 867 KB, 1029x1164, electronic music.png [Show reposts] Image reverse search: [iqdb] [google]
 Pic related is a good way into the deepest parts of the music.
>Reaching back to grab the grooves of '70s disco/funk and the gadgets of electronic composition, Electronica soon became a whole new entity in and of itself, spinning off new sounds and subgenres with no end in sight two decades down the pike. Its beginnings came in the post-disco environment of Chicago/New York and Detroit, the cities who spawned house and techno (respectively) during the 1980s. Later in that decade, club-goers in Britain latched onto the fusion of mechanical and sensual, and returned the favor to hungry Americans with new styles like jungle/drum'n'bass and trip-hop. Though most all early electronica was danceable, by the beginning of the '90s, producers were also making music for the headphones and chill-out areas as well, resulting in dozens of stylistic fusions like ambient-house, experimental techno, tech-house, electro-techno, etc. Typical for the many styles gathered under the umbrella was a focus on danceable grooves, very loose song structure (if any), and, in many producers, a relentless desire to find a new sound no matter how tepid the results. -AllMusic
Electronica/Electronic has literally the most self-important fans of any genre on /mu/. I can only assume it's an overcompensation for an insecurity. Like, they know that their fav microgenres are critically irrelevant, and by pushing for "equal representation" they can push the cognitive dissonance out and will themselves back into believing they're merely oppressed snowflakes. Meanwhile the entirety of Art Music is condensed into "classical" with no complaints.
|
| >> | No.55421533
>>55421414
> techno, big beat, drum and bass, trip hop, downtempo, and ambient
>is associated with non-dance-oriented music, including relatively experimental styles of downtempo electronic music. It partly overlaps what is known chiefly outside the UK as IDM.
> hip-hop, R&B rhythms
>Björk, Madonna, Goldfrapp
>Eurythmics, Erasure, New Order and Depeche Mod
>Autechre, and Aphex Twin to dub-oriented downtempo, downbeat, and trip-hop.
> The Prodigy, Fatboy Slim, Daft Punk, The Chemical Brothers, The Crystal Method
> Afrika Bambaataa and Grandmaster Flash
> The Black Eyed Peas and Tinie Tempah
>>55421502
>Electronica/Electronic has literally the most self-important fans of any genre on /mu/.
Yeah, fucking ambient fans.
|
| >> | No.55422035
>>55421502
>>55421716
Lesson 2:
IDM
>>A loaded term meant to distinguish electronic music of the '90s and later that's equally comfortable on the dancefloor as in the living room, IDM (Intelligent Dance Music) eventually acquired a good deal of negative publicity, not least among the legion of dance producers and fans whose exclusion from the community prompted the question of whether they produced stupid dance music. Born in the late '80s, the sound grew out of a fusion between the hard-edged dance music heard on the main floor at raves and larger club events, and the more downtempo music of the nearby chill-out rooms.
>Sheffield's Warp Records proved home to the best in the sound -- in fact, the seminal Warp compilation Artificial Intelligence alone introduced listeners worldwide to a half-dozen of the style's most crucial artists: Aphex Twin, the Orb, Plastikman, Autechre, Black Dog Productions, and B12. Other labels -- Rising High, GPR, R&S, Rephlex, Fat Cat, Astralwerks -- released quality IDM as well, though by the mid-'90s much of the electronica produced for headphone consumption had diverged either toward the path of more experimentation or more beat orientation
>Despite frequent attempts to rename the style (Warp's "electronic listening music" and Aphex Twin's "braindance" were two choices), IDM continued to be the de facto way for fans to describe their occasionally undescribable favorites.
>>55421775
>By the late 2000s, however, the industry abandoned electronica in favor of EDM.
Good, so it can again be used to include IDM too, as per >>55421502
>>55421802
>elitism
>bad
pleb revealed
>>55421910
OR the art music community just doesn't feel the same insecurity which prompts outrage at any sign of an encompassing term being used. Possibly because the "subgenres" there are actually important enough in their own right to need no self-inflated defence?
>Electronica/Electronic has literally the most self-important fans of any genre on /mu/
|
| >> | No.55422246
>>55421699
>>55422035
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_dance_music#History
>History
>Ambient techno
A parallel progression occurred in techno music, with artists such as the UK's Aphex Twin and Japan's Tetsu Inoue producing what the press called "ambient techno", combining the melodic & rhythmic elements of dancefloor-oriented techno with elements of ambient and other experimental music.[14] By the early 1990s, the increasingly distinct music associated with this experimentation had gained prominence with releases on a variety of mostly UK-based record labels, including Warp (1989), Black Dog Productions (1989), R&S Records (1989), Carl Craig's Planet E, Rising High Records (1991), Richard James's Rephlex Records (1991), Kirk Degiorgio's Applied Rhythmic Technology (1991), Eevo Lute Muzique (1991), General Production Recordings (1989), Soma Quality Recordings (1991), Peacefrog Records (1991), and Metamorphic Recordings (1992).
|
| >> | No.55422295
>>55422206
So according to you now metal, punk, emo, post-punk, Kreatrock and post-rock should be banned from /mu/, only rock generals allowed.
No wait, funk, soul, R&B and the blues, they use guitars too, and reggae.
String music generals for ALL the above.
|
| >> | No.55422599
>>55421612
wasn't expecting such a comprehensive list - I'll even admit that I love the sounds of analog and modular synths. but the problem still stands of having a collection of interesting, great-sounding tools that I feel don't actually constitute a genre or style of music unto itself until it piggybacks itself onto another genre.
it feels like there's nothing that justifies "electronic music" as such by itself. they're all just a toolbox of interesting choices a savvy producer or artist can choose to deploy to make their music stronger - not the be-all and end-all for any genre. I know we have the term "guitar music" on /mu/, but realistically, even "pure acoustic guitar music" like John Fahey has been adapted from other genres: blues, folk, classical insofar as he puts it all together
what can we say about "pure electronic" music? there's electronic as dance music, ambient music, even as classical music from wendy carlos' moog-Bach excursions. but who cares about electronic music as such? people who are searching for new tools and formats for that we created these new sounds, tools and techniques to make their music - whatever that happens to be
do I care if paint manufacturers develop incredible advances that make it easier than ever before to produce newer, brighter colours far more cheaply than ever before? no - I care if someone can make use of them in a way that communicates with me effectively. that's art. I don't care about technology in art, except insofar as it's used to make art better, more powerful, more effective. technology by itself isn't art.
|
| >> | No.55423339
>>55423039
Except "string music" isn't a commonly used term to describe 'all rock, metal, punk, reggae, soul, funk, blues, folk and r&b'. If someone asked what string music you have and you showed him some Bob Marley he'd think you are a twat.
On the other hand, if someone asked for electronic music and you showed him any of the more proper genre terms, they would be fine. If they are the type of listener who gets upset with the electronic tag as a genre, then they won't ask for electronic music to listen to.
Genres are used to describe a certain musical sound. There are varying levels of description, the more broad hardly really a descriptor (Rock, Electronic) and the more specific actually has meaning descriptor (IDM, Crust Punk). I want to use both levels for my library because I think there is merit to it. If you don't, that's fine too. But until using the genre 'Electronic' is refused as a genre (which it won't be by the vast majority of listeners) it still has value as a tag.
|
| >> | No.55423374
>>55423076
what straws?
you are clutching at straws because you fail to disprove the necessity of and existence of the terms electronic music or electronica as genres, even though you can read them right on the damn wikipedia page.
You really think that those genre terms are superfluous? look at this page right at the bottom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronica
that right there is all the proof you need. And no you retard, it's not because Wikipedia is an infallible source of knowledge, it's because it shows that people feel the need to organize music genres into broad categories, that someone took all you fucking micro-genres and put them under a large heading, because some times you need to categorize things in broad ways. that's just how fucking things are and that's why the term electronica and 'electronic music' exist.
If you have a problem with those terms, then you need to provide an equivalent term, you cannot just insist that people use a specific microgenre, because the broad term is still needed.
It this were a general discussion about humanities and someone said the like 'music' you would look like an idiot if you came in saying ''music' isn't a thing and they have to be specific, because the fact remains that the broader term serves a purpose. In this case we know that the person saying music isn't referring to literature.
In the case of 'electronic music' there are certain kinds of music that are most definitely not being referred to, like straight bluegrass.
Yes, this is simplistic, yes this is unnecessary, but this is the only level of explanation I can think to give to a retard who says mammal is not a genre.
You must prove the negative, that electronic music is not a genre. Pointing to the existence of subgenres does not prove that, it only proves that those subgenres exist.
YOU ARE A MORON. GET OVER YOURSELF.
|
| >> | No.55423412
>>55423339
>Except "string music" isn't a commonly used term t
Who cares?
>On the other hand, if someone asked for electronic music and you showed him any of the more proper genre terms, they would be fine.
Yeah sure, for reddit, 3 albums for each genre that would be fine, then they'd circlejerk over only them forever more, oh wait...
>Genres are used to describe a certain musical sound
They are for categorisation on any premise or reason you want
>But until using the genre 'Electronic' is refused as a genre (which it won't be by the vast majority of listeners) it still has value as a tag.
Sure, EVERYTHING produced electronically, ever. If thats how you want to organise your library, go ahead, it makes for shit music discussion threads though.
|
| >> | No.55423664
File: 22 KB, 1920x1080, sadcumbb.jpg [Show reposts] Image reverse search: [iqdb] [google]
 >>55423412
>it makes for shit music discussion threads though.
no it doesn't. youre petty retarded complaining about it does.
this thread could have been about anything in the genre, it could have organically narrowed down to specifics through civilized discussion, even being flexible enough to incorporate whatever genres posters happen to like as their own favorites in a way that could not happen in a more specific thread.
If you were talking to someone outside 4chan and they said they have an interest in electronic music, you wouldn't start barking at them that that's not a genre and pulling out charts you were autistic enough to make to explain it to him. If you did the conversation would go no where and you would look retarded.
Instead, you would just have a little bit of courtesy and patience and talk to them, ask them what they have heard, and talk about what you have heard and what you are into.If you did that it would probably be not even half the effort of trying to argue with them about inconsequential syntax, and you might actually make friend and have a pleasant discussion.
But I can see that these people would much rather do the former anyway, because they don't actually care about music. If they did they would just be glad to have someone showing an interest in music they enjoy and talk about it. Instead these are just vindictive petty people who would rather do whatever they can to belittle people, even if it means the have to pretend mammals are not a genre, just so they can hatefully masturbate themselves.
Are you happy yet? You feel less empty yet? You feel fulfilled? Are you almost there?
Good.
Have
a
sad
cum
bb
|
| >> | No.55423676
>>55423412
>Who cares?
People discussing music. I'm not going to ask for 'drum music'. I might ask for music with good drums on it, but that's a different statement
>Yeah sure, for reddit, 3 albums for each genre that would be fine, then they'd circlejerk over only them forever more, oh wait...
I think you skips the second half of my point on that one.
>They are for categorisation on any premise or reason you want
Yes, they are. However metadata lets us make arbitrary descriptors of music, so we can organize by year, composer, where it was recorded, number of farts audible in the track. Genre is at least some form of describing the sound, but sometimes it isn't very precise.
>Sure, EVERYTHING produced electronically, ever. If thats how you want to organise your library, go ahead, it makes for shit music discussion threads though.
Discussion threads that ask for electronic music merit the wide range of selection. IDM threads are narrowed down.
They are just different filters man, Electronic is just very broad. If you want to talk about House music, don't start an electronic music thread or discussion.
|
| >> | No.55424131
>>55424095
>Nah, he just wanted to delve deeper into electronica.
No, he specifically said electronic music.
>>55424095
>Considering that in the OP he listed specifically electronica artists instead of any other genres using electronic instruments.. we would assume top40, indie, classical, jazz, etc were not intended.
No, considering he said he wanted to get ''deeper''.. we would assume top40, indie, classical, jazz, etc were defintely intended.
|
| >> | No.55424502
>OP: Hi, help me get deeper into rock and roll, I like Presley, Berry, Cochrane, Wray, etc
>Electronicaplebs: Oh you must mean all of rock music since you want to go deeper! Try Tama Impala
>OP: Hi, I'd like to get deeper into the classical stuff. So far I've enjoyed Vanhal, Dittersdorf, Gluck, Cherubini, etc
>Electronicplebs: You must mean all of art music! try Stockhausen
>>55424131
As shown by the confusion ITT and the plethora of other examples, electronic is synonymous with electronica in some usages.
>get ''deeper''
>top40
le trickster face.
>>55424096
>electronicaplebs don't know the Art/Popular/Folk trichotomy
At minimum, Music > Popular > Techno, for this game you're playing.
|
| >> | No.55424576
>>55424502
>OP: Hi, help me get deeper into rock and roll, I like Presley, Berry, Cochrane, Wray, etc
Actually, he said ''electronic music'' and then listed some artists he'd heard
>Oh you must mean all of rock music since you want to go deeper! Try Tama Impala
The equivilent would be acoustic music
>As shown by the confusion ITT and the plethora of other examples, electronic is synonymous with electronica in some usages.
Not what OP said though.
>At minimum
> Music > Popular > Techno,
Yes, thats right, I agree.
|
| >> | No.55424644
>>55424576
>OP: Hi, help me get deeper into rock and roll, I like Presley, Berry, Cochrane, Wray, etc
>Electronicaplebs: Oh you must mean all of rock music since you want to go deeper! Try Tama Impala
>OP: Hi, I'd like to get deeper into the classical stuff. So far I've enjoyed Vanhal, Dittersdorf, Gluck, Cherubini, etc
>Electronicplebs: You must mean all of art music! try Stockhause
|
| >> | No.55424662
>>55424427
it's on wikipedia
Electronica is a music genre encompassing a wide range of contemporary electronic music designed for a wide range of uses, including foreground listening, some forms of dancing, and background music for other activities. Unlike electronic dance music (EDM), not all examples of electronica are necessarily made for dancing.[1][2] The genre is loosely defined and has different connotations in different regions and time periods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronica
Electronic music is music that employs electronic musical instruments and electronic music technology in its production, an electronic musician being a musician who composes and/or performs such music. In general a distinction can be made between sound produced using electromechanical means and that produced using electronic technology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_music
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music
>>55424488
>>it's on wikipedia, it must be true
I did not say it was true you dumbass. I said what term belongs there if it isn't true?
There is a necessity for a broad term of genre classification, as evidenced by the wiki, the people using the term, and retards actually have to make propoganda against the term.
If we can't use the term 'electronic music' what term can we use to refer to that broad category of organized sound?
At this point just reread the thread. if you disagree with this shit I don't know what to tell you. give us a term you won't complain about, because a broad term is needed. Maybe not by you, but by the general public and music historians, a term is fucking needed.
If you don't have a 'correct' term then suck it up and don't bitch when people say 'electronic music' you self important man children.
|
| >> | No.55425898
>>55425862
The media were largely responsible for determining what that audience listened to, and therefore what rock music was. The media's defining power was already evident in the 1960s. Hendrix happened to be classified as a rock musician mainly because his records were reviewed in rock magazines and therefore sold to a rock audience. He might as well have been classified as a blues musician, or even a jazz musician: had his records been reviewed mainly by blues magazines, his audience would have been the blues audience, and therefore he would have been part of the history of blues music, not rock music.
Ultimately, the reason some musicians were considered "rock" is that rock critics and rock historians (such as me) wrote about them. The only consistent definition of rock music is, in a sense, that rock music is what i am writing about.
The only viable definition is a "use-based" definition: rock music is the set of all musicians that the rock community writes about. Thus Klaus Schulze (an electronic musician) makes rock music, but an electronic musician raised in the classical community does not make rock music, even if their styles are very similar: the difference between the two is that the rock press writes at length about Schulze.
It is not the listener who defines what is rock music, it is the reader.
|
| >> | No.55425966
>>55425862
>>55425898
Traditionally, books on the history of rock music begin by defining rock music as the meeting of country music and rhythm'n'blues, which is roughly correct (personally i feel that the rhythm'n'blues component was much stronger than the country component but, of course, it all depends on whether you consider Chuck Berry or Elvis Presley as the founding father of rock'n'roll). However, this definition is out of touch with today's rock music. Today's rock music is a genre that employs sampling techniques, electronic instruments, digital/computer technology, cacophony, and ethnic sources (beyond African-American and Anglo-Irish). The roots of today's rock music lie in the technical and stylistic innovations brought about in the first half of the 20th century. Rock music is also part of a stream of "popular music", whose beginnings can be dated even further back, to the end of the 19th century. In fact, it would be more accurate to define today's rock music as the meeting of avantgarde music, dance music and pop music. Therefore, my "alternative" history of rock music begins much earlier than most books on the origins of rock'n'roll.
|