Woebot on funky house

[Ronan]

"popularity is no justification for a practice

the justification for "hardcore" djing, i always thought, was the development of new sounds and experiences. only by radicalizing rhythm, only by pursuing bpms, only by relentlessly running against the constraints of form, could dance music move forward."

Well, if we're discussing club DJing, it doesn't actually exist unless it's popular. So fine, in theory, you don't like DJs sticking to a single aesthetic. But in practise this is generally the only way any of the subcultural power of dance music is unleashed.

I'm saying that the value of DJs playing one aesthetic and one style of music (within which, as I have already argued, there is quite a wide range of sounds, perhaps inaudible to those on the outside such as yourself) is the scene itself.

I think that you're wrong on two counts. 1. that there is no interest in new sounds or moving dance music forward in the minimal house scene. and 2. that this has always been the justification for "hardcore" djing. (this is just ludicrous, the justification for "hardcore" djing is that the DJs and the people they play for only want to hear that music when they are out, that they define themselves as fans of that sound, that this is their gang, I don't really think that's worthless)

I also think a major part of the problem with this discussion is you assume that 1 and 2 are agreed before opening your mouth. what do you personally define as "minimal house" or a typical house/techno DJ nowadays?

I also think your idealised idea of what you'd like to see DJs playing is something you haven't even thought about until such time as this, a thread about house music, came up.

I'd like to see how you would have reacted to some "funky house" a week or two ago, before woebot's post.

 

[Ronan]

also what in the name of holy hell seeing a dude from !!! djing has to do with denouncing minimal house/techno is beyond me.

I'm not claiming it is at the absolute vanguard but most of the "eclectic" djs out there (of whom there are many) are FAR more guilty of being locked into the past than the minimal guys.

 

[Ronan]

oh the article works now....

"Most current dance music has died a death of good taste and assumed sophistication. The Kompakt thing for instance...."

anyone considering a behemoth like kompakt the epitome of "current dance music" is pretty clueless....

"Funky House, this utterly a-historical, response-centered music might be the antidote to the tedious over-inscription that has stripped everything from dance music which once made it innovative, interesting and fun, a chastening return to the fundamental pleasure principles."

Could replace "Funky House" with any other modern genre in that sentence and it'd be as valid.

Also criticising "blog house" at the same time as you're praising "funky house" is pretty dangerous ground, when the two genres are practically identical in terms of their hedonistic aesthetic. Not that minimal house is much different, just comes in an artier box. in practise the scene is the same, as Simon mentions on blissblog, completely hedonistic.

if all music was interpreted in the outside world in line with how it sounds when sitting on your ass on the internet then clubs (not just dance ones either) would be very different places!

 

[Guybrush]

anyone considering a behemoth like kompakt the epitome of "current dance music" is pretty clueless....

Well, if I remember correctly, Stylus granted both Gui Boratto’s and the Field’s new albums ‘album of the week’ awards, so they are far from passé with the on-line press, it seems. I’d nominate Tocadisco’s ‘Music Loud’.

Where did the stupid notion that people discussing dance music on the Internet are clueless armchair dancers come from, anyway. It’s ridiculous.

 

[dominic]

So fine, in theory, you don't like DJs sticking to a single aesthetic. But in practise this is generally the only way any of the subcultural power of dance music is unleashed.

yes, there needs to be a certain narrowness of scene and sound for there to subcultural power

however, djs sticking to a single aesthetic is a post-92 development

therefore, if hardcore continuum has come to an "end" -- and perhaps we could flesh out what we mean by this??? -- then it seems to me that a return to pre-92 djing approach is in order

and perhaps i'm reading such an eclectic approach into "funky house" scene

i.e., seems that dubstep and techno are endless refinements (or fruitless intensifications) of a repertoire of sounds dating back to 88/92, whereas "funky house" is both more populist and eclectic

I'm saying that the value of DJs playing one aesthetic and one style of music (within which, as I have already argued, there is quite a wide range of sounds, perhaps inaudible to those on the outside such as yourself) is the scene itself

the "perhaps inaudible to those on the outside" line of defense . . . .

I think that you're wrong on two counts. 1. that there is no interest in new sounds or moving dance music forward in the minimal house scene

of course the music makes this CLAIM -- the question is whether anyone buys the claim

this is just ludicrous, the justification for "hardcore" djing is that the DJs and the people they play for only want to hear that music when they are out, that they define themselves as fans of that sound, that this is their gang, I don't really think that's worthless

yes and no

if it's what they like and are into, then that's their right and it's perhaps all the justification they need

but again, the larger justification for playing exclusively jungle or exclusively dubstep was the notion of taking music forward -- that somehow there was an ADVANTAGE to be had by playing only this one sound

I also think your idealised idea of what you'd like to see DJs playing is something you haven't even thought about until such time as this, a thread about house music, came up. I'd like to see how you would have reacted to some "funky house" a week or two ago, before woebot's post.

this is rather patronising!

i've always held this view, actually, and it's my long-standing gripe against most djs

also what in the name of holy hell seeing a dude from !!! djing has to do with denouncing minimal house/techno is beyond me.

i didn't mean to suggest that the guy from !!! was a minimal techno dj -- merely a guy playing one style of music that i enjoyed for reasons of (1) intensity and, errr, (2) niceness/pleasure -- but that i wouldn't want such experience on regular basis because too same-y, too stuck in one place

another room at same party had minimal-gone-maximal german techno, and i found this music utterly insufferable. gave me a headache. one such track would have sufficed

I'm not claiming it is at the absolute vanguard but most of the "eclectic" djs out there (of whom there are many) are FAR more guilty of being locked into the past than the minimal guys.

not that it's incumbent on you to take note of a remark i made on page 2 of this thread, but i'm very much stuck in the dance music past -- 79/93 -- b/c i think (1) best music was made in those years and the (2) dj philosophy was better back then

the reason the funky house thing excites me is (1a) it holds the promise of house music that doesn't have its head stuck up its ass; (1b) house music that once again has inner city appeal; and (2) eclectic djing approach, i.e., rebirth of old skool djing as opposed to hardcore djing

 

[Ronan]

what do you mean here by "doesn't have its head stuck up its ass"? this seems a pretty lame denouncement of non "funky house".

and also quite popist, for these parts.

I just wonder why funky house now and not at any point in the last 10 years? because woebot said so? the current brand of funky house is pretty much the same style as "electrohouse" circa 2003, given a little bigroom makeover.

also I'm not seeing the eclecticism in it, except that by nature house takes in sounds quite easily, it's certainly no more eclectic than "minimal".

personally I don't really have any demons as regards funky house, and I can't help but feel this is quite important here. I have been in plenty clubs where they play funky house over the years (probably got into dance music through what some might call "funky house", around 2001/2002), and crucially I think this relative ambivalence to what was probably the antichrist for some people around here makes me feel like woebot's post is all too conscious mythologising of a genre he reckons is the inverse of minimal house/dubstep...

but imo this is a false opposition, many people I know who like minimal house have no shame about liking some funky house tracks, from down the years and maybe from today.
similarly I've played in clubs here which are distinguished as funky house style clubs and had a good reception playing music released on labels people might class as minimal. also "bloghouse", "electrohouse", and "funky house" are all pretty much drawing from the same aesthetic and sounds, current funky house is basically 2003 electrohouse with bigger drums.

I think to extricate one style of house from the genre in which all styles are consumed in a similar fashion and laud it as a "return to pleasure principles" is just rather silly. the sound of the music has very little to do with how and whether people go off to it with house/techno...as I said how many of the classic acid house records are actually melancholy/miserable?

tons of them...if you don't like those, that's fine, but then don't bring that lineage into the argument. similarly if you don't like minimal house, this is fine, but placing it in opposition to funky house on a continuum where one is fun and the other isn't just doesn't really wash...

 

[Ronan]

also re:eclecticism, wasn't there already a recent boom in this style of djing? what do you think of optimo/2manydjs/tim sweeney etc etc etc?

probably all too retro for you?

 

[dominic]

what do you mean here by "doesn't have its head stuck up its ass"? this seems a pretty lame denouncement of non "funky house".

and also quite popist, for these parts.

i like sets that weave back and forth b/w "popist" dance tracks and more "difficult" tracks

I just wonder why funky house now and not at any point in the last 10 years? because woebot said so?

b/c this is what people in tottenham or whatever are seemingly suddenly into

the current brand of funky house is pretty much the same style as "electrohouse" circa 2003, given a little bigroom makeover

as already noted on this thread, the funky house thing is a bit amorphous

nobody seems to know what exactly it is

somebody like dj superior is, evidently, into labels like naked music and swing city, which in and of itself doesn't sound too intriguing. but when you consider the man's background in garage/jungle/grime, the kind of dj ethos that he (and others) comes from, you cannot help but hope that this will result in a ruffer funkier brand of house music, that his sets will be informed by a different kind of experience -- and that eventually a new kind of uk house will emerge that takes the naked music sound in a new direction

also I'm not seeing the eclecticism in it, except that by nature house takes in sounds quite easily

well, i think it would depend on the dj -- which is part of the point -- i.e., rather than have people jump on this or that sound bandwagon, it will be down to the dj to play interesting and dynamic sets

but i feel like i'm offering a poor man's explanation of what others have said better =

Funky house got popular because people wanted to get away from fenced off, franchisable sounds like 2-step, grime etc, and get back to a type of clubbing where DJs can be truly diverse and eclectic and play all sorts of stuff, and the focus is on creating a vibrant underground scene rather than creating a defined, marketable sound that might "blow up". And perversly, that's why it has blown up.

and everything i've said on this thread, said 11 months ago =

Given the current feeling about Grime it is no surprise that another genre is on the rise. Funky House on its own all night though is boring as fuck (as is any genre) and alienates those who can't fulfill its bling/beautiful people/gangster credo of acceptance.

Quite an interesting thread over at the Fantazia forum about which musical route people have taken since dance music split in the early 90's:

http://excoboard.com/exco/thread.php?forumid=26717&threadid=440456

Certain djs such as Easygroove are remembered for their ability to mix up all styles. The mistake underground uk dance music made in my mind has always been the seperation that occured.

It was the case that djs were booked for their overall value as djs rather than the case now of genre/exisiting-fame holding sway. Certain promoters have forgotten that its supposed to be a party rather than some personal show-and-tell depicting their own lack of imagination and sense. The acid house/hardcore scene of 88-93 holds all the answers with regard to any serious movement being formed imo.

so i think i'll be quiet now . . . .

 

[dominic]

also re:eclecticism, wasn't there already a recent boom in this style of djing? what do you think of optimo/2manydjs/tim sweeney etc etc etc?

probably all too retro for you?

i've heard tim sweeney several times. he's a good dj. my biggest complaint is that, given his commitment to playing old records, he doesn't really play records from the 88/93 golden years. and that his sound is too "white" -- i cringe at the racialist term -- too electro/rock/deep techno

ALSO, you might note that upthread i and others dismiss the likes of diplo as "forced eclecticism" -- i.e., music can't be from somewhere if it's from everywhere, can't have power if not informed by particular tradition

(((tim sweeney, mind you, does not force his eclecticism -- if anything, his sound is too narrow)))

but i don't want to go around criticising djs by name -- b/c that borders on slander, saying mean things, acting like a jerk

and i don't want to start uttering platitudes, but it's a balancing act --

pop vs. difficult

eclecticism vs. subcultural power

and so forth

 

[Ronan]

I agree with most of what you say in your second post, except re:Sweeney, haven't seen him so can't comment.

However from your first post...

"well, i think it would depend on the dj -- which is part of the point -- i.e., rather than have people jump on this or that sound bandwagon, it will be down to the dj to play interesting and dynamic sets

but i feel like i'm offering a poor man's explanation of what others have said better =

Quote:
Originally Posted by MATT MAson View Post
Funky house got popular because people wanted to get away from fenced off, franchisable sounds like 2-step, grime etc, and get back to a type of clubbing where DJs can be truly diverse and eclectic and play all sorts of stuff, and the focus is on creating a vibrant underground scene rather than creating a defined, marketable sound that might "blow up". And perversly, that's why it has blown up

I think the idea that "it would depend on the dj" is true of any self respecting genre of dance music. You don't seriously think people who like minimal just say "oh well who cares who's djing" do you?

I think minimal house got popular as a result of similar stagnation in house/techno, to you it probably seems rigid, however pre-minimal house and techno were a lot more delineated into US or actual disco derived HOUSE and Millsian techno,

so minimal house, while seeming strictly single aesthetic to you, has an eclecticism of its own, albeit within the very strict rules of what I suppose you'd call the post 92 trend for djs sticking to one aesthetic....

in a way minimal has sort of united the house/techno scenes again, gone back to basics in many ways (tho not so much, imo, that it is not doing anything new sonically), where it no longer matters if something is "house" or "techno" or whatever, minimal is just a codeword so that those who like this music can communicate this to each other easily.

the difficulty in terminology shows in itself the breadth of the genre, with some people saying "minimal techno" to mean the same as others saying "minimal house", other people using "minimal" to mean all German house music, no term really seeming satisfactory.


now of course, maybe it hasn't gone far back enough for you, but I do think some of the criticisms made are unfair, it's only a narrow scope of music if you actually don't like any house or techno post 92...and you know, it's not that defensible to say "it all sounds the same".

a layperson would say "it all sounds the same" if you played them any two tracks being discussed on this thread, plenty of people think that all dance music sounds the same, whatever the alleged genre is. it's pretty much always a criticism made from position of ignorance.

I mean, I know that someone saying they like "minimal" is not reason enough to assume I like the same music as they do, just as if someone said they liked "house music" or "rock" I would have no idea. But you know, not sure why I'm defending a genre from an accusation as silly as 2it all sounds the same".

 

[Chef Napalm]

I also think your idealised idea of what you'd like to see DJs playing is something you haven't even thought about until such time as this, a thread about house music, came up.

I'd like to see how you would have reacted to some "funky house" a week or two ago, before woebot's post.

Before you go making statements like that, I'd suggest a search on house threads. Threads on house music get started and then go NOWHERE. There just hasn't been the interest in something as banal as house music on this forum; it's mostly minimal, dubstep, grime and reggae. Until now, that is. Thus, the new rolling thread. We'll have to wait and see how it goes.

As far as I'm concerned, all woebot's post did was shine the spotlight on what has become marginalized and maligned music.

 

[Tim F]

Never mind Villalobos albums vs Villalobos DJ sets, the real blow against Woebot's argument is Villalobos PHOTOGRAPHS.

A couple of points:

1) I don't see funky house and minimal as being necessarily that distinct, let alone oppositional, conceptually or sonically. Note that the former's signature tune ("The Cure & The Cause") is in its most famous version mixed by Dennis Ferrer, one of the few current US deep house producers that minimal DJs absolutely love - and that relationship is bilateral, as evidenced by the DJ mixes of Ferrer's production partner Jerome Sydenham. If we then talk about all the electro-house that gets labelled funky house, well, the distance appears even narrower. Presumably all of Get Physical's output circa 2003/2004 would now be considered "funky house". In many ways funky house is actually acting as a bit of a commercial backwater, picking up on and reprocessing ideas that have already passed through the main channels of US and European house music over the past few years.

2) This eclecticism vs single aesthetic binary is a misnomer in this case. Both funky house and minimal are constantly changing their aesthetic, trends come and go very quickly and a lot of ground is covered. As Ronan notes, both genres are practically defined by their porousness, the slipperiness of the branding a testament to a fundamental uncertainty/openness regarding the substantive content of the music.

3) I suspect what has changed is that it's much harder to construct a single unilinear narrative now (of the kind typified by 'ardkore -> jungle -> techstep etc.) - partly because new trends in a genre don't attach themselves as securely and hegemonically as they once did, the flipside of which is simply that old trends refuse to die, no matter how fleeting their prominence or fashionability. But perhaps this has always been true of house if conceived of in the broadest sense. Certainly with minimal, whether DJs are playing with complex post-Perlon beats or trancey riffs or US deepness or big electro synths or [insert x here] the sense is of a process of differential reiteration rather than bold march into the future. Minimal's negotiation of house and techno in particular is like a dropping a stone into a pool of water and watching the ripples endlessly refracting in and out and from one side to another.

Notably, the same thing is also true of funky house and dubstep and grime. As Simon noted, the irony of Woebot's post is that he correctly perceives that the terms in which people lambast funky house are both a) universally applicable, and b) easily read as positives... and yet the same applies to his critiques of minimal (or "microhouse") and dubstep.

This basically reflects the larger truth that nowadays one rarely reads dismissals of entire genres, or even sub-genres, that ring particularly true. it is of course very unfashionable in this post-postmodern environment to admit to being cautious about dismissing something. If one is not against something, how can one truly be for anything? The absence of a venemous crusade is nowadays considered tantamount to making of music crit a petit pedagogy. Nonetheless I cannot help but feel that my own particular crusade has simply become "we must proceed with caution here".

 

[mms]

i can't believe that no one has mentioned the breaks scene, which is a huge scene that adopts lots of musics - drum and bass garage, big beat, hip hop, trance etc.. mostly horrible music imo, but still a kind of dubstep or grime without signifiers or carriers, music for driving around smashing your car stereo with and that.

 

[gek-opel]

i can't believe that no one has mentioned the breaks scene...

Ah, if only Undisputed truth was still here eh...? haha...

Tim F absolutely OTM. Minimal is now an incredibly broad church encompassing such a panoply of styles, and raging from cerebral to purely anthemic/jacking that to dismiss it with such broad brushstrokes is surely misguided... (tho obviously Woebot is redeemed by his excellent use of metaphor...)

 

[ambrose]

wait, isnt it funky house that is now the braod church, encompassing minimal?

it seems curious that "funky house" here is spoken about as thouigh it is something you need tyo go to the equivalent of honest jons to research to hear. its in every bar, club, etc. in sheffield and surroundings for instance. the "urban" audience described earlier in the thread is not exclusive. here it is every-person music. its just going out music.

but the borders between minimal, niche/bassline/speed garage and funky house are very vague. they all seem to be eating each other.

tkae the tribal sessions nights in leeds. thats definately a funky house/minimal crossover. when i heard a free loco dice cd with mixmag sometime ago (first time id heard of him), my reaction was to call it "cheesy minimal". that still applies to most stuff i hear now. whether minimal has got more "funky", niche has got more "electro", and funky house has got more minimal.

meanwhile, whiolst the high st is loving all of this stuff and playing it indiscriminately (ok so maybe including niche in this is a bit of a long shot) the indie kids are doign the same thing and shouting over the top whilst listening to breaks. thus my mind is blown.

 

[Tim F]

"when i heard a free loco dice cd with mixmag sometime ago (first time id heard of him), my reaction was to call it "cheesy minimal". "

That's a good mix that one! It took me a while to realise as I was suspicious of the way Loco Dice suddenly appeared with Mixmag's benediction. But the way Shinedoe's "Phunk" mixes into Dice's remix of Daniel Taylor's "M.O.R.D." is quite astonishing.

 

[shudder]

(parenthetically, and hence the parentheses, it is still quite striking, even shocking, to these north american ears to hear of any kind of house music being referred to as "every-person music".)

 

[fandango]

"when i heard a free loco dice cd with mixmag sometime ago (first time id heard of him), my reaction was to call it "cheesy minimal". "

That's a good mix that one! It took me a while to realise as I was suspicious of the way Loco Dice suddenly appeared with Mixmag's benediction. But the way Shinedoe's "Phunk" mixes into Dice's remix of Daniel Taylor's "M.O.R.D." is quite astonishing.

I prefer it on Andre Galuzzi's Berghain 01 tbh (where it's trance! not fluffy trance but proper hard-edged relentless repetitive goodness), but the Loco Dice mix is certainly adequate, if a bit stiff.

 

[Chef Napalm]

(parenthetically, and hence the parentheses, it is still quite striking, even shocking, to these north american ears to hear of any kind of house music being referred to as "every-person music".)

OTM, shudder. I feel like the only person within a hundred miles who likes it. It's all country, hip-hop, and classic rock. In that order.

 

[nomos]

(parenthetically, and hence the parentheses, it is still quite striking, even shocking, to these north american ears to hear of any kind of house music being referred to as "every-person music".)

yeah, very true.