shaolinsoul
Well-known member
dj am died dude..
House 09!
- Thread starter zhao
- Start date
oh by the way that dj am guy who you zhao said i thought invented house died of a drug overdose today.
read this on twitter, means very little to me except that it was a much much worse insult than i first thought
yeah. pretty freaky that i just mentioned him and now this happens.
he was a genuine superstar dj. got much farther in the club game than people probably thought possible. although a lot of heads are of the opinion that he expoited the music and sold out, got to have respect for raw skills on the tables as well as ability to hustle in the world at large.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/0828200..._found_dead_in_manhattan_apartment_186943.htm
RIP
Last edited:
i've never heard of him but are you saying this guy was actually talented rather than just a drug buddy of mark ronson. the kind of guy who took the silver spoon he was born with in his mouth and used it to shovel drugs up his nose?
Last edited:
where did you get that idea from? or do you generally think that about successful people? no, there was no silver spoon. not even a plastic one. in fact he was dealt an incredibly fucked up hand from the get go and it eventually killed him: i put a gun in my mouth and pulled the trigger
Last edited:
4 days ago you were using this guys name to insult me, all i can garner from the press is that he's dead and was a drug addict and was friends with a crowd thats exactly like i described, the ronsons, linsay lohan etc, people with questionable talent wealthy influential parents and lots of drugs. Yeah people with big drug problems will get low i know that, its tough.
But are you going to tell me what was good about this guy, who's name you used as an insult to me a few days ago, why he's important as i don't know , all i know is he doesn't sound successful to me, he's my age, he's dead and he was a drug addict for years, that sounds like a massive waste of life rather than a success.
Last edited:
well he was a lot more successful as a dj than you or me, in the usual capitalist sense ($25,000 a night ain't bad... i'd take it).
i originally wrote dj Keoke to insult you, but then decided to changed it to a contemporary trendy superstar dj. the insult had only to do with the fact that he clearly did not invent house music, and had nothing to do with his talents and worth as a performing artist.
and the insult was in response to you dismissing my valid and important point regarding the Chicago Gospel roots of House music, in the context of people endlessly going on about Kraftwerk and Euro-Synth.
Last edited:
having a glorious Kompakt morning today.
Total 9 and 10 are both solid -- it seems after the brief (thank god) misstep in the direction of stadium trance-techno, the label is now saturated with their own brand of luscious dance-pop and rich, full bodied "melodic" techno. to me it's a testament of their originality, vision, and status as true artists and innovators that pretty much as soon as Minimal became widely accepted, mainstream and watered down, they moved on.
the label whose name is basically synonymous with Minimal putting out a song which states that "Minimal has no balls, no groove" is just so fucking cool.
and just a few corny mistakes later, they are again putting out exciting and sweet music.
Total 9 and 10 are both solid -- it seems after the brief (thank god) misstep in the direction of stadium trance-techno, the label is now saturated with their own brand of luscious dance-pop and rich, full bodied "melodic" techno. to me it's a testament of their originality, vision, and status as true artists and innovators that pretty much as soon as Minimal became widely accepted, mainstream and watered down, they moved on.
the label whose name is basically synonymous with Minimal putting out a song which states that "Minimal has no balls, no groove" is just so fucking cool.
and just a few corny mistakes later, they are again putting out exciting and sweet music.
that's matias though, i had him come and play at a party i put on last year, he played whistle, little hand drums and sung over all kinda stuff, he just plays what works well, stuff with rhythm.
i wasn't dismissing that, as everyone knows this no one disputes these things , but also they recognise that also know music isn't made in a vaccum.
Check out this guy on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/user/Chicagomack1
or this guy
http://www.youtube.com/user/HouseNationChicago
neither of these guys would accept your narrow cast vison of what house is or where it comes from who it was made by, the reaosns etc, i'm sure, also you miss a massive futurist angle in your argument, instead going for the musical equivalent of medieval battle reenactment.
What i was dismissing is your mission to speak on behalf of people who didnt ask you to and you have no right to, especially when your posit such a retroactive argument.
Last edited:
before i begin, realize that now it is you who insist on continuing this debate. i was ready to, and had already, moved on.
oh i'm sure these guys would agree with me 300% - that house came from, more than anything else, the American black music traditions. (dope shit by the way)
no, my vision is not "narrow cast" in the least. what i am doing is asserting the primacy, and justifiably so, of the direct lineage of this music, instead of emphasizing minor influences and playing up their contributions. and i do not subscribe to the vague relativist position of "it came from everywhere", which invariably ends up white-washing history, and neglects the dispossessed and disempowered groups who were mainly responsible.
the question here is one of emphasis, i am not arguing for purist exclusivity.
i "have no right" to speak? what?
i will say what ever i god damned feel like, when ever and where ever i want to say it. don't give a shit whether you or anyone else like it or not.
oh i'm sure these guys would agree with me 300% - that house came from, more than anything else, the American black music traditions. (dope shit by the way)
no, my vision is not "narrow cast" in the least. what i am doing is asserting the primacy, and justifiably so, of the direct lineage of this music, instead of emphasizing minor influences and playing up their contributions. and i do not subscribe to the vague relativist position of "it came from everywhere", which invariably ends up white-washing history, and neglects the dispossessed and disempowered groups who were mainly responsible.
the question here is one of emphasis, i am not arguing for purist exclusivity.
i "have no right" to speak? what?
i will say what ever i god damned feel like, when ever and where ever i want to say it. don't give a shit whether you or anyone else like it or not.
sweet links these. i just had a serious Larry Heard youtube binge... then i had to go dig out the full unedited version of The Sun Can't Compare. ridiculous tune. hyperbole for days.
btw. that kris wadsworth mix on buzzin fly radio is worth a listen, some deep swing a gwarn... quite cold warehousey vibes but little musical flourishes here and there. snice.
but this music doesn't exclusivley i just gave you the 2 examples, they've got throbbing gristle and italo disco alongside gay disco, latin freestyle, early house versions of ebm hits etc...
djs bought records to play out to audiences, from different places, selected well enough that the world knows about it now, in contrast to say go go from washington dc, then when they started making their own music, things only got stranger and more alien from there, i mean where's your child, acid trax, those are very different records, they're not warm human hootnany jug band holler fests?
sigh no ones arguing the relativist postion that it came from everywhere, ever, just that mainly black chicagoans, created the template for house from a few different sources, all of them were pretty much electronic, dj sets /dark nightclubs / synths / drum machines and incredible sophistication and creativity were the catalyist.
but this ;
from earlier in the thread from you:
'
is the opitome of purist exclusivity, imagine saying 'this is where you music came from' to one of the originators of acid house, someone who worked fucking hard on the 303 or whatever, to ron hardy a gay man, who helped create loads of dj ideas like edits etc...
tell it to the judge.
see i find this a bit smug and quite confusing
Last edited:
what ever sound palette, it is still simply in service of that body jacking groove, which is the heart and soul of the music.
you can strip it down as much as is possible; you can pile as much stuff on it as you want; you can dress it in alien robot clothes; it still got the SAME bones as Elder Charles.
because that's the blueprint of this music, its origin, and its center.
everything else came later, and are peripheral, and non-essential; whether it be acid or clicks'n'cuts or supercollider or sub bass.
do you understand?
mms, this right here is this thing called the internet. where people tend to sum up their positions in one sentence, and don't always have time to fully state every exception.
even in a conversation in the real world, when someone says "it's always sunny in LA", they don't mean there are ZERO rainy days there. only that it is mainly sunny.
similarly, when i say "house comes from gospel", it means that it PRIMARILY came from the lineage which includes gospel, more than anywhere else; and it does not mean no other influences existed. get me?
hahaha... as coincidence would have it, i met dj Buzz from Underground Resistance earlier tonight, a mainstay of detroit techno, one of the early pioneers -- we got to talking and i mentioned this argument about the roots of house music and told him my position. and you know what? his face lit right up with a big smile and it stayed on his face for the duration of the conversation. he must've nodded about 30 times when i was talking about house coming from gospel. and he COMPLETELY agreed that the deeper roots of the music is beginning to get lost with the younger generations.
so there you go.
Last edited:
i've given up cos your argument is so inconsistent i don't know what it is anymore, and i don't know what you told dj buzz, could have been anything quite frankly, but if it's anything like what you've said here, many would disagree, and Detroit ppl are often ridiculously patriotic as discussed down thread.
All i can say is listen to the wbmx mixes, they're recordings from the time and they display a plurality way beyond the 'gospel roots of house', gospel hardly features at all if ever infact, although of course it is important.
regarding your caveat that what you write on the internet is a load of old nonsense anyway, pretty much, most people regardless of being on the internet or not realise what is coming out of their mouths or keyboards and have the good grace to say what they mean.
I still think the charles edler argument is madness whatever way you look at it, the more you reduce it the crazier it gets, you could literally pick two random pieces of music and use the same argument with about almost any music ever in any context any time , sp that makes it an utterly pointless thing to say, and you accuse me of relativism up thread!
Using the same argument i could say that charles elder is 'just' scottish presbytarian church music from the 1700's 'stripped away' and dressed in 'alien robot clothes', as it's got the 'same bones,' its 'it's blueprint ' for example, that would utterly ignore any human progress and development, any context, any innovation and creativity, commerce, migration, resistance, anything that made it different, like anything that makes house different to charles elder, then what you got a fuckin abomination that's what, but it's equally as 'true' as your statement.
All i can say is listen to the wbmx mixes, they're recordings from the time and they display a plurality way beyond the 'gospel roots of house', gospel hardly features at all if ever infact, although of course it is important.
regarding your caveat that what you write on the internet is a load of old nonsense anyway, pretty much, most people regardless of being on the internet or not realise what is coming out of their mouths or keyboards and have the good grace to say what they mean.
I still think the charles edler argument is madness whatever way you look at it, the more you reduce it the crazier it gets, you could literally pick two random pieces of music and use the same argument with about almost any music ever in any context any time , sp that makes it an utterly pointless thing to say, and you accuse me of relativism up thread!
Using the same argument i could say that charles elder is 'just' scottish presbytarian church music from the 1700's 'stripped away' and dressed in 'alien robot clothes', as it's got the 'same bones,' its 'it's blueprint ' for example, that would utterly ignore any human progress and development, any context, any innovation and creativity, commerce, migration, resistance, anything that made it different, like anything that makes house different to charles elder, then what you got a fuckin abomination that's what, but it's equally as 'true' as your statement.
Last edited:
hint
party record with a siren
As I tried to point out earlier, what you call "peripheral and non-essential" is what makes House music different from Disco etc.
Trees, forests and so on...
This notion that everyone's forgotten that Gospel is part of the history of House music is pretty peculiar. You don't need to write anything to point it out... just listen to "You Got The Love"!
Stuff like this is being made month in, month out (track down the clapapella of this track in particular - I play it out all the time):
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Last edited:
my position has been completely consistent -- that the main root and lineage of house music is the American black traditions which goes back to Gospel (and beyond), and that every other influence is relatively peripheral. the only confusion might stem from my initial over-simplified statement that house music came from that ONE TUNE from 1939 -- which clearly should not be taken literally at face value.
now you are being disingenuous. have i ever, in this thread or anywhere else, given you reason to doubt my honesty? the answer is no, i have not. so kindly fuck off with your snide accusations.
and now you are being a little more than disingenuous.
i mean what i say without exception. but when i say "house came from this one tune" it means "this is the direct lineage", and not literally "from this one tune".
and that is what i mean by "internet short-hand" -- you understand perfectly well, but are just choosing to be willfully antagonistic and spiteful.
well i'm sorry that you do not see what to me is an obvious lineage and connection. maybe some day you will, and lets just leave it at that.
no zhao, you've not been consistent which i've pointed out and which is why i'm confused.
i've always agreed as has everyone else that gospel is a component of house, but i literally have no idea what your argument really is, that's why i don't know what you've discussed with dj buzz, i don't know what your key point is as it keeps lumbering from 'gospel is a component of house' which isn't questioned, to 'like i said, a lotta confused kids runnin around like chickens with they heads cut off, not knowin the truth if it hit them in the face like a mac truck doin 85' and 'whitewashing' to an argument more recently that seems to be that all music is in the service of the body and it makes no difference when it was made, from who where what or why ( as long the body in question is mythical and black bodies it seems ), i don't agree in the reductive tofu salad's eye view argument that you've bluffed your way through at all, i'm just trying to work it out and come to something that accepts that time is not at a stand still and people do innovate, life moves on different things create different experiences over time, sure some things still influence music, like gospel, we know that, but things are created and innovate for different reasons, they are different. Its a simple enough idea.
and jesus christ please drop the smugness just once, it's telling you didnt tackle my analysis of the reductiveness of your latest argument.
God i really wish i hadn't got into this except you made some daft remark to me about some dj i never heard of.
i've always agreed as has everyone else that gospel is a component of house, but i literally have no idea what your argument really is, that's why i don't know what you've discussed with dj buzz, i don't know what your key point is as it keeps lumbering from 'gospel is a component of house' which isn't questioned, to 'like i said, a lotta confused kids runnin around like chickens with they heads cut off, not knowin the truth if it hit them in the face like a mac truck doin 85' and 'whitewashing' to an argument more recently that seems to be that all music is in the service of the body and it makes no difference when it was made, from who where what or why ( as long the body in question is mythical and black bodies it seems ), i don't agree in the reductive tofu salad's eye view argument that you've bluffed your way through at all, i'm just trying to work it out and come to something that accepts that time is not at a stand still and people do innovate, life moves on different things create different experiences over time, sure some things still influence music, like gospel, we know that, but things are created and innovate for different reasons, they are different. Its a simple enough idea.
and jesus christ please drop the smugness just once, it's telling you didnt tackle my analysis of the reductiveness of your latest argument.
God i really wish i hadn't got into this except you made some daft remark to me about some dj i never heard of.
Last edited:
one reading of the evolution of American pop and dance music of the 20th century is that it followed a steady formalist, deconstructivist, and minimalist impulse which increasingly focused on form, moving away from narrative content, and stripped the music down to bare essentials. from Jazz to Funk to Disco, there was an increase in the focus and reliance on rhythm, and also an increasing rigidity of that rhythm, which became more and more mechanical ---- before anyone ever touched a drum machine.
so house music and later techno should not be seen as any kind of radical break from everything that had gone before -- at least not any more of a radical a break than say, the one made by Disco from Funk or Funk from Jazz -- but rather as nothing more and nothing less than simply the next link in the "continuum".
now i understand the romantic impulse which leads people of every era to idealize their art as the revolutionary form which was genuinely new, exploding onto the stage of cultural history like some alien bomb out of nowhere, with shapes sounds and colors undreamt of by previous generations. but when the hoopla subsides and we gain a bit of perspective, we realize that this view is almost invariably false -- like the Italian Futurists who fancied themselves as the destroyers of all that had gone before, whose work in hindsight was nothing more and nothing less than simply a (minor) link in the evolution of modern art from Impressionism to Minimalism.
so, all this 303 cold futuristic synthetic sound design, mechanical robot beats, sub bass, clicks and cuts, digital signal processing -- are none of it as revolutionary, their appearance in music history not nearly as significant, as you aging ravers would like to think. all of it is relatively peripheral, it is fashion, it is decorative, and none of it is essential to the music.
now as it has ever been, the essence of this music is the shaking of booties through insistent, timeless rhythm, and celebration where there was no celebration before. and this groove, this swing, is the same as it was in Funk, is the same as it was in Gospel, is the same as it was in the work songs of the slaves. (and before that)
and contrary to this ridiculous bullshit:
this groove has a very specific lineage. for example it most certainly did not come from Wagner or Shostakovich, it did not come from Mozart or Liszt, and it did not come from Bach or Scarlatti.
back to the present day: all that "futuristic and intelligent" stuff which programs and sound designs itself up its own asshole? all that reliance on technology at the expense of soul and groove, all that shit which ain't got that swing? well they don't really mean a thing, and will be soon forgotten.
AMEN.
Last edited:
what a load of awful cliched bollocks , you sound like my nan, anyway music doesn't always have to have 'soul' or 'groove' some great music has none of that fairly subjective ingredients.
btw i thought as grown intelligent adults we would have taken it for granted that i'm not arguing that muddy waters didn't take alot of influence from shostakovitch.
the first acid act were called 'phuture' is a good example that there was a futurist impulse in house.
no one said intelligent as we know what you're trying to imply by that, i said futurist impulse.
ie desiring a future, constructing one, abstracting a utopian matrix, like what house music did succesfully, and alot of electronic music in its wake tried to do.
although you're clearly very cynical and dismissive of any contributions made by it, we've seen that all the way through this,
And again - no music isn't made in a vaccum, there isn't a pure linage that takes 'booty shaking rhythms' (yawn) directly back to africa, sure there are elements, and certain things survive, certain things are overlooked, certain things dismissed, but all the time they adapt, take on new influences, are revised, built on, i mean this is ridiculous, thats why i gave the scottish example, as one theory about gospel is that the singing style was influenced by the scottish slave owners church services, you've forgotten to mention that gospel was religious music and you don't get to shake your ass in church too.
Last edited: