do you agree with Cox here?

Old Skool chat, tune discussions.
No tape packs or mix tape posts in the forum please!
User avatar
Noizee B
Old Skool Master
Old Skool Master
Posts: 2199
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 12:14 pm
Location: Coventry

Re: do you agree with Cox here?

Post by Noizee B » Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:25 pm

Freebass wrote:Getting back on topic here, I think Carl should be ashamed of himself. Ok, so he was playing hardcore 16 odd years ago, but hey, he was one of the originals spinning the stuff, so surely he should remember the difference between genres and when they occured.

I know it doesn't really matter, but maybe this gives us an insight into wether he really cares about hardcore or not. Probably the latter due to the fact he started playing techno.

It also got me thinkinmg that perhaps newer / younger people watching this video will think that jungle came before hardcore, and get it all completley wrong because they belived Carl Cox

Freebass
I watched this when I was 14 when it came on Channel 4, and I knew he was wrong then, even with the little I knew about the existence of dance music too.

Derrick May always made me think though with this comment though "The english have to have a name for every god damn thing"- it's true! :lol:

User avatar
usol
Old Skool Master
Old Skool Master
Posts: 1359
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:43 pm
Location: St Albans
Contact:

Re: do you agree with Cox here?

Post by usol » Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:31 pm

Not wanting to "throw the cat amongst the pigeons" too much...

but...

I remember that I had never regulularly heard or used the phrase "hardcore" until late '91.

I know the phrase existed - but I and my mates never used it and it wasn't used by people I knew around the record shops (shops didn't have "hardcore" sections).

Up til then it was house, by 1990 we were calling it "rave" or "bleeps" and as the scene reached bleep overload (and the backlash -4 Heros - "Last Ever Bleep Track" etc) shying away from the description.

But this stuff really didn't have a specific name (and certainly wasn't being universally called hardcore). DJ mag and Kiss FM just called it "house music" lumping it in with everything from Ten City to Tyree Cooper. Most shops did the same. But we still just called the harder stuff "Rave"

I remember some of the bassier stuff being described as Jungle Techno (the jungle term being used to differentiate it from the more european sounding stuff).
Ibiza records even released a track called "Jungle Techno" by Noise Factory.
Then in late '91 the term hardcore started to be bandied around more frequently until by early '92 it had become an all encompassing term for the whole british rave scene.

Then as we all know- the scene split into the piano and 909 loving happy hardcore (not my bag, baby) and Darkside scenes (out of which grew Jungle/Drum & Bass).

I know it sounds like Coxy has it arse about face, but truly remember that (at least in London) we didn't call it hardcore then. There were a few mentions of the name like "Hardcore Uproar" and the "Hardcore Urban Music" label during 1991, but as a name for the scene I really don't remember it until later I remember one of the first absolutely massive tunes checkin "hardcore" was The Hypnotist's "Hardcore EP" which was out on promo in October '91 - around the same time as DJ Phantasy's "Jungle EP". A good indicator is what rave flyers and complilation albums etc were calling it and again it doesn't really start until early '92 (Kickin's "Hardcore Leaders" being an early example) and also when the main glut of artists using the phrase in titles (Hardcore Rhythm team, Housecrew's "We are Hardcore", Well'ard - 'Ardcore", "Hardcore will never die" - Q Bass - all date from 1992) whereas by then 1991 had already seen fairly common use of "Jungle" -at least in London.

It's interesting how the same names can descibe different scenes over the years. I remember when Chuck Berry played "R & B" (Rhythm & Blues) and if you went into a shop and asked for Drum and Bass you'd get a selection of King Tubby's finest. Mind you, it probably isn't as annoying as being an old school garage head and having to explain to people every time that what you really like is soulful US-style house and not "Oxide and Neutrino".

It's a lot easier to pigeonhole tracks with hindsight - I remember even as late as 1993 rave/hardcore bieng described as "house music", and to be honest I suppose that is just what it is. Just house music that's travellled a bit.

:)

dial1
Regular
Regular
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 4:17 am

Re: do you agree with Cox here?

Post by dial1 » Mon Oct 26, 2015 11:00 am

Freebass wrote:Getting back on topic here, I think Carl should be ashamed of himself. Ok, so he was playing hardcore 16 odd years ago, but hey, he was one of the originals spinning the stuff, so surely he should remember the difference between genres and when they occured.

I know it doesn't really matter, but maybe this gives us an insight into wether he really cares about hardcore or not. Probably the latter due to the fact he started playing techno.

It also got me thinkinmg that perhaps newer / younger people watching this video will think that jungle came before hardcore, and get it all completley wrong because they belived Carl Cox

Freebass
I don't think the most forward-thinking producers saw their hardcore as something opposed to techno. A bit like 90-95 Trance... Cox switching to techno was entirely natural and justified imho... :)

Imho three genres really killed the sheer inventiveness of the 91-94 rave scene, happy breakbeat/4-beat stuff, formulaic ragga jungle and progressive house.

That's not to say that there weren't good tunes in each genre (ok, all prog house is shit imho - some early 92-94 sasha and digweed sets make the happy boys look like 50 year old men) but there was some good happy and ragga jungle, Dread Bass and frontline intensity immediately spring to mind.

But what happened when the techno and synths got marginalised is all the risk taking disappeared and everyone treated their sampler like a dialysis machine and noone wanted to hear uncomfortable and strange tunes.

I kid you not, there is literally a subgenre called dark tribal progressive house. I don't see how such a loaded genre name can be progressive, but there you go... Why do they call it progressive when it never changes?

User avatar
RonWellsJS
Oldskool Raver
Oldskool Raver
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:09 am
Contact:

Re: do you agree with Cox here?

Post by RonWellsJS » Mon Oct 26, 2015 5:47 pm

dial1 wrote: techno and synths got marginalised is all the risk taking disappeared and everyone treated their sampler like a dialysis machine and noone wanted to hear uncomfortable and strange tunes.

Why do they call it progressive when it never changes?
LOL "dialysis machine", that's always been my phrase and I (rather arrogantly) find it fitting in many instances (save for some rare sampling accomplishment that has been highlighted to me on here).

And I also used to call "Progressive House", "Regressive House" for obvious reasons.

It's clear that you've possibly 'rubbed a few people up the wrong way' on here by having a thread locked... but I have to admit to agreeing with a lot of what you say, but you might need to exercise a bit more diplomacy as it's clear that plenty on here are fond of and are defensive of the 'happy stuff' (they've probably got amazing memories of it), and they are as entitled to do that as you are to knock it.

I suppose it's all taste at the end of the day so we ought to respect each other's preferences.

:-)

rage
Old Skool Don Daddy
Old Skool Don Daddy
Posts: 3037
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2002 2:38 pm
Contact:

Re: do you agree with Cox here?

Post by rage » Mon Oct 26, 2015 6:32 pm

I thought that thread was locked unfairly, it was a difference of opinion but I didn't see your post as rude or disrespectful.

What did Coxy say anyway? The video has been taken down.

User avatar
Traffic Cone
The Messiah of the 21st Century
The Messiah of the 21st Century
Posts: 8538
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 5:56 pm
Location: London

Re: do you agree with Cox here?

Post by Traffic Cone » Mon Oct 26, 2015 6:37 pm

to be honest i think what killed the inventiveness of rave music is just time. it's much easier to be interesting when there's lots of new ideas not yet done. it wouldn't be possible for the pace of change in the early 90s to be sustained. even producers who don't just want to copy others will inevitably make stuff that's more similar to other music, the more music that there is!

and i think techno is included in that. i don't know that a lot of the music from the mid 90s onward that was uncomfortable and strange, and experimental, was necessarily techno. there's definitely a mythology of techno which holds that it's always forward thinking. but after a certain point it's still just little variations on a theme really. which isn't a criticism of techno, it's just inevitable.

dial1
Regular
Regular
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 4:17 am

Re: do you agree with Cox here?

Post by dial1 » Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:09 pm

rage wrote:I thought that thread was locked unfairly, it was a difference of opinion but I didn't see your post as rude or disrespectful.

What did Coxy say anyway? The video has been taken down.
I think HHC is a perfectly valid form of music, I just find it comically funny, especially on acid... :)

Being totally blind the sheer variety of timbral and textural tones of synths has always appealed to me. I'm totally a modular fanboy... :)

HHC is quite conservative in that regard, not that that's a bad thing, mind, I just don't find it very picturesque and it causes me to burst into uncontrollable laughter...

dial1
Regular
Regular
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 4:17 am

Re: do you agree with Cox here?

Post by dial1 » Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:16 pm

Traffic Cone wrote:to be honest i think what killed the inventiveness of rave music is just time. it's much easier to be interesting when there's lots of new ideas not yet done. it wouldn't be possible for the pace of change in the early 90s to be sustained. even producers who don't just want to copy others will inevitably make stuff that's more similar to other music, the more music that there is!

and i think techno is included in that. i don't know that a lot of the music from the mid 90s onward that was uncomfortable and strange, and experimental, was necessarily techno. there's definitely a mythology of techno which holds that it's always forward thinking. but after a certain point it's still just little variations on a theme really. which isn't a criticism of techno, it's just inevitable.
I mean obviously that is true to an extent and that applies to every genre, not just rave music.

But techno seemed to be very inventive in the 90s. You had our very own jungle techno, hard banging mills-esque techno, the detroit stuff, electro, ambient/intelligent, Stasis, b12, Bedouin Ascent, then completely fucked up stuff like Autechre and The Black Dog, not to mention the edinburgh wonky scene of Neil Landstrumm, Tobias Schmidt etc. This isn't even getting into the experimental hardcore techno of Praxis and Epiteth... :)

I think a lot of the better end of techstep was fucking fantastic and uncomfortable. But again, everyone thought that smoking loads of ganja and following a template made techstep what it was, which was not the case, I basically am not interested in most post-2000 dnb.

Even the minimal/autonomic sound of D Bridge et al. Well, it's just plodding. I think minimalism is a great tool in the hands of a master, see Robert Hood or Surgeon, but many people use it as a walkthrough guide, not as a rough template to build their own ideas around.

dial1
Regular
Regular
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 4:17 am

Re: do you agree with Cox here?

Post by dial1 » Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:23 pm

rage wrote:I thought that thread was locked unfairly, it was a difference of opinion but I didn't see your post as rude or disrespectful.

What did Coxy say anyway? The video has been taken down.
re: cox. He basically made a comment along the lines of techno led to jungle, which resulted in hardcore and then SL2 type happy hardcore.

Which, although not technically correct is certainly an accurate representation of how things went down in London. I always thought the original jungle sound came from a mixture of Hip Hop, techno and dub. I always thought the happier stuff had more in common with italo house and the like, not techno.

dial1
Regular
Regular
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 4:17 am

Re: do you agree with Cox here?

Post by dial1 » Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:27 pm

RonWellsJS wrote:
dial1 wrote: techno and synths got marginalised is all the risk taking disappeared and everyone treated their sampler like a dialysis machine and noone wanted to hear uncomfortable and strange tunes.

Why do they call it progressive when it never changes?
LOL "dialysis machine", that's always been my phrase and I (rather arrogantly) find it fitting in many instances (save for some rare sampling accomplishment that has been highlighted to me on here).

And I also used to call "Progressive House", "Regressive House" for obvious reasons.

It's clear that you've possibly 'rubbed a few people up the wrong way' on here by having a thread locked... but I have to admit to agreeing with a lot of what you say, but you might need to exercise a bit more diplomacy as it's clear that plenty on here are fond of and are defensive of the 'happy stuff' (they've probably got amazing memories of it), and they are as entitled to do that as you are to knock it.

I suppose it's all taste at the end of the day so we ought to respect each other's preferences.

:-)
Oh for sure, I'm not knocking anyone's taste :)

On the topic of regressive house, it's funny how trance used to be a quite credible thing in the 90s, oliver lieb, CJ Bolland (even Laurent Garnier...) I'm still trying to wrap my head around how (old) trance merged with regressive house and resulted in that pilled up late 90s gatecrasher sound...

But yeah early regressive house is some of the most cheesiest and banal music on the planet.

ian saunders remix
Oldskool Raver
Oldskool Raver
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 9:35 am

Re: do you agree with Cox here?

Post by ian saunders remix » Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:32 pm

I also thought that the thread was closed a little harshly, and I can fully understand why you don't like happy hardcore, or find it comical.

The thing is though, it's party music, the intricacy of the production is maybe not the highest priority of the listener. It's one dimensional, but I'd argue that it nails that dimension fairly and squarely on the head. One thing that annoys about the criticism frequently aimed at it, is that that have a go at it for what it's not, rather than what it is. I remember one guy saying "it's not very subtle is it"....I don't know what he was expecting for a genre titled happy hardcore, but for him to think before he listen to it that it was going to be "subtle" means he must be a bit mental.

I wouldn't go to a 100% handbag house event and complain that the music was crap because it isn't technically amazing and deep and soulful etc etc. Just as I wouldn't listen to Rachmaninov and complain that it doesn't make me want to leap about rushing my tits off.

Different musics for different times, moods and places. For me, leaping out, waving my hands in the air to HH is just a valid experience as standing in appreciation of some well-produced, thoughtful techno, or sitting down and listening to classicla music in thoughtful contemplation.

I'd say that anyone who doesn't have any form of music in their life that makes them leap about for no reason other than it's fun and fits the music, is missing something in their experiences.

dial1
Regular
Regular
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 4:17 am

Re: do you agree with Cox here?

Post by dial1 » Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:35 pm

ian saunders remix wrote:I also thought that the thread was closed a little harshly, and I can fully understand why you don't like happy hardcore, or find it comical.

The thing is though, it's party music, the intricacy of the production is maybe not the highest priority of the listener. It's one dimensional, but I'd argue that it nails that dimension fairly and squarely on the head. One thing that annoys about the criticism frequently aimed at it, is that that have a go at it for what it's not, rather than what it is. I remember one guy saying "it's not very subtle is it"....I don't know what he was expecting for a genre titled happy hardcore, but for him to think before he listen to it that it was going to be "subtle" means he must be a bit mental.

I wouldn't go to a 100% handbag house event and complain that the music was crap because it isn't technically amazing and deep and soulful etc etc. Just as I wouldn't listen to Rachmaninov and complain that it doesn't make me want to leap about rushing my tits off.

Different musics for different times, moods and places. For me, leaping out, waving my hands in the air to HH is just a valid experience as standing in appreciation of some well-produced, thoughtful techno, or sitting down and listening to classicla music in thoughtful contemplation.

I'd say that anyone who doesn't have any form of music in their life that makes them leap about for no reason other than it's fun and fits the music, is missing something in their experiences.
I like the best of the 92 happy stuff. It's just downhill from then onwards. With the 92 stuff,it's party music, but it still has that novelty and chemical flavour to it. With the later stuff, imho, it's an e-rush activating soundtrack. I don't do uppers very often, never have done, always prefered psychedelics.

I could be wrong, but drugs like LSD, mushrooms, hash/skunk etc, were probably not very common at HH raves right?

I think 92-94 darkcore was some of the most mindbending psychedelic music in the rave canon ever. Much more psychedelic, than, say, goa/psy trance, because it wasn't trying too hard.

ian saunders remix
Oldskool Raver
Oldskool Raver
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 9:35 am

Re: do you agree with Cox here?

Post by ian saunders remix » Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:38 pm

dial1 wrote:
I like the best of the 92 happy stuff. It's just downhill from then onwards. With the 92 stuff,it's party music, but it still has that novelty and chemical flavour to it. With the later stuff, imho, it's an e-rush activating soundtrack. I don't do uppers very often, never have done, always prefered psychedelics.

I could be wrong, but drugs like LSD, mushrooms, hash/skunk etc, were probably not very common at HH raves right?
Nope, and you're right that the HH is not really a psychedelic environment, it's music firmly aimed at ecstacy. Jungle for the weed people, LSD and mushrooms for the Psy-Trance peeps, Special Brew for the gabba heads and a glass of piss-weak lemon cordial for the Progressive house peeps :D

dial1
Regular
Regular
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 4:17 am

Re: do you agree with Cox here?

Post by dial1 » Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:47 pm

ian saunders remix wrote:
dial1 wrote:
I like the best of the 92 happy stuff. It's just downhill from then onwards. With the 92 stuff,it's party music, but it still has that novelty and chemical flavour to it. With the later stuff, imho, it's an e-rush activating soundtrack. I don't do uppers very often, never have done, always prefered psychedelics.

I could be wrong, but drugs like LSD, mushrooms, hash/skunk etc, were probably not very common at HH raves right?
Nope, and you're right that the HH is not really a psychedelic environment, it's music firmly aimed at ecstacy. Jungle for the weed people, LSD and mushrooms for the Psy-Trance peeps, Special Brew for the gabba heads and a glass of piss-weak lemon cordial for the Progressive house peeps :D
Goddamn it mate I'm out of weed for the next few days, I just want to roll a kingsize one and put on a ratty tape now... :)

On a slightly related note, I understand why jungle and weed go together perfectly obviously, but I never understood how in certain places in the North, such as Doncaster and even Scotland, there was not the massive late 92 comedown? Like how did people cane the Es all the way through from 91-99?

London djs like Billy Bunter and Slipmatt always confused me in this regard. Like I'm assuming they did their fair share of pills (as did their crowds) but how did they pursue their unswervingly happy courses? I don't think i'd physically be able to do that as a raver if I was caning the uppers.

It's as if the comedown never really existed in HH. It really confuses me. how was that possible?

Just a thought... :)

dial1
Regular
Regular
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 4:17 am

Re: do you agree with Cox here?

Post by dial1 » Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:59 pm

@ian saunders remix

Correct me if I am wrong, but one of Scotland's dnb djs (DJ Kid if I recall correctly) had objects thrown at him when he tried to play breakbeats?

Locked