Talk:Techno/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Terminology

See also the Redirection proposal thread, below.

Aren't there things called Techno other than a genre of music? Moved Techno to Techno Music. --Justfred, sometime prior to 26 February 2002 (history not available)

Trance vs Techno

The article says "similar to trance but lacking the features that distinguish trance from techno". Okay, so what are those features? Vicki Rosenzweig 12:41, 10 August 2002 (UTC)

Yeah, who wrote that crap? I ditched that line and mentioned trance as being an offshoot that is relatively minimal, psychedelic and repetitive (and often formulaic). It is kind of hard to describe. Very few people who have the musicology background and vocabulary to be accurate in their descriptions are going to be fans of trance :) --Mjb 08:56, 6 September 2002

well, I would have put "trance was spawned as a more melodic version of techno, aimed to appeal to the masses," or something like that... It seems to me that trance went off in a seperate direction, as many people don't appreciate the pure rhythms in techno and they need melodies, vocals, or both to be able to enjoy a piece of music. If you listen closely to trance, it has hardly any interesting percussion rhythms but has an over-bearing melody, whereas techno lacks the melody and has very subtle rhythmic percussion parts. --malcolm33 15:21, 12 July 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure 'melody' is the right word. I think in trance there is often a 'lead' instrument that is relatively tonal, but the figures it plays are more often than not highly repetitive and (I think?) it essentially fills the role that in music closer to funk & rock would normally be handled by either a rhythm guitar, or it's just a transposed bass line (i.e., 303 territory). Also it seems -- and this is not suprising -- that based on how the trance music article looks right now, people have very short memories and don't know / aren't aware of what it was like when trance was emerging. There is more of a tendency to link today's trance only to the early 1990s Eurodance scene (which was melodic), which isn't wrong, but conveniently omits other parts of the history that have dead-ended or have yet to be re-embraced -- stuff that doesn't sound as much like trance today but that IIRC was called trance back then: Psychick Warriors of Gaia being my favorite (counter-)example, 1988-91 Psychic TV, later things like Drum Club, Horizon 222, and the 1991-92 'acid trance techno' of many Berlin and Cologne based artists. All of this stuff was most certainly trance (at the time, not just in retrospect), but try playing it for some kid who started raving in 1999 and telling them this is part of where trance comes from... Anyway, point being: whatever the distinguishing factors between trance and techno are, I'm not sure it's a simple as just 'melody'. At the very least, I'd be more comfortable with saying something more like 'repetitive, tonal, harmonic figures in the lower midrange / vocal registers'... but even that seems... I don't know. - mjb 19:15, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Either way trance really shouldn't be listed as a sub-genre of techno as it's a different music style that has diverged notably since it's inception. Today the two share little in common, the only thing that really should be mentioned as a sub-genre is perhaps tech-trance which is a crossover genre like tech-house. As for the difference, techno tends to be more percussive and groove orientated, but it's a difficult thing to pin down... spiralx 22:10, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Every attempt to describe a genre is contentious, it seems. Personally, I think the way it is phrased now is mostly sufficient; my recollection is that trance was, like some of the others, an "offshoot", or at least a genre far more heavily influenced by techno than by any other, that has since evolved into what is regarded now as a genre distinct from techno. There still are a fair number of similarities, though, such as the emphasis on 4-on-the-floor percussion and the dominance of synthetic over sampled timbres.

The fact that it's so hard to quantify and express exactly what the differences are between techno and trance makes it difficult to support anyone's case one way or the other. Producers of early '90s acid house, trance and European techno did not seem to be interested in making such distinctions, and the fact that trance might've come into existence even if techno hadn't is not relevant to me —as I sort of mentioned in the IDM thread below, genres and their component works, like the musicians producing them, are rarely oblivious and independent; they're almost always informed by and derived from each other, to varying degrees.

I'd say that at best, genres are collective "tendencies" rather than discrete categories, and we should seek to describe them in such terms. Suggestions appreciated, as I'm not very good at it, myself. I do agree that tech-trance should be mentioned, at least, as there's a lot more of that emerging now. - mjb 04:27, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course genres are tendancies and not rigid categories but at the same time they do have a meaning and we use them here to break things down in a sensible manner. In the genre page trance is listed as a main heading and not a subheading... so it seems that there it's not defined as a sub-genre. Similarly breakbeat and so on have their own category despite evolving from hardcore and jungle. And anyway, surely house is just a sub-genre of disco if trance is a sub-genre of techno ;)

Hmm, to be honest I think it would be clearer if that section was split into two - "Substyles" and "Related genres". I wouldn't have any problem with that then.

As an aside, is hardcore a subgenre of techno? I would've said it was related at best; it came from rave music. Additionally it evolved into jungle rather than drum and bass, will make that change now. spiralx 16:36, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to substyles and related genres. The thing I want to make clear is that the reason it is written the way it is now is mainly just because I was trying to talk about the development of techno chronologically, which is fairly straightforward until you get to that 1990-1992 period where the genre fragmented. I feel it is important to talk about the ways in which it fragmented, and the fact that during that period you had an awful lot of music under the "techno" banner even though it was not all that similar to what was on Rushton's compilation nor was it very similar to what was considered "pure" or "Detroit" style in later years. For example, the inclusion of a breakbeat and vocal samples did not prevent what was otherwise a pounding 909 track from being called techno (or techno-rave or hardcore techno-rave or what have ya). More drawn-out, trancey arrangements such as much of the stuff on the Rising High and Harthouse label did not preclude a track from being called techno either. There's even stuff that was kind of housey that was still techno, from "Strings of Life" to "Next Is The E". Over time, some styles became "related genres" and others are still just "styles". I feel it is important to acknowledge that in hindsight we tend to apply our current ideas of What Is Techno and What Is Trance to what was, at the time, much less obvious distinctions in style.

However in any case I feel the category "rave music" has always been ill-defined and is undeserving of acknowledgement as a genre, despite the fact that someone gave it an article on here. There has always been a "ravey" sound like old Lords of Acid, Praga Khan, etc. but to say "hardcore came from rave music" is like saying "acid jazz came from rap", to me...

As for jungle/d'n'b, again it was a case of going chronologically and trying to focus on techno's fragmentation. I wanted to convey that the (UK) 'hardcore' style of techno emerged and quickly evolved into a separate genre, and I wanted to point people to the place to read about that history, without summarizing it all here.. hence the link to the d'n'b article which was much better than the jungle one, last time I looked, which was a very long time ago! So I'm fine with the change. - mjb 01:54, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So if we separate the two then should we make it clear that the subgenre section refers to modern disctinctions in techno? As you say it was a fairly vague term up until the early 90s, the "genre-ification" (ugh what a horrible word!) of things then has left techno as a still very broad sound but less so than it previous would've been, and you've started getting more defined styles of the music. spiralx 16:02, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Trance has very little to do with true techno, and most techno really has nothing to do with techno either. The true definition of techno for me is electronic beat music which has a large dose of soul. Without the soul it is not true techno. Techno is just the continued development of soul music from the late seventies/early eighties onwards. Hugely influenced by seventies European Electronic performers(Kraftwerk/Tangerine Dream/etc) with a large dose of Funk and soul from the US developed the techno formula. Trance is a tepid line from techno which has taken the breakdown to stupid lengths. There is no soul. True techno is not repetitive,there are continual subtle changes giving it a much more live feel. — Russell O'Dell 29 Jun 2005

I am also in agreement trance has nothing to do with techno. Commercial trance/vocal trance is pop flavored version of trance with long-buildup's and the simple chord progressions. There are more prevelant sub-genre of trance which are more musically oriented, but discussion is on techno which has very little to do with trance. -Wikilurker 16:42, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

spiral x makes a crucial point with his comments about Rising High. I would also like to say "sub-genre" isn't a good way to label music. hip-hop isn't a sub-genre of jazz or funk, and electro not a sub-genre of "krautrock" (pardon the misnomer, I'm only trying to make a point about sub-generes). Early 90's "trance" is hard to identify because it was in it's infancy. Artists like Balil from were narrowly labeled as trance because of a few releases. In the same regard he could also narrowly be described as Detroit techno(which is closer to the vein). I would say that the division between the "infancy" of trance and trance as it's own musical genre happened with the emphasis of "epic" chord progressions. Check thetrance wikipedia under Musicology and styles [2nd paragraph] for a better description. Trance came from techno, and now is a separate entity of its own..

I think "substyles" should be changed to "The Influence of Techno" to avoid subjective arguments over music. Also, is anybody for expanding "Detroit area techno producers" to "Detroit techno producers"? Detroit's influence had spread far across the globe by the 90's. --Bunterabend 23:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Most people, while claiming to 'love techno' may have no idea that they're listening to trance, or vice-versa. It seems to me that Trance is, as said above a more melodic sounding genre, but as I would like to point out, is more 'out there' in regards to the sound being almost 'echoey' and slightly ambient, if you will. Techno on the other hand is more about hard beats and loud hits. I would say from personal experience that trance would apply more to quiet people, whereas techno would appeal to those more expressive and energetic. In more general terms, Techno is like sugar - hard and full of raw energy. Trance is like maple syrup - it's a smoother and a little more merged as a whole. -Neil McCooeye Dec 30/05

Jazz in Techno / IDM

I fixed the IDM bit, (the only really jazz sounding IDM act I know of is Amon Tobin, and he isn't thought of as being pure IDM for the most part.) However, I'm not sure if it should even be here. It is rarely used in conjunction with techno. Some of the more popular bits sometimes get play in clubs, but these bits are usually less idm-ish, and are not representative of the bulk of the sub-genre. Ioa 03:42 Oct 9, 2002 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, IDM is not all quirky blippy glitch-techno, nor is it just whatever Richard D. James is producing at the moment. There is lots of jazzy IDM, actually, especially in the genre's early years. Kirk Degiorgio (As One) and Uwe Schmidt (Atom Heart, Lisa Carbon Trio) and their labels account for a large chunk of it. Stasis' "Funky Purple Hotpants" and some of B12's work can't be ignored. Innerzone Orchestra is most definitely jazzy IDM. How much does it have to borrow from jazz (e.g. certain chord progressions, improvisation/randomness) before it can be called jazzy? And there tends to be more jazz in IDM than in techno, I think. As for whether IDM should be mentioned on the techno page, I'd say definitely. It did not appear out of a vacuum, it clearly has been and continues to be the "non-dancefloor" branch/offshoot of techno, so your argument that it's not played in clubs is missing the point. mjb 07:45 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)

Beginnings and House Influences

Techno is a form of electronic music that was originally developed in the mid-1980s by a small group of African-American men who were attending college near Detroit, Michigan.

Specifically, these musicians are Juan Atkins, Derrick May, and Kevin Saunderson, who all grew up in Detroit. I'll come back later to clean up the references and add a bit of history. Just a bit.

They all went to high school in Belleville. Cybotron's studio was in Ypsilanti, where Juan and Rik were going to community college. Eventually they all ended up in the city of Detroit. Perhaps it's splitting hairs, but I really think the music's origins are in the "Detroit area".

Detroit Techno began as a relatively mechanical, high-tech offshoot of the soulful, post-disco sound of Chicago house music and its drug-influenced variant Acid House.

This sort of thing has been bandied about numerous times. The problem may be that what has come to be called "techno" embraces a much larger genre of music than what started in Detroit. That said, Detroit Techno means something very specific.

Detroit Techno is not an offshoot of Chicago House or Acid House. Atkins et al. were inspired by Kraftwerk, Parliament, and others. More on this later. I'm working on the page for Juan Atkins, a.k.a. Model 500, Cybotron, Infiniti. --Rethunk 18:41, 9 February 2003

By the same token, "techno" has been retroactively applied to much music that predates Rushton's 1988 coinage of the term. I didn't agree with the acid house connection per se (someone else wrote that), and in hindsight I would have edited it to clarify. But it's fairly well documented that the term was coined to describe Detroit's spin on house music. Granted, it didn't begin in 1983-85 as a house offshoot, but that's where it was by 1988-89, when the word was very deliberately adopted to describe the sound being produced by Atkins/May/Saunderson/Fowlkes et.al. at that time -- a sound that was influenced by house's disco beat, repeating bassline, and stumbling snares, as opposed to the stabby, un-groovy, Latin-electro-freestyle sound that was dominating the mainstream clubs at the time. See http://music.hyperreal.org/library/machine_soul.html for confirmation of this (search for Rushton), as well as Dan Sicko's Techno Rebels book. And listen to the music -- Saunderson's work around this time, especially, but May's, too. mjb 08:47 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made some significant edits to drop the acid house reference, clarify techno's relationship to house, clarify the retroactive application of the term "techno" to pre-1988 music, and mention "pure" Detroit techno as being a subgenre in its own right. I've also added references to the DEMF, the Electrifying Mojo, the famous "stuck in an elevator" quote, and (mis)perceptions of techno as being "white" music. mjb 16:11 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

Links and Misc

Whoever keeps adding ryanandpaul-dot-com to the external links needs to be a bit more mature and stop using Wikipedia for their own self-promotion. This is an informative article about techno music, and the links are chosen for their direct relevance to the genre. The links are best kept to "for further academic reference", IMHO, not "if you like this subject, maybe you'll like this site".

While the r+p site tries to present itself as being broad in scope and massive in size, as of this writing, it still has almost no actual content whatsoever, and the first message board posts are just promoting their own CD. They're clearly just trying to drive up traffic to their site and get higher rankings in Google by being linked in more places. I'm sorry, but until a separate category of external links in which sites like theirs can be listed is warranted, I intend to keep removing their spam. mjb 07:25, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Yorkshire Bleeps and Bass

Just added this little sub section. A friend has argued that music coming out of the Midlands at the same time, on Network records in particular, is the same but I think otherwise - Network stuff is much more Detroit sounding. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebbish (talk • contribs) 09:34, 27 August 2004 (UTC)

The UK scene was to intertwined to really divide along city lines. Sure Yorkshire - Warp in Sheffield, Beaumont Hannant in York, Warehouse and Orbit in Leeds all played a part. Without whom we wouldnt have had LFO, Sweet Exorcist, Kirk Degorgio etc etc but at the same time Neil Rushton and NEtwork in Birmingham were giving us Derrick May and Kevin Saunderson and Altern 8. They both did their thing, influenced each other, made a few bob and gave us some quality tunes, but they were also made up of many people from London and MAncester. it was a great time mind you. In fact Manchester is best known for baggy indie music but is arguably more importan than both Yorkshire and the midlands for introducing and maintaining electronica in Britain and Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desy balmer (talk • contribs) 10:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Technopunk

Is this a real subgenre? I've never heard of it before, Discogs lists a whole 3 records by Kid Twist which are listed on old jungle labels not techno ones... spiralx 15:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm inclined to delete it too. --Lexor|Talk 14:05, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Moby et al as techno "pioneers"

As pointed out by an anonymous editor on the main page (and removed for being in the wrong place) I don't think anyone should claim that Moby or FSOL or in any way techno pioneers. Or particularly techno at all. Anyone object to editing that bit? spiralx 15:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hahaha, how do u separate opinion from fact? I would really say I pioneer was Eurythmics but I know that is probably wrong too. This article has too many viewers and is too religious for me to fix anything but spelling mistakes. Bah, moby... I do however love that Ishkur's guide - religiously --x1987x 01:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Moby reference in this article is actually incorrect - as it states he began his career in this genre, when he actually started playing in a punk band before arriving in electronic music. That, and Moby certainly wasn't a pioneer by any stretch of the imagination. As for FSOL, they were actually producing electronic music as 1984 (under the moniker, Humanoid - see Humanoid Session 84-88). Some of these tracks were then used on the Stakker Eurotechno video that many cite as being a key moment in dance music/video crossover and design. A man who knows what he knows and knows what he doesn't know, is the sign of a man who knows. 21:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Detroits Role

Got a question. The role of Detroit music on the world: From Berry Gordy and the DOzzier bros to Mike Banks and the Burden Brothers: From Jazz and Motown to Hitechnfunk and technosoul. What do you think? Is there a cultural element at play? Whay does the afro-Caribean ancestry predominate? I am writing a piece for some Uk and Irish media and would appreciate some other points of view. My goal is to find a link between the soul of Jackie Wilson and Martha Reeves etc and Kenny Larkin and Stacey Pullen etc. Conversley, is Detroit that important? Should we be looking at Chicago or NYC instead? Anyway, I apreciate any info. you can email me direct or simply keep this thread going. Thanks. Desy Balmer 10:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Hardcore genres

Why does the substyles section contain so much about hardcore - hardcore, gabba, speedcore, Tartan techno etc etc? None of these are techno, hardcore is a different style of music altogether with different origins and different scenes. Surely all of these should be under a category of "Hardcore music genres" instead of here? spiralx 16:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can reasonably claim that "none of these are" (or were/started out as) techno, but to answer your first question, they're there because people added them. I think the article should still mention that there is a 'hardcore' branch of techno styles (initially Rotterdam, Lenny Dee, Drop Bass etc.) that, perhaps, as you say, have been increasingly sharing more in common with other hardcore music styles than with 'pure' techno, and that these are different from 'hard' techno as well as the 'hardcore' (as in, …you know the score/oh my god it's 1991 and those Brits have already ruined techno with all these breakbeats, buzzy noises, drug references and shouting about how they can't sleep and arguing about whether James Brown is alive or dead) that became jungle.

I think gabber/gabba has been mentioned enough in the press to warrant an acknowledgement, but it is not necessary or relevant to name every 'somethingcore' and 'adjective techno', and that's why I cut these down a bit in the prose and moved them out from under the prominent list. However I did not touch the infobox yet, because if there are articles about them, they should probably be linked from somewhere. I just didn't feel like figuring out a better way to reference them. If you feel like making some edits, go for it. — mjb 17:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hardcore came from a combination of the rave scene and house when rave changed into hardcore and jungle... there's been crossovers and influencing, but there's crossing over in all genres amd we still have them ;) I'll make some edits spiralx 22:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, actually, the ill-defined 'rave' or 'ravey techno' sound isn't really mentioned and probably should be. How best to nail it down, though? It overlaps with and contributed to UK hardcore and piano-infused house, which together bleed into happy hardcore… the thing is, we really know it when we hear it! — mjb 00:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that the breakbeat hardcore article says 'rave' is another name for that style of music. Hmm. — mjb 17:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree they're the same, although I've never heard the term breakbeat hardcore used anywhere else, and it seems to be redefining the earlier genre as a subtype of the later one. I've left this for the minute as I'd need to create a new template for hardcore and do a lot of reorganisation and I've not had the time at work recently.

Rave seems to me as a halfway house between acid house and the diversification of styles in the UK and Europe, as you say it contains elements of house, hardcore and jungle. Actually the rave music article is pretty good, but it doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the dance music scheme - perhaps it's a good place to start. spiralx 29 June 2005 12:29 (UTC)

I'd agree they're the same, although I've never heard the term breakbeat hardcore used anywhere else

Yes, that's its name. It was called simply "Hardcore" by the English. The breakbeat appellation is because it is totally breakbeat music and this Hardcore differs from Hardcore elsewhere outside of the UK at that time. By 1993 this Hardcore had developed a happy mood - hence "Happy Hardcore". Happy Hardcore again is originally totally breakbeat music - something that is largely unknown in the 21st Century outside of the UK. --Revolt 8 July 2005 12:51 (UTC)

I just noticed that the breakbeat hardcore article says 'rave' is another name for that style of music.

It was played at raves - rave isn't a style - just a place where music is played. Raves musically differ in England and Scotland. The commoner may call it rave music. ie: - "this music is played at my raves" - it's more a description.

As I remember: -

Of 1990-92 England mostly played just Breakbeat Hardcore. By 1993 this was Happy Hardcore and Jungle, and by late 1995 this was Happy Hardcore, Bouncy Techno, Jungle and Drum N Bass.

Scotland played European Techno from Italy, Belgium and a small dose of their own stuff in 1990-92. By 1993 they played their own Bouncy Techno and Gabber. By late 1995 this was Bouncy Techno, Gabber and Happy Hardcore. --Revolt 8 July 2005 12:51 (UTC)

Points of Contention - Styles

Various other styles exist and have a fan base, although the names and encyclopedic notability of these styles are points of contention.

NPOV

Surely that's a point of view mate. You are the one making it a point of contention. In those particular countries they are not "points of contention".

It's saying to me, "these things are incorrect in my opinion - regardless of perhaps their different styles and different histories - they are wrong in my eyes".

It should rather say, "there are several native styles with distinct traits - musically and historically - that are largely self-contained in their own countries. These include..."

That is accurate of Swedish Techno, Scottish Bouncy Techno, Schranz, Makina - things that are/were actively used in their respective places.

If I mentioned Jungle in 1991 - yes 1991 - on here, I'm sure very few would of heard of it and it would of been a "point of contention". This was a self-contained style. Ony through circumstances did it become something larger.

splittercore and wonky techno - never heard of it. --Revolt 8 July 2005 12:58 (UTC)

It is a neutrality issue to the extent that fans of these sub-sub-sub-genres are trying to elevate their notability by presenting them in Wikipedia as if they are on par with the major waves of techno/techno-ish music that were globally popular and significantly influenced the development of other forms of electronic music, if not combining with other forms and splitting off into new genres of their own. The existence of, say, Swedish techno (or even splittercore), and the fact that it has distinct traits and ought to be acknowledged somewhere, is not a point of contention with me. What is a point of contention — as demonstrated by the fact that we're willing to get into a reversion war over this — is whether they meet the Wikipedia guidelines for

• Importance,
• Notability and
• Verifiability.

The policies themselves, and whether or not an article or topic meets them, are a matter of emerging, ongoing consensus. The music notability guidelines, in particular, are brand new and don't yet address genres (but probably should). Fans of these styles really want them to have their own articles, and they want those articles to be linked from somewhere, so they are dropping them into the techno article with little/no regard for neutrality. If you were to introduce techno music to someone who knows nothing about it whatsoever, would you mention the R&S and Rising High labels' early '90s trance/techno/trancey-techno and the relatively ultra-obscure mid-2000s hardcore-techno wave "splittercore" in the same breath? Would you devote an hour to analyzing what makes Schranz distinct from hard/hardcore? That's what people are trying to do here, and call me crazy, but that's just people taking advantage of the opportunity to treat Wikipedia like a message board, and is not essential to providing the newcomer or 'average' techno fan — the target audience — with an introduction to, or a deeper understanding of, techno in general.

Factors that are influencing my POV include:

• Genres, especially electronic music ones, are very intertwined; none exist in a total vacuum, and they're generally retroactive, so at the time they were emerging, the music was not categorized the same as it is now. When exactly did trance become trance and not just what in hindsight we'd call trancey-techno, trancey-technoey-house, trancey-acid-house, hard-ish trancey-industrial-digeridoo-breaks, etc.? Is it necessary to pin that down in order to understand what techno is, or is it better to just focus on the fact that it happened?
• Style/genre names generally don't solidify until they are published in the music press, or, as in the case of techno, incorporated into the title of a popular compilation. Is there a This is Splittercore Vol. III out yet? Reviewers and publicists writing press releases sometimes try to coin genre names, but in general, the only ones that stick are those that are cited in multiple music magazines. I challenge someone to cite sources (another policy) that would stand up to scholarly peer review on these little-known genres.
• In the case of these little-known genre names, I bet half the people producing the music in them don't even know that's what some people are calling it. We must distinguish between the existence of a style/genre and consensus on what name(s) it has. If I go into a shop that specializes in techno records and ask them to point me to the 'wonky techno', will I be checking out music that is in the same style as whatever the person who stuck 'wonky techno' in Wikipedia had in mind? I am skeptical. If I ask about 'Swechno' I'm likely to get a "huh?" but if I ask for 'Swedish techno' I am more likely to get a favorable response, and I bet that's the case for many others as well. Therefore do we write about Swechno and say that some people call it Swedish techno, or vice-versa? I am hesitant to promote one name over the other, especially when one of them is clearly a made-up term rather than a qualified version of an existing one. I'd rather try to document it more objectively, but others seem to disagree with that approach, hence it is a point of contention.
• How do I know the name wonky techno, not the fact that there are tunes that could be lumped into that category, isn't completely made-up by whoever wrote the article? I never heard Bleep referred to as Yorkshire Bleeps and Bass before, and I remember reading a lot of articles back in the early '90s that called it Bleep, and that's what researchers are going to care about, so I want it to be clear that what someone decided to call it here in Wikipedia is not necessarily ideal. Same applies to these other genres.

Again, I am not debating the current or past existence of these styles; I'm just trying to document the fact that there is some debate over how these styles are best acknowledged. — mjb 8 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and yes I agree on that. I don't likely follow Techno or the new styles of the 21st century as closely as you - I followed the British rave scene of the 1990s. As such I don't care for Swedish, Schranz and cannot tell them apart.

However Bouncy Techno covers: -

Importance - there was thousands near weekly at these British raves mostly playing Bouncy Techno - more so in the north of Britain. Remember this is the cultural equivalent of the breakbeat rave scene found anywhere below Newcastle in the 1990s.

Notability - there was indeed stuff entering the Top 100 UK chart, Top 10 Scottish of the 1990s and one artist later sold 2 million units elsewhere in a different group.

and it did "influence the development of other forms of electronic music, if not combining with other forms and splitting off into new genres of their own" as documented with credible citations in the article.

Yes, class it as less known if you will - that is what is it (in retrospect breakbeat hardcore and jungle was less known here in the culture of north Britain), but I find it perplexing that what was such a large genuine movement is sharing space with total nonsene. It sould not be sharing the same line or paragraph with Wonky or whatever else. Wonka and the like should be demoted to lower area of the page until the above points are covered.

The point I'm making is already discussed it in the Techno music article here >

"A spate of techno-influenced releases by new producers in 1991–92 resulted in a rapid fragmentation... Many of these producers were based in the UK... places where techno had gained a huge following and taken a crucial role in the development of the club and rave scenes. Many of these new tracks in the fledgling IDM, trance and hardcore/jungle genres took the music in more experimental and drug-influenced directions than techno's originators intended"

It mentions the UK but only the south based stuff "IDM, trance and hardcore/jungle genres" - nothing that happened in the north of Britain. If you are looking to reflect history, then this early 1990s UK style should not be lumped with Wonka Techno. That is really what happened. Though no great achivement - the scene also had several drug releated deaths - one of which is mentioned in Hanger 13 with article - tied in perfectly with the Techno music description for the UK.

--Revolt 12:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I think we're more or less on the same page; it's not so much that there isn't "room" for heretofore-overlooked styles and genres, it's just a matter of context, really. To hop back and forth between talking about major, minor, and regional styles without giving the reader any sense of the relative importance of each just makes it a mess. I think this aspect of the article will probably be difficult to sort out for some time to come.

As for ignoring northern Britain's influence, I was trying to describe how late-1980s Detroit techno was connected, via the UK scene, to IDM, jungle and trance, all of which had become well-established, long-lasting genres by the end of 1993. In hindsight, I see that I ended up writing it such that it sounds like the UK scene was nothing but those 3 genres, and for that I apologize. Feel free to clean it up a bit, or I'll take a stab it sooner or later. — mjb 05:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Yeah we're on the same page. I see what you are trying to achieve. With the monster Techno - it's pretty hard.

This somewhat ties in with the hardcore thing above and this contention thing. Without opening up a can of worms (ie: - more work) I don't know who controls all this stuff but I can add other stuff or opinions on things. For instance the Techno footer banner.

Detroit - Hardcore - 4-beat - Gabba - Ghettotech - Happy hardcore - Minimal - Rave - Nortec

4-beat and Happy hardcore are IMO the same thing - different term. Happy hardcore didn't come directly from Techno, rather it's from this "Breakbeat Hardcore" - a thing played at raves in the UK.

Really these UK rave hardcore things can go in their own section.

Nortec I guess is some form of country / area specific? Detroit is too and it isn't. Perhaps these worldwide powerful things you describe at the top tier of the footer and the bona fide country specific, or things that don't have greater worldwide power underneath. Something like: -

Acid techno - Detroit - Hardcore techno - Hardcore (UK) - Rave

then under this

Bleep - Ghettotech - Minimal - Nortec - Schranz - Scottish Rave - Swedish - etc.

Speedcore that's sitting in the Techno style section can come out of that and go under the "Hardcore techno" or some other suitable term) footer part -

Hardcore Techno

Breakcore - Digital hardcore - Gabber - Hardcore (UK) [see below] - Hardstyle - Makina - New beat - Nu style gabber - Speedcore - Terrorcore

Bouncy Techno can come out and go in the Hardcore (UK) footer consisting of...

Bouncy Techno - Breakbeat Hardcore - Freeform - Happy Hardcore - Hardcore Techno [see above] - Trancecore - UK Hardcore

--Revolt 10:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I think I'm agreeing with the various things said here - and definitely agree that a lot of sub-genres are a matter of taste. I wrote the articles on Schranz and wonky techno as I felt that they were both reasonably well-defined genres and the terms are in common use in the techno scene today - searching Google for either will get you articles, mixes, record shops and so on with the appropriate music. Certainly Schranz is a large scene today in Europe - wonky techno less so but it's still played around the world. spiralx 15:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Somewhat confoozled

Hmmm.... I'm stymied and my face hurts! I just listened to what is supposedly the "first wave" of artists often credited with inventing techno (Juan Atkins, Derrick May, Kevin Saunderson) It's enjoyable, but it just sounds exactly like John Foxx, Visage, Gary Numan and Kraftwerk, and so on; and yet with the exception of Kraftwerk, there is no mention in this article of these earlier artists. How come Juan Atkins, Derrick May and Kevin Saunders are considered "Techno" while other artists that were doing the same style of music before them are not? As for the term Techno being used to describe a genre of music, I recall hearing the term commonly used to describe electronic dance music since around 1984. In many of these "History of Techno" articles, I am amazed that there is a total lack of credit given to such artists as Cabaret Voltaire, the Normal, Yello, Yazoo, Chris & Cosey, the Art of Noise, etc. I don't understand this omission. Why do the time-lines so frequently skip from 1977-era Kraftwerk to the late 80s Detroit scene? I suppose this is confusing to me, having grown up referring to a particular type of music as Techno and now being told by people considerably younger than me that this music isn't Techno. But then again, the same thing happened with Punk and Industrial. I have been told that Throbbing Gristle and Skinny puppy aren't Industrial, and that the Sex Pistols and Crass aren't Punk. Gah. Who needs labels anyway? LOL.

24.70.95.203 02:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

It's really interesting to hear your perspective. As for the skip from '77 Kraftwerk to late-'80s Detroit, in the article, I wrote:

Many people believed that "techno" music comes from urban England.

The music's producers were using the word "techno" in a general sense as early as 1984 (as in Cybotron's seminal classic "Techno City"), and sporadic references to an ill-defined "techno-pop" could be found in the music press in the mid-1980s. However, it was not until Neil Rushton assembled the compilation Techno! The New Dance Sound Of Detroit for Virgin Records (UK) in 1988 that the word came to formally describe a genre of music.

Techno has since been retroactively defined to encompass, among others, works dating back to "Shari Vari" (1981) by A Number Of Names, the earliest compositions by Cybotron (1981), Donna Summer and Giorgio Moroder's "I Feel Love" (1977), and the more danceable selections from Kraftwerk's repertoire between 1977 and 1983.

…which are all true statements, as far as I know. The retroactive application of the genre name is very subjective. Sometimes it seems to be applied based less on the style of music and more on how well a track would 'fit' in a modern techno DJ's mix set (which is something that changes over time) or whether Detroiters remember it being played on Midnight Funk Association or at The Music Institute (and my guess is they probably did play tons of Yello, Art of Noise, Cabaret Voltaire, etc. back then). The 1983 classic "Blue Monday" by New Order might be called techno by some, but I didn't mention it because I wouldn't be able to cite a reference for that connection, whereas the others ("Shar Vari", "I Feel Love", Kraftwerk, Cybotron) are all very well-documented 'proto-techno' in articles and books I have on the subject.

What to call crossover and proto-genre music is a challenge. I personally don't consider any of the music that predates 'Techno City' (Cybotron, 1984) or that originates from outside of Detroit prior to 1988 to be techno, but my opinion isn't worth much when there are so many kids out there who really want techno to be more than that. And the way genres work, that's the way it goes; fans with their scenes and the music press with their descriptive coinages create all the boundaries. You seem to be coming from the perspective that there isn't much difference between "Strings of Life", "Bostich", "Situation", and "Close (to the Edit)" in the grand scheme of things, which, however true, sounds like someone saying that all music played by orchestras is "classical". For many, these pieces of music have distinct origins, are coming from completely different approaches to song production, and have very little in common stylistically. — mjb 19:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Redirection proposal

This refers to when the "Techno" article was a disambiguation page pointing to an article for the "techno-" prefix and the "Techno music" article.

At the moment there a two options: Techno- (if you have arrived at this dab looking for this, then you have made a typo) or Techno music. Soon (unless there is objection) I'll redirect to Techno music and delete the dab - it serves no purpose.--Commander Keane 19:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Support: Reviewed article and agree with your viewpoint Thaagenson 16:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. --Commander Keane 15:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

See my comments in Talk:Techno. Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wiktionary:techno- exists, I suggest putting Techno- through the VfD process. I am ambivalent about whether to move Techno music here or just leave the redirect. I don't a strong case for a move; other genres have ' music' suffixes in their entry names. — mjb 20:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Page move?

This refers to when this article's title was Techno music.

Currently Techno redirects here. Although in the opening sentence this article refers to itself at "Techno" it's located at Techno music. Is it a good idea to move this article to Techno?--Commander Keane 15:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The techno music article started out at Techno but was moved here so that Techno could be used for disambiguation. You claimed on Talk:Techno that it served no purpose as a disambig page because the article on the prefix 'techno' is named Techno-. I disagree with your reasoning; the answer to "what is 'techno'" is "a prefix meaning technological, or a genre of music", and there are articles for both, so there must be a disambig page. If anything, Techno- should be renamed to Techno (prefix).

On second thought, no. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The Techno- article should be VfD'd since it is nothing more than a Wiktionary entry. This leaves only the Techno music article, so there does not need to be a disambig page. I'm ambivalent on whether to move this article back to Techno or just leave the redirect. — mjb 20:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

i'd argue for a move from techno music to techno. only a very small minority of music genre articles have "_music" in their title (and you can count on the fingers of one hand the genre names that actually use the word music, i.e., intelligent dance music, electronic body music, um..). --MilkMiruku 22:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

so, any objections to this article being moved to techno? --MilkMiruku 16:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article on disco is just called "disco," not "disco music." And the article on Moby is just called "Moby," not "Moby (musician)." It's something to think about. I personally vote "techno" for certain. It already redirects here, so why not? --Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 19:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Genre Classification

As I read the article and read through comments, it is apparent to me the amount of confusion in classification between the genres. For example, this article on techno states that IDM and trance are sub-genres of techno, while the article on electronic music puts techno as a seperate genre from IDM and trance (this form is more correct.) Techno is defined by it's more machine-like sound, and although it often uses the same form of a drum beat (the classic 4/4 house beat)that is used by house, trance, and hardcore, there are plenty of other defining characteristics between the grenres. I propose that we use Ishkur's method of classifying the genres. He classifies electronic music with seven main genres: house, trance, techno, breakbeat, jungle, hardcore and downtempo. Each of these genres has tons of sub-genres. Here's the guide for those that haven't seen it. It's an amazing site, and despite Ishkur's sarcasm, the work he did in defining the genres is unprecedented. TheDapperDan 13:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

i'd say there's nothing really flawed with the overall electronic music genre setup on wikipedia, but there is as you mention a problem with this article. it needs a bit of a cleanup, something i can do in the next couple of days (that is if someone doesn't get around to it before me). btw, if you haven't already seen it, there's an Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music article --MilkMiruku 16:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Americans

ever notice how americans label all kinds of dance music to be techno, regardless of whether its trance, or house. --Doriandixon 09:47, March 4 2006

yeah, which is why the article sates at the end of the first paragraph "The term "techno" is also often used in North America and Europe to describe all forms of electronic dance music." :) --MilkMiruku 11:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me to be more of just an American thing...since Wikipedia is supposed to be an international reference, shouldn't we go with the genre classifications from Europe? Except for rap, electronic music forms are much more popular in Europe. What i'm trying to say is that I would like to redo everything on electronic music in Wikipedia to fit Ishkur's classification style...is there any opposition? For example, on this techno music page, I would remove the sub-genres IDM and trance (IDM is a form of jungle, trance is a seperate genre all together...at least according to Ishkur). Instead, there would be stuff like Detroit Techno, Acid Techno and Classic. TheDapperDan 03:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider doing so because Ishkur has hardly any idea of what he is talking about. He's more bias than he is helpful on telling about the subject. For one Nintendocore isn't an actual EDM genre and if it were it'd probably go into Computer music or Electronic Art Music, perhaps elsewhere. Of course this is how I feel. I think Wikipedia does a far better job. Odd Faden 11:29, March 6, 2006

Sure, there are biases and obvious quirks, but do you really have a problem with the seven main genres classification system? Ishkur's guide traces each genre back to the 70's and shows where they intersect and diverge. Currently, this article claims that techno's sub-genres include hardcore and other hardcore sub-genres like gabba and rave. The house music article (more accurately) claims the same. The trance music article also claims to have hardcore as a sub-genre.

Aside from the sub-genre confusion, the hardcore article is titled hardcore techno and constantly refers to itself as hardcore techno. Hardcore genres have much more in common with house than with techno. Hardcore and house both use the same house beat, while techno is often breakbeat. Hardcore should be refered to as hardcore, hardcore (computer music) or hardcore (electronic music), or if none of those, at least hardcore house.

I'm really interested in overhauling Wikipedia's electronic music classification system, but I would like to see that there's a consensus before I go mucking around with everything. TheDapperDan 20:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

ishkur's guide is handy for general reference and samples (see talk:hardcore dance music for an example), but every electronic dance muso i've spoken to about the guide agrees that there are many flaws, both minor and major. it's also massivly POV too. while i agree that the incorrect references to idm and trance on this article need to be changed, the thing about house and techno is that they have both influences each other greatly over the years, first with chicago house and detroit techno, then with acid house and acid techno (and don't forget tech-house ;). btw, idm is a mix of ambient techno (or downtempo, or one of many other similar genres depending on the track) with experimental music techniques, most notably glitch. i was actually planning to work on techno music at some point, but got caught up with creating hardcore dance music and cleaning up it's related articles. go for it if you'd like, if not i'll look at it in the next few days. --MilkMiruku 20:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

sorry, i got bored ;) in regards to hardcore; it depends on what kind of hardcore you're refering to. 'hardcore house' is a lesser-used synonym for gabber, but there's also hard house which is rather different from hardcore. --MilkMiruku 01:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

TheDapperDan: I thought that Wikipedia had already put up a list with the Techno, Trance, House, Jungle, Hardcore, and Downtempo. Although there should be Industrial and Ambient, correct me if I am wrong. While Ishkur's Guide may be reliable to a lot of people, it's not so much that the bias bugs me but the genres that don't exist that are there. Odd Faden 10:10, March 7, 2006

industrial music and ambient music. also, list of electronic music genres gives links to most electronic music genres (never! ;) --MilkMiruku 18:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

you can play a random house, or trance song to your average american, and he will identify it as techno, regardless of the actual genre.

Ever notice the anti-americanism coming from europe? Techno may not be as big in the states as it is in europe, but it's not like you guys really get it either. Techno isn't BIG anywhere, really. And to say that electronic music in general isn't big in the US is ignorant. Are house beats needed for music to be electronic? Come on... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeeekyyy (talk • contribs) 07:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually techno is very big in most of Eastern Europe and in Brazil as well, even discounting healthy scenes in Germany, Sweden and Italy. It's never been big in the UK, but it's remained about as popular as it ever was. And if you include the minimal stuff, then that's been very popular here and across Europe.

It's been a while since I last visited here and I see that some bits have changed but others are still a bit random - we've now got a hardcore dance music category with a fairly comprehensive set of sub-genres, but the main content is under hardcore techno which is still a sub-genre of techno. Surely someone needs to pick one of these pages as the main page for hardcore and merge the two? And then we can get rid of happy hardcore and gabba from the techno sub-genres and either do the same with hardcore or move it to the derivative forms section?

Nortec is a very regional scene and should be under regional scenes not main sub-genres, I wouldn't put schranz there any more either given it's popular across all of Europe and people like DJ Rush play it in the US. Same with Detriot techno, I wouldn't say that because it came from a regional scene it's regional now :) The wonky techno page says it's part of the breakbeat genre, and the hardcore page says schranz is a sub-genre. And weirder, Swechno, which I guess is the same as Swedish techno on the techno page. Neither of which have an artical right now, but it's definitely a regional techno scene.

Digital hardcore should be under hardcore as techno's not listed as being part of the influences on it and gabber is under both techno and hardcore - well I guess that matches the main genre pages, but I don't think they're right :)

I'm sure there'll be objections, but the hardcore pages need to be sorted out. That bit might be better off on the talk pages there, but there's two of them and nobody has said anything in even longer than over here... probably because it's mostly the same people :)

spiralx 08:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

History and artists

the history and artists section has a strong detroit techno leaning. i suggest we eaven things out my moving some of the text over to the other article. any thoughts or objections? --MilkMiruku 14:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Loveparade

The most important event of modern Techno is the Loveparade which is not mentioned in the article about Techno but should be.Since this event was political in Germany for many years and had some years ago even brocken the record of being the biggest open air party in the world with the streets of Berlin filled of Ravers dancing at an estimated 1.5 Million.I am very surprised that this was not mentioned at all or at least linked to Germany in any way on the main Techno article page.Please repair that! any questions>porschemlan, 17:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense

Of course, the whole article is nonsense, because the origins of Techno are most definitely in Germany 10-15 years before "Detroit Techno". --83.135.170.53 13:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. The article does not contradict your claim about the origins of techno. It even accommodates the point of view that some like to apply the term to include music that predates, but is a direct influence on or is stylistically similar to, the mid-1980s music that is widely reported as having been called 'techno' around the time it was being produced. If you wish to pursue the claim that it's nonsense, I suggest you cite some reliable sources that refer to 'techno music' prior to the 1980s, and the use of 'techno-' as a prefix on a word like 'techno-pop' does not count.—mjb 13:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at the German Article of Techno and translate the Url with google to english. Then you maybe see where it is about and that it isn't about the word "Techno" but about the music and where it is developed you maybe see then. --83.135.155.50 06:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:V lately? How about WP:OR? Wikipedia cannot be used as a source of information for claims made in an article about any topic other than "Wikipedia contained this text at this certain point in time." I'm familiar with these forms of music, and frankly, I don't hear the similarities. Krautrock, techno-rock, 1970s progressive rock, whatever you want to call it, it's not techno. Numerous reliable sources already mentioned in the article and that document the history of techno make no such claims. You have to cite sources. —mjb 02:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't the music that Cabaret Voltaire and New Order were doing in the early 80s be loosely classed as 'techno'? If anything, I'd say KRaftwerk were the originators of 'techno' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.135.170.53 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

you could take it back all the way and say that when music moved from tonal to atonal, it took the first step towards being noise, rather than melody, and started way back then to branch off into today's noisy techno. all music is techno -- a piano has something like 8000 moving parts to let the performer make music that couldn't be made with the voice or with a fiddle. a keyboard would have been the peak of musical technology in chopin's day. the well-tempered scale is the result of research into the mathematics of sound, like techno is the result of research into the mathematics of electricity. in my mind, music has always driven technology and technology has always driven music. how's that for devil's advocacy?  : ) 209.82.111.194 17:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)jpx

The history part of the article lacks a lot (!) of parts. You can see it very easily even if you have no knowledge about the whole matter. The reference to Kraftwerk and some other German groups/people doesn't seeem to have any connection to the rest of the story.

Techno evolved in parallel in the USA and Germany in the early 80s that's a matter of fact. The main centers were Detroit, Chicago, New York, Ruhr area, Berlin and Frankfurt (Main). Initially they called their similar music styles rather different (House, EBM, Techno and so forth) which then emerged into one sub culture that still use all these different descriptions but Techno has evolved as the most widely used term for all these kinds of music.

• Yes, it did, at some point of time, become the most widely used term for what should be classified as electronic dance music. But ONLY IN GERMANY (and a few surrounding countries - ie. in Poland (where I'm from) - but we backed away from the use of the term lately, in favour of the "club music"). Squeal 09:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The great brakethrough of techno into mainstream started around 1989/90 with the fall of the Berlin wall in Berlin. There's a reason why Loveparade grew up in Berlin. Techno was especially for eastern german youths the new music of "love, peace and unity". That's why in Germany the techno clothing style is called "Zoni-style" ("Zoni" is on of many slang descriptions for someone coming from the "sovjet ocuppated zone" = the later German Democratic Republic).

There is also the question where and when people started using the word "Techno". The word itself is rather trivial and quite obvious for electronic music. Probably either in Detroit or in Frankfurt (some people claim by Talla 2XLC) people started using Techno for that what we call Techno today. Arnomane 22:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

But how does all that make the history section nonsensical? You can make the claim, this that or the other is not "Techno" (techno-rock, prog-rock, techno-pop, whatever), but the section detailing "techno-rock" was an aside anyway, it merely detailed that there was a use of the word "techno" in music long before "Techno" as we know it today. Personally I think whoever deleted that part of the history should not have been so naive - rather than removing that part of the article altogether, wouldn't it have made more sense to simply move it to the progressive rock article? Deleting the whole Techno-rock section smacks of the old rock/dance rivalry that has been prevalent in the UK since the 1990s (194.63.116.72 13:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC))

Krasimir loves Techno

i'm from bulgaria my name's krasimir i'm from razlog city i'm 15 old my birday is of 09 10 1989 i love techno becose it's very good music.

my favorite dj is dj tiesto and every bary dj from all  word

my e-mail is chimeto@abv.bg please tell me for techno music or fans of techno music i want send me pickture from you . my favorite sing is DJ TIESTO-LOVE COME AGAIN

Um....this is one of the weirder posts I have ever seen in a wiki discussion...and one of the funniest. However, I don't really see the relevance it has to the quality of the article. I'm willing to keep this little post simply because it's funny, tho :) Hypernova2121 04:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this post is obvious POV-pushing. Sources? Sebisthlm 00:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Techno-holic concerns

First of all, people need to stop labeling Kraftwerk "techno"; they're "krautrock", and bands like Tangerine Dream, etc., fall into the ball of "krautrock/kosmische" rock.

The word "techno" was probably used even before Kraftwerk recorded a single song. After all, "techno" is short for "technology". The same with "left field". That term was already in use decades ago.

People vastly overrate Kraftwerk and fail to see that synth wizardy was already being used long before them. Few jazz artists and several rock artists already tinkered with synths (and I don't need to dabble with classical electronical either).

Every genre is going to need some starting point. So give it up to Detroit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.125.133.75 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What the hell is 'Krautrock' about Kraftwerk? I don't hear any guitars on there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.194 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Also, Kraftwerk were the first group I can recall to use synthesized and rhythmic beats to their tracks, making them danceable. Techno is after all, danceable electronic music when the nit picking is put aside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.99 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, not all rock music has guitars. Second, Kraftwerk were krautrock and said so themselves, do your homework. Third, Kraftwerk WERE NOT the first to incorporate synthesizers; rock, pop, and classical already beat them to it, nor were they the first to incorporate "rhythmic beats". Not all techno is danceable, so maybe you need to rethink what "techno" means and the nitpicking will settle. Here's a starting point: krautrock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.125.133.75 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

POV statement

Techno music generally attracts an open crowd: interesting such hardcore music attracts people often with soft approaches to life associated with hippies. NPOV Mjkelley79 22:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Really needed?

Is the distinction that the Belleville Three were african-american really needed? I'm deleting it, if you don't mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.110.212.84 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

And who are you? Sign your posts.

The point (about them being African-American) is related to the last paragraph of the Origins section. I personally don't feel it's a crucial point to make, but at least one of them (Derrick May) has made an issue of it in various interviews, and, well, the jazz and rock music articles make the same distinctions, but you're not complaining about them... mjb 04:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Influenced by progressive rock?

Umm... I'm removing that, it seems totally out of place. Kraftwerk - yes. The rest of the Krautrock bunch - possibly. Progressive rock as a whole - no way. Squeal 09:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you there, Squeal - with its use of sequencers, electronics and analogue sampling in the days before the Fairlight arrived, progressive rock was very influential on electronic music as a whole, and such bands as Rush and The Alan Parsons Project were being referred to as "Techno-Rock" in the 1970s, before the term "techno" became commonplace in music. Personally I think you should have left that section there - even if not totally accurate, it was still relevant. I think you need to be less naive in the way you define the genre, as the word "techno" denotes "technology", and the earliest use of the word "techno" in music were in the progressive rock genre, even if the genre is not strictly related to the "techno" genre as we know it now. It's easy to say to that 'it's not techno just because it has a "techno" prefix' - but then, what IS "techno"? It means different things to different people. (194.63.116.72 13:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC))

Techno music goes really fast. —Flatts 21:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So does death metal! LOL (194.63.116.72 13:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

The use of sequencers, electronics and analogue sampling can be traced back to psychedelic and even pop music of the sixties, and, further back in time, to electronic art music. The "techno" prefix in the term you provided as example was used as an adjective and has absolutely nothing to do with the later musical genre name, which didn't even exist by then. We know what techno is - it's easily defined described in musicologic terms, and shares no similarities with majority of the music belonging to the progressive rock genre. Squeal 18:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You've missed the point. Many Techno pioneers of the 80s were quick to acknowledge the fact that those early pioneers had a major influence on the genre. 'New Wave' is quoted as a major influence on techno in the article, and New Wave is greatly influenced by progressive rock. The likes of Bizarre Inc and all those other cheesy pop bands of the early 90s were also classed as 'Techno' in their time, and they certainly don't fit in with the genre either. This whole debate really is just a matter of opinion and nothing more (194.63.116.72 13:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

As a fan of both prog-rock and techno, I wouldn't mind seeing some coroborative evidence on the last point made by 194.63.116.72. I have to say that "Techno" and "prog-rock" for me do not come to mind as being potential bed partners at all (and I have been heavily into prog-rock since 1969, so I feel that I am in a good position and have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the genre to make this statement). In addition, although the arrival of the Fairlight in 1979 is generally taken as the start of the digital sampling age, analogue sampling had been in use since the early 1960s; many bands of that era, such as The Fentones and The Tornados, were sampling before it became "commonplace" (I use that word very loosely!) to do so. The whole "techno-" prefix genre could be said to date back to 1913 when futurist painter and composer Luigi Russolo invented the primitive Theremin Vox ("noise box"). The argument in 194.63.116.72's last point is therefore of little relevance here.

(I'm going to use "Techno" in "this" format when referring to "Techno" in the context of 'electronic dance music' as referred to in this article from here on in, BTW).

Having said that, I'd also like to address the point made by Squeal of the example given by 194.63.116.72 re: Rush, The Alan Parsons Project, et al; "Techno-Rock" was not used just as an adjective, but as a name of a genre in its own right. It is merely a short form of "Technological Rock", which was often known informally as "techno", so there was at least some common use of the word "techno" as a name of a musical genre before "Techno" was invented; "Techno-Rock" was an offshoot of prog-rock (effectively a fusion of prog-rock and electronica) that became popular in the late 1970s/early 1980s (although the earliest use of this genre name that I know of was in the early 1970s when Camel released their "Music Inspired The Snow Goose" concept album). In the early '80s, rock musicians who had started as off as guitar-orientated acts but opted to change their sound to a more keyboard and bass-orientated sound - once again, Rush are a good example - were often said to have (or, in the case of detractors, were even 'accused of') "going techno". The term "techno-rock " is in fact still used today in a context of "genre-ism", applied mainly to such modern bands as Republica and Curve, but none of these modern acts share their sound with early Technological Rock - or "Techno", for that matter. But, I do agree that there is not much similarity in the two (three??!!) genres anyway. The fact that they 'shared' a name is just a coincidence.

Additionally, many people confuse their genres, and often think that "Techno", "House" and "Trance" are all one and the the same, while others simply use "Techno" - incorrectly - as a 'convenient' pigeon-hole for any form of electronic music, or any form of music embracing some avant-garde form of technology (which could in effect class such artisits as Japan/David Sylvian or even Simple Minds in the genre by that logic, although Jim Kerr and Charlie Burchill would almost certainly argue against that point!).

Perhaps a coherent definition of "Techno" based on the views of actual "Techno" pioneers right at the start of the article would help clarify this once and for all? (KabukiShankus 13:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

Bruce Haack

Why no mention of Bruce Haack?? See Haack: The King of Techno. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.72.98.99 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Because the title of this documentary has absolutely nothing to do with the word Techno in the context of the music that is being discussed here; it's another example of clever marketing. Philip Anagnos, the director, states here http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4936940357791011201&q=haack that he finds techno "anoying". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.78.169 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Journalistic hype based terminology verses genuine musicology

I think there is a lot of unsubstantiated POV mumbo jumbo in this article. I think we need to remember that the press played a huge part in generating names for this, that, and the other, and that it is a mistake to use journo generated terminology when it comes to deciding what's what. Can someone tell me what it is that distinguishes Larry Heards "Washing Machine", a track that is defined as House (for no other reason than the fact that it's on Trax), from later tracks from Detroit that were classified as Techno.Unless someone actually does a genuine academic analysis, using some kind of musico-ethnological system, much of this debate will rest on opinion. Marketing also had a part to play, for example the compilation Techno: The New Dance Sound of Detroit, marketing genius, house was on the wane, and an abundance of house compilations had been released in the preceeding few years, acid house had peaked, so how do you capture the imaginations of a fickle, trend conscious, music fan? Take house music from Detroit and call it Techno! That's what it boils down to. I mean, take the Chicago house rhythmic template (which is basically disco) throw in some funky sounding digital synth presets (inspired by electro - which in itself was the collision between funk and synth pop) add a bit of urban attitude, mix with sci-fi sensibilities and hey presto, youve got techno. Yes, there have been infinite variations on the theme since, and a multitude of music journo definitions (IDM has always been the one that irritated me the most, it implied that there was something unitelligent about having a good bop, which is kinda what it used to be about, until a bunch of UK suburbanites decided that impressing each other by creating electronic noodles was more fun than dancing - something many of them were too embarrased to do, or just simply could not do) but really, lets get back to basics. If you do that, it's pretty easy to see how things bifurcated (maybe it's just because I'm old enough to remember). Also, another good example of marketing genius, and a more recent example at that, is the docu High Tech Soul, which serves only to perpetuate the myth relating to the alleged purity of "Detroit Techno" above all the techno spin-offs. Don't get me wrong, props out to the main players for doing what they did, and credit to them for their contributions to dance music, but painting the story like they are doing in that film is a dis-service becasue it fails to tackle the subject from a purely musicological perspective, which is something, like I said already, that needs to be done. Possibly, what happens in most cases where a "new dance genre" suddenly emerges is that things reach a point ( a critical mass) where there are enough similarly sounding records in one style (stylistically distinctive, relative to the forebearer) to base a set around. Then, if there are enough DJ's playing that "sound", it generates a scene, and the "sound" aquires a definition so that it can be sub-catergorised and distinguished from previous (or indeed later) incarnations. Of course, at that point the media weighs in with the necessary hype - which pushes record sales and a wider popular scene is established. The lucky few have by that time built a healthy catalog on their own label and are picked up by a major, they then cream loads doing the club circuit while pushing the "latest sound" thus selling even more records (and why not?). That's just my take. Please feel free to rip it to shreds! ; ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.78.169 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly early "house" and "techno" were pretty much the same thing. As I see it you're bang on the money about how genres get established apart from missing one factor. Having a reasonably well-defined genre allows people to be able to go out to clubs or buy records and so on without having to know the names of every major label and producer who produces that type of music. I mean, we can all tell the difference between house, trance and techno, but even now I'm damned if I can explain it in a way that makes the differences obvious ;)

And it's never very long before a new genre fragments anyway, as people get tired of the same thing again and again and producers start trying to do something different. Just look at how many different styles of music can be broadly called techno or house. They all have something in common, but it's pretty abstract... spiralx 09:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I suppose what I was trying to say also is that the differences are not as abstract as some might think, it's just that a process of creating meaningful musicological definitions (and distinctions) would be a lot of work - that's why I suggest it would be something more suited to genuine academic analysis; rather than trying to assess things based on opinion. I genuinely think it is possible to define the various sub genres and catalog the components that make a particular sound idiosyncratic (the various rhythmic/harmonic/melodic/timbral elements peculiar to one form or another) and also to trace the developments historically. I mean the documentation is there in audio format after that it just takes interviewing the experts i.e. the producers, deejays. If a producer were to claim the originations of such and such a sound were this that or the other it simply (or not so simply in some cases) requires cross referencing different material to establish if the facts are correct. Of course this would require consultation with a team of individuals who would have more or less encyclopedic knowledge of each genre, along with the audio library to match it. But it’s doable. Clearly, so much has happened in dance music in the last few decades that it warrants serious musicological investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.78.169 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

America-centered

I personnaly find this article a little bit america-centered. It would be interesting that some English user put their part of the history to it... --Kastor 20:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

How is it america-centered? Detroit WAS a large part of the forming of techno. Obviously, it wasn't entirely.

--User:Freeeekyyy 17:17, 21 May 2007

With Yahoo! Babel Fish, you can translate the German edition of this article. There's also a history of techno here that you can translate. It would be good to make sure the American and German versions agree on the facts. --JHP (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I nearly stopped reading the techno.de article after it said Electro is a subgenre of techno invented by Afrika Bambaataa. It has no hard facts, is uncited and doesn't even have an author credit, and what little info is in it is already here.

The German Wikipedia article has numerous problems, not the least of which is that it's completely without sources, whereas we've been holding ours to a much higher standard for a while now. That article's historical info is poorly researched and contains a lot of speculation; for example, peripheral genres and the earliest pioneers of electronic music in general get linked with certainty to techno, whereas our research for the English article I think much more neutrally characterizes this kind of "searching for antecedents" in the Proto-techno section. The only thing of interest that I spotted was more techno-centric info about "tekkno" (better described in its own article, Tekkno, although still completely without references). We should look more into that.

A friend of mine fluent in both languages is working on a translation of Ansgar Jerrentrup's "Techno: vom Relz einer reizlosen Musik" (Google for it) which I hope will provide a detailed musicological analysis of late '80s/early '90s techno. I'm trying to track down his other articles, "Techno Music: Its Special Characteristics and Didactic Perspective" (2000), and "Das Mach-Werk: Zur Produktion, Ästhetik und Wirkung von Techno-Musik" (2001), both of which sound promising. —mjb (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I, too, find that this article does not reflect the European perspective on techno at all. Techno is and remains a quintessentially European phenomenon, regardless of its origins. Americans are the natural parents, who immediately droped their new-born baby on the steps of a hopital at night, whereas Europeans are the adoptive parents who picked up the infant, nurtured it, appreciated it, made it grow and turned it into a huge sccess. This article in not balanced because, in my opinion, it focuses too much on the earliest origins of the genre. --24.251.17.123 (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hardcore techno

how is hardcore tecno distinct from tecno? thisa maka noa sensa. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.176.14.100 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 14 May 2007.

The preceding comment was moved from the top of the page (heading added). +A.0u 02:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Try listening to a jeff mills record and then a rotterdam terror corps record. Tell me they arent differnet... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.37.124 (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again on the "origins"...

Hmm... I think real Techno is a fusion of African rhythms and German electronic musique concrete. The difficult thing when pinpointing the origins is that Kraftwerk (who really were techno by "Computer World" and not Krautrock as in their early albums or Moroder-esque disco in "Man Machine") - anticipated the rhythms Atkins brought - Atkins simply enriched the simplicity of records like "Numbers" and added soulful strings. Listen to the polyrhythms and the hemiolas of Computer World or the early Metroplex back catalogue. They are very African sounding, but you don't realise it because of the dogma that this is "futuristic" music. It is futuristic, but the avant garde always borrowed from the past - thing of art nouveau and Hokusai, or Picasso and cave paintings. The unique thing about techno was and is its special way of putting you into a trance - this differentiates it from all its cousins, even electro-funk. AUX 88 hypnostizes you in a way that the Sugar Hill gang doesn't.

A lot of the 140 BPM, 4/4, 909 kick drum, danceable (but not listenable) music that came out since the early 90s imitates Techno and House. Actually it imitates Chicago acid more, but calls itself Techno because it sounds more "macho" and house sounds "gay". House doesn't use the same rhythmic techniques to hypnotise - its rhythms are much simpler (and for some, more effective).

Meanwhile a lot of the music which real Techno actually inspired actually sounds less like it than cheesy shit does, because the influences are more subtle. The crucial thing is that this harder and more minimal style is not related to the cheesy stuff, and was definitely inspired by early Detroit.

IMO Atkins and Kraftwerk were the true Techno inventors. The thing is, Techno is just a word that too many have co-opted (for both honest and dishonest reasons) while coincidentally making simple, aggressive dance beats - without the subtlety that made the originals listenable and good.

PS I'm a white Glaswegian.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.210.178.55 (talk • contribs).

"I think real Techno is a fusion of African rhythms and German electronic musique concrete." Well, cubism was also heavily inspired by African art and incorporatrs several key elements of it, but no-one would call it an African avant-garde art movement! --24.251.17.123 (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Japanese invented Country-Music

and Jazz war first played in Calcutta by three Guys named Apu, Sing Sing and Ranshi . O.K. let us be serious, everyone on earth knows, that Techno comes from Europe. That Bullsht that I read in this Article cannot be left as it is. I guess it is one of the 3 Detroit Guys, who edits everything over and over again. Look, I'm sorry if you got fired by General Motors, but you need to do something "real" in your free time .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.76.19 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And your point is? The article clearly states that techno had its beginnings in Europe before it became popular in Detroit. Which "bullshit" do you refer to? - Zeibura ^(Talk) 17:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, 62.143.76.19 made those Europe additions at about the same time as posting this topic. Just64helpin 17:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I, too, find this article to be odd. I cannot understand whether it is a stellar case of PC or just a grossly imbalanced article that focusses excessively on an aspect and a phase of the genre that has little to no relevance to most techno fans. --24.251.17.123 (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"Techno is characterized...

...by heavy use of percussion and a minimal amount of melody." Total rubbish. Can someone who has access to this section (2nd paragraph, can't seem to edit it) remove that garbage please?

Thanks

86.134.247.100 02:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Care to explain why it is "rubbish"? Just64helpin 02:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not true at all. Some of the best-known techno tracks (Strings of Life, for example) are characterised by their melodies! Many of the techno artists out there work using more than what could be called "a minimal amount of melody" - just listen to some Carl Craig or Derrick May tracks to hear what I mean. Maybe this statement is true of schranz, or the particular streak of hard techno that was famous around the 00s (Beyer, Liebing type stuff), but as a general statement (and especially a characterisation of an entire music genre) it's trash.

86.134.247.100 04:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 86.134.247.100 that "minimal amount of melody" is unfortunate. Especially early techno and Detroit techno is often very melodic (with 'Strings of life' a good example), even if it's true that a lot of the techno produced around the turn of the century were less melodic. It also seems that the new wave of techno emerging is again more melodic. I took the liberty to tone down the lack of melodies and added the most obvious characteristic: the electronic sound. Sebisthlm 09:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 86.134.247.100, hence my edit (Which was undone). I don't see how "often a minimal amount of melody" and "heavy use of percussion" applies to Techno. @ Just64helpin, can you tell me why you insist that this is true? I can name 10 well-known techno tracks off the top of my head that prove that that sentence is untrue.

Oh - and also there's a decent amount of Techno to be found in the 125-130bpm range.. I'm just looking for some reasons behind this undo before I re-undo it.

Ash256 03:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this information? Your contribution added the word "lively", which comes off as vague and POV. Just64helpin 10:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: The link above should be WP:NPOV Just64helpin 12:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I unfortunately don't, only a lot of tracks that go into that bpm range.

Is there a source saying that techno is 130-140bpm and that it often uses a minimal amount of melody/heavy percussion?

Btw, I'm new to wiki so excuse me of I make a few mistakes here and there.

Thing is, it's difficult to define an underground genre of music when you have to cite everything with sources such as news articles, etc. especially given that the media generally know very little about it. Hell, bastardisation by the media is what has given techno such an ambiguous name. Ash256 13:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the segment until a source is specified. The section containing the BPM already has an OR tag at the top, so I'll leave it the way it is. Just64helpin 14:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream popularity

How do I edit the info-box? It seems to have been written three or four years ago, when deep house was in and techno was hopelessly out. I would say that the Mainstream popularity is definitely on the rise, if not at its highest since the early 00s - at least here in Europe. House is getting increasingly electro-fied and techno is having a resurge. Look for example at the main-stream success of indietronica band the Knife with their arty techno. You can also see the influence on other genres from ghetto tech to main stream hip hop producers like Timbaland. Sebisthlm 09:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry But...

If Basic Channel aren't on the list of notable artists, then I don't know who should be. You haven't got a clue one this one. Just go and listen to your Moby records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.192.26 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Redefinition of past artists

Who have redifined Donna Summer and Kraftwerk as Techno, and when? Sure, Moroder's hi-NRG and Kraftwerk's electro/synth hav been instrumental influences, but techno is (a bit simplified) Atkins', Saunderson's and May's fusion of white European synth music (sound and instruments) with black American dance music (rythm). Sebisthlm 12:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I believe the "proto-techno" section should be in the part about the belleville 3 as their influences instead of its own section. 75.111.63.195 (talk)

Definition

I've corrected the definition to make it more neutral. There is certain type of music and there are ones that influenced its sound. Mixing those two is wrong. -- 82.209.225.33 (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

i think that these dance music pages should have a list of big tunes in the genre 79.70.112.9 (talk) 08:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Rename / Focus

This whole article should be renamed to detroit techno, and a new techno article that represents the whole range of techno music and culture (maybe similar to the techno articles in other-language wikipedias such as the german one) is needed. While the influence and important of detroit techno is undisputed, this article makes it seem as if there is hardly anything else.

I sense some in-fighting between european and american techno followers about where the credit goes... this is unproductive and nonsensical especially in this case. Techno is global music that evolved in many places in many forms.

Also, Acid house is mentioned only once on a side note, same with minimal, and the whole explosion of techno and related music styles in the early 90ies, related to the rise of was then called 'rave culture', is told 'out of focus'.

And in response to another comment, techno music and culture is all over europe, and has been for 15 years. I doubt there's a city in europe where the number of techno clubs is doesn't surpass the number of all of the rock and hiphop clubs together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.162.84.17 (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There already is a Detroit techno page, the Techno article is far from complete, but it also tries to clarify what exactly techno is, relative to the many divergent styles that have emerged in the last 20 years, some of which are incorrectly refered to as techno, has nothing to do with in fighting, the developments section will be eventually expanded to include major European trends since 1990. Please contribute with verifiable sources if you feel it is inaccurate. Please also sign your comments. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Move some content

People on this discussion page have probably already talked about this, but much of the content in this article seems like it would fit better on Electronic music or Electronic dance music. This article seems really bloated, it should just be about techno. Meanwhile, the electronic dance music article is really lacking. What do other people think about moving some stuff? Bognan72 (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Aside from the production techniques section (which is pretty much the same for all EDM), it is just about Techno. Bloated?? there is at least 25 years of history to cover, and the article is currently only scratching the surface. Do something about the lack of content elsewhere by sourcing and adding relevant information, don't just move content that is already well established here. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

My two cents

I think the reason some individuals (which are in a very small minority) think techno was created in Germany is because of three reasons: 1. They don't like the idea of blacks creating a form of music 2. They don't like Americans 3. They're very ignorant to its history. Techno music was created in Detroit, Michigan, United States of America. Period. End of story. I have checked many sources and websites like Google, Yahoo, even Youtube. Not one of the sources I found says techno was created in Germany or any other part of Europe. I did, however, find an astronomical amount of data and sources proving without a shadow of a doubt and hardcore evidence that techno music was created in Detroit, Michigan, USA by Juan Atkins, Derrick May, and Kevin Saunderson. Did Kraftwerk have an influence on them? Yes. They have said that themselves. But, this music was exclusive to the American city of Detroit. Why? Because these guys, who are considered pioneers by fans all over the world, combined the European synthesizers and sound with funk music, soul music, and Chicago house. Derrick May described it as "George Clinton and Kraftwerk being stuck in an elevator with a keyboard between them." Speaking of Kraftwerk, they never called their music techno. They always called their music Krautrock and electro. Go to Youtube and type "Derrick May Strings Of Life." It's a great tune and is considered by fans and musicians (Fedde Le Grande with his song "Put Your Hands Up 4 Detroit" and Goldie are examples) around the world to be a techno classic. You could also type "Juan Atkins" or "Kevin Saunderson" to hear their music. Also on Youtube, type "Daft Punk Teachers" to see them give thanks to the pioneers of house and techno music. While I'm here, check this out: [[1]]. It's a European writer who made that. Techno music is an American creation and a black American creation. So, if anybody should "get over it," it's these misinformed people (who are in an extreme minority). Know the history. Fclass (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you search the German version of Google, or just the American one? --JHP (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

A less notable Derrick May quote

I'm wondering if the "Derrick May views this as one of his busiest times" paragraph can be removed. It talks about several seemingly trivial things: he was busy around the time the Techno! compilation was being put together, this busy time followed "years" of "no one" caring about techno (debatable), and he contends that other people were now jealous of him. Seems like things that we don't really need to draw attention to. I don't want to just drop it though if there's a good reason for it to be there; maybe it can be refactored a bit or used as a reference. —mjb (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

useful for a number of reasons, identifies other key players, mention of involvement with Craig notable as a lead to the second wave (which could be expressed in more detail later on), mention of May's radio show, which is not touched on elsewhere in the text. Statement: For years no one cared about what Juan and I were doing in Detroit, and then I found myself dealing with people that were jealous, out of the clear blue sky could loose the I found myself dealing with people that were jealous, out of the clear blue sky. He doesn't say no one cared about techno, he's talking about the lack of interest in Detroit. Semitransgenic (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Composition

The information on composition is very ponderous and complex. The article could be better organized to explain to a novice how to compose a basic techno mix. I tried adding some text with basics on how to compose a techno mix. I intended to return and build on the basics but was deleted the next day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.63.195.2 (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There were two problems: 1. nothing you added was attributed to a reliable source nor did it seem like you were paraphrasing a reliable source and just hadn't gotten around to citing references; rather it seemed more like original research, which is forbidden; 2. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. A good place to start authoring a how-to guide is wikiHow or Wikibooks, and once there's something there, we can link to it from here. In the meantime, the information that's already here is intended to expose the reader/researcher to the instrumentation and general method of composition common to techno, saying "this is more or less how it tends to be done" rather than addressing the reader directly with instructions on how to do it. —mjb (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

More research needed on related genres

The article currently skims over the relationship between techno and trance, UK hardcore, and commercial/"ravey" techno. I'd like to see mention of 1988–1992 developments like the infusion of "rave" clichés like piano & breakbeats into techno; the subsequent emergence of jungle and happy hardcore; the cross-pollination of industrial, acid house, and techno in the post-New Beat UK/European techno-rave aesthetic of the late '80s/early '90s; the evolution of trance into its own genre; chart positions for the big techno hits (2 Unlimited, LA Style, etc.); and so on. I'd be happy to help find sources for this kind of information, but I've got a lot on my plate, so I'd like to put it out there as a request for others to help out. —mjb (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)