Talk:Techno/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Allmusic unreliable?

User:Semitransgenic claims that Allmusic is not an "authoritative" source, before asserting that techno was " not mainstream music in the UK in the late 80s." I'd like to see some justification for these assertions. Jagged 85 (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Allmusic isn't much different from printed album guides, which generally give free rein to freelance writers to say whatever sounds plausible about their favorite genres, bands, and records. I wrote for two such guides and can tell you there wasn't much of a vetting process, and certainly no fact-checking! Basically it's the literate record-store clerks, DJs, and reviewers who are writing that content, often anonymously, and with very little oversight.

In Allmusic's case, they actually removed authorship credits a while back, anonymizing a lot of their content. In my view, this was a branding strategy designed to cast an air of authority, rather than appearing more like a collection of op-eds/blog pieces. The content is taken more seriously that way, and in turn, that strengthens Allmusic's brand. You could say it's probably more "peer reviewed" (read by gobs more people after publication) than obscure, academic music journal articles, but it's not the least bit scholarly. However, like a proper encyclopedia, one could still say it's written by "experts", with the caveat that experts can still disagree or make mistakes.

So I feel that Allmusic is an authority on what Allmusic says, and I think what Allmusic says is notable... but not always correct. We can cite it, but if there's skepticism over the correctness of the info they publish, I believe we're obligated not to present what they say as fact, but rather as just what they say, and that's only if it's plausible.

Is it plausible? I would go by the charts and the mainstream magazines. What techno artists, besides Inner City, were in the public eye in the UK before 1990? —mjb (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

additionally it's an American publication, during the early 90s, in the US, the term "techno" was used to define a grab-bag of electronic dance music styles, later the term electronica replaced techno, and served the same purpose. That is not what this article addresses (and the article is not about techno-pop, so let's not confuse the two).

AMG is subject to WP:TERTIARY so is not ideal when it comes to generalised statements, we can do better. Reverting to using AMG when multiple secondary sources could be cited is lazy and to date has been generally been avoided here.

There's a huge difference between a tune occasionally breaking into to the charts during this period and techno being a mainstream music.

If secondary sources support the views expressed by AMG fine, otherwise I think it should be avoided. Semitransgenic _talk. 10:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's just say I remember techno being very much mainstream in the UK back in the 90s. Maybe not so in the late 80s (too young to remember), but most certainly in the 90s, when its popularity was arguably comparable to that of electro house today (at least in Europe). Saying it had only "moderate" popularity in Europe at the time is an understatement (especially for the UK), hence why I've tagged that (unsourced) statement. Nevertheless, since there seems to be some doubt concerning Allmusic's claim, I'll try look for another secondary source in the mean time. Jagged 85 (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

this seems to boil down to the definition of "mainstream" and "techno." In the context used here, mainstream would generally mean mass appeal and chart success. The techno detailed in this article simply did not meet with popular approval. If the argument is that the chart success of acts such as Guru Josh, Technotronic, 2 Unlimited, Scooter etc. indicates that techno was mainstream music, what do we say about the lack of "mainstream" success of Model 500, Rhythm is Rhythm, Jeff Mills, 3MB, Basic Channel, Surgeon ect. etc.? There is a very significant strain of techno that was never mainstream. Yes, techno influenced acts like 808 State, LFO, Orbital, Altern 8, Moby etc. may have entered the charts, but most of the other stuff that was called "techno" by the popular press was "crossover" music, it was pop-techno. Semitransgenic _talk. 22:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but "techno" isn't just limited to the original Detroit sound. In the same way house has evolved over the years by incorporating elements from other genres, techno has also evolved in a similar manner by incorporating elements from other genres. If you're referring to pure techno, then that's what the Detroit techno article is for. This article is a lot more general, including various styles that evolved from the original Detroit techno sound. Jagged 85 (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

We already have a plethora of articles dealing with crossover music that was influenced by techno. The majority of the content in this article is given over to styles (German techno, tekkno, jazz influenced techno, minimal, free, intelligent, and acid techno etc.) that developed in Europe after Detroit techno; none of which experienced mainstream success. We have seen over 25 years of techno production and in that time there was a very brief period in the early 90s when techno influenced crossover music entered the charts (only to quickly disappear again as the music industry latched onto the next fad that came along). Semitransgenic _talk. 16:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've found a source regarding techno's popularity in the 1990s and added it to the article's infobox. Let me know what you think. Jagged 85 (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a problematic source. Verderosa (known primarily as a session drummer) is using the term "techno," in a similar manner to the word "electronica." We are already citing that in the US "techno" was once an umbrella term that described EDM more generally. The book describes itself as: "a detailed guide to such techno styles as Hip-Hop, Electronica, Jungle/Drum 'n' Bass, Ragga, Tech-Step, Trip-Hop, 2-Step, Acid Jazz, Ambient, Illbient, Electro-Breakbeat, House, Progressive House, Acid House, Trance, IDM, and many others." I don't see how we can use this as a source when it very clearly presents a confused picture. -- Semitransgenic _talk. 10:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I've read through Techno Rebels (which does use the term in its proper sense) and updated the infobox to roughly reflect the book. I've written: "1990s in Europe (including variations), with some crossover success in Japan and America during late 1990s". Let me know if you think this statement might need some changes or adjustments. Jagged 85 (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

it's an improvement, but are you consulting the 1999 edition or the 2010 rewrite? judging by the refs I'm assuming the latter so the publication date should be changed to reflect the edition you are citing. Semitransgenic _talk. 22:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I was actually consulting the 2010 edition. I've fixed the reference now. Jagged 85 (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Lots of Confusion about Techno in North America

The term that came across from the UK around 1993 with the rave scene was "Technorave"...the rave part quickly disappeared.

This article is only meaningful to what later became Techno in the U.S./Canada For one thing the term Techno as a mainstream term was not used in the US/Canada until the mid 1990's and was totally hijacked my house music lovers in the very late 1990s. The original UK sound and origins are lost on the american audiences who merged the the original "techno" sound with House to create the american version of Techno.

What Americans later called Techno is just an hard edge off shoot of House. they took hard edged beats of industrial/techno music and applied it to House music. So american Techno is not the original techno. the original techno was left in the Uk, people started calling it different names, dark ambient, tribal etc or merged back with rock and became things like "Digital Hardcore"

What Americans-Canadians and UK-europe consider techno were/are two very different things.

Dance music in the U.S and Canada was that, we called it DANCE MUSIC in the mainstream, it's what we called that well into the mid 1990's. I just listen to so music labeled "techno" on youtube...and guess what....its what we would of simply called "dance music"

heres some supposed techno https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35XnoaV3OUQ&list=RD02PSNSbLBIkqo this would of been just called dance music

UK techno was hijacked by House Music and high energy cheese prevalent in one off recordings...while UK techno was started by real bands that were influenced or were part of the UK industrial and experimental music in the 1980's.

I can say this because I was into experimental and industrial music in the 80's and the early 1990s

If you want to find the real origins of Techno look to people like Chris and cozy, Cabaret Voltaire, industrial dance form the mid 80's. I find it strange that none of the Industrial dance music that was extremely popular in clubs the mid to late 1980s are not listed as origins. Severed Heads - hot with fleas 1986 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upaoFi7BUUQ

Nitzer Ebb - mid 80's - and if this isnt where "techno" came from. then it must of just fell from the sky premade https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0HsjYtdAKM

Therese would of been played in smaller clubs and anyone who watched MTV would of heard them.

what would later be labelled trance, ambient etc. Pshychic Warriors ov Gia late 1980's, 91,92

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlPrQS0BNRc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll8JUC7-o6M

1996 - merged back with rock/jungle/break beat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zXqPTupBH4

what was experimental music in 1980 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-muNXZk4wU

DIE KRUPPS

What Americans call Techno is not really Techno. Its a mix of house, high energy cheese with European Techno that came over with rave. I'm not sure why people keep avoiding the issue. what Americans call Techno is really just harder edged house music.

Totally forgot about Die krupps from Germany and several others who were direct influence on the hard edge techno. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQkCrXD5ABc

More die Krupps 1990. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ek8zhxhwFY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxoYz044RGM

The issue wont go away because its wrong, and most of the people writing this are just young kids who were never there. What people call Techno in US, what it was originally, and what it came to mean are all totally different

So Techno - the origins can be in fact be traced back to Uk and specifically to Germany as many people have been saying. and even to a specif band ...Die Krupps. I never knew die krupps very well. This type of music is called EBM now, in my day it was just ALL "industrail".

Die Krupps - Wahre Arbeit, Wahrer Lohn (1980) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxoYz044RGM

So if this isnt the origin of techno, then what Americans and UK/Germany call techno are two different things.

Die Krupps industrial music merged with High Energy, and bits of house being called TECHNO RAVE IN 1992. THE industrial music signature references still in place, the beats and constant same repeating slogans and phrases.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sahbla9zVj0Starbwoy (talk) 07:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Final Analysis

• Techno originated in UK/Germany from a specific sound and bands Whats now being called EBM. The bands responsible for the sounds were Nitzer Ebb and Die Krupps. Nitzer Ebb was considered the most commercial of the bands termed industrial, and were well known in underground dance clubs in the mid 80's. Die Krupps was less known overseas but they had similar sounds but was carried on UK labels or complications.

• The third strain is from commercial end from the UK Acid 1988-1990 phase, which originated from house music. Its mixed with high energy music and its copped by Americans when the rave scene arrives in 1993. It actually called Techno rave but the rave part is dropped. the commercial bands would of been people like Utah Saints and the Shamen

• The second sound that emerged was the ambient/ tribal/ trance sound that originated in the UK from experimental/industrial bands such as Rapoon and many others. and a conglomeration of people known as Psychic warriors of Gia were responsible for bringing the sound into clubs

Americans have what they term House music. It is not techno...it never was. Its just the spreading of electo being called other names. Its called "dance music" or house

• The german Techno continues, becomes harder and sparser. It continues on and influences the house music in the mid and later 90's. The harsher elements gives rise to "digital hardcore", a mix of punk, techno, and jungle/break beat

• Mid to late 1990s Americans adopt and fold techno and the harder german techno into house to make it more less harsh and by 2001 its being revered to as Detroit techno — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbwoy (talk • contribs) 09:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, your detailed beliefs would be worth consideration if you had some reliable sources to draw from and that we could point to, but it all appears to be just your vague impressions of the evolution of rave-related music, based on firsthand experience and modern-day listening to examples of similar music around at the time. This journey of discovery and integration with our own experience is something being undertaken by most if not all of us, and the more we study music, the more connections we see, or think we see. Although this research occasionally turns up some interesting similarities that we want to believe means that certain styles or pieces of music are precursors (or the result of forks or mergers in style), this information is only useful to the extent that it's documented. So unfortunately, although you speak with certainty about every detail, it's "original research", by Wikipedia standards, and isn't anything we can use in the article.

Also, although some of the details you mention are plausible, others are dubious, and some are just nonsense. I think anyone who has studied the numerous texts and documentaries mentioned in the article won't reach the same conclusions as you, and we must respect what those sources say.

I do at least agree that the perception of bias in the article could be partly mitigated if we could better address some aspects that aren't very well covered, like the history of trance (to the extent that it relates to techno), techno's harder forms, and the influence of things like acid house, New Beat, EBM, and electronic Neue Deutsche Welle scenes on each region's notion of techno, both among creators and fans. I suspect there may be some Dutch or German-language material about this buried in academic journals, but as far as English sources, not much has been written about it, therefore we're not able to write about it, ourselves. —mjb (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I ask that you right feed back in a matter that the average person could understand. You are not a professor and you are not writing an essay in the 18th century.

"Also, although some of the details you mention are plausible, others are dubious, and some are just nonsense. I think anyone who has studied the numerous texts and documentaries mentioned in the article won't reach the same conclusions as you, and we must respect what those sources say" ....Says the 25 year old.

I was theere when the music developed. So you we have to go with what was written by what was written in 1995 by people on the outside who knew nothing about the origins of where came from.

Techno originated from UK from Acid house and Industrial dance bands and high energy, and did not originate in the U.S. what they had in the U.S was house music. Techno started from raves with the mixing of Acid house and industrial dance. What became straight hard techno came directly from Industrial dance music as evident by Die Krupps/ Nitzer ebb and the many others. the U.S/Canada never had the huge large experimental underground that UK/Europe had in the 1980's

the original Recordings whether sound or image cannot be changed or altered, and all the examples are right there for you. so we can only go by what what some Johnny come lately write in 1995 and being chirped by the current tech generation.Starbwoy (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

America/ Detroit? The birth place of techno?? / The discussion is not over

I moved this over from the Detroit Techno talk page as this is where I should of started, as this is the main Techno. the Issues need to be resolved. What Americans call tech and what Europeans call techno are two very different things. I grew up with both the black music with my family and the rock/ punk /experimental music that I listened to on my own.

the PROBLEM is that at some point Americans STARTED CALLING ELECTRO.....TECHNO Both HOUSE and what Americans call TECHNO are extensions of Electro,(the influence of 70's European electronic music)

the laughable thing about the article is that I can pick out right away and tell you that the sound samples that is up on this page are not techno , but actually HOUSE MUSIC from the late 1980's. Only the samples under German techno are actually what you can call TECHNO Proper ( the techno that came over in the 1990's)

What Americans are actually calling Techno is actually ELECTRO (Americans don't remember the term) mixed with 80's R&B/funk (which became known as HOUSE. somewhere along the way americans started calling the electro sound that was very popular in the ealy 80's Techno. ELECTRO was the music people first started break dancing to.

The issue was not addressed and it keeps coming back for us who remember what tech sounded like before it was merged with house music to become "American techno". I'm Canadian and I remember what techno sounded like...especially the techno that came over with rave. I was in the Uk in the summer of 1989 and again in 1992.

The term "detroit Techno didnt appear after the 2000. what Americans/ Canadians call techno is actually house fused with the hard edge of techno that came over with rave from the UK; the first Audio segments are in fact just early "house" music

what I wrote in the original techno discussion page The term that came across from the UK around 1993 with the rave scene was "Technorave"...the rave part quickly disappeared. This article is only meaningful to what later became Techno in the U.S./Canada For one thing the term Techno as a mainstream term was not used in the US/Canada until the mid 1990's and was totally hijacked my house music lovers in the very late 1990s. The original UK sound and origins are lost on the american audiences who merged the the original "techno" sound with House to create the american version of Techno.

What Americans later called Techno is just an hard edge off shoot of House. They took hard edged beats of industrial/techno music and the music that came over with rave and applied it to House music. So american Techno is not the original techno. the original techno was left in the Uk, people started calling it different names, dark ambient, tribal etc or merged back with rock and became things like "Digital Hardcore"

Dance music Dance music in the U.S and Canada was that, we called it DANCE MUSIC in the mainstream, it's what we called that well into the mid 1990's. I just listen to so music labeled "techno" on youtube...and guess what....its what we would of simply called "dance music" heres some supposed techno https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35XnoaV3OUQ&list=RD02PSNSbLBIkqo this would of been just called dance music.

UK techno was hijacked into House Music and high energy cheese prevalent in one off recordings...while UK techno was started by real bands that were influenced or were part of the UK industrial and experimental music in the 1980's. I can say this because I was into experimental and industrial music in the 80's and the early 1990s

If you want to find the real origins of Techno look to people like Chris and cozy, Cabaret Voltaire, industrial dance form the mid 80's. I find it strange that none of the Industrial dance music that was extremely popular in clubs the mid to late 1980s are not listed as origins. Severed Heads - hot with fleas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upaoFi7BUUQ

And if this isnt where "techno" came from. then it must of just fell from the sky premade. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0HsjYtdAKM. This was industrial music in its day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENf3AiKKmvI. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0HsjYtdAKM - SENSORIA

Therese would of been played in smaller clubs and anyone who watched MTV would of heard them. what would later be labelled trance, ambient etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlPrQS0BNRc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll8JUC7-o6M

what was experimental music in 1980 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-muNXZk4wU

What Americans call Techno is not really Techno. Its a mix of house, high energy cheese with European Techno that came over with rave. I'm not sure why people keep avoiding the issue. what Americans call Techno is really just harder edged house music.

Totally forgot about Die krupps from Germany and several others who were direct influence on the hard edge techno. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQkCrXD5ABc

More die Krupps 1990. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ek8zhxhwFY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxoYz044RGM

The issue wont go away because its wrong, and most of the people writing this are just young kids who were never there. What people call Techno in US, what it was originally, and what it came to mean are all totally different

So Techno - the origins can be in fact be traced back to Uk and specifically to Germany as many people have been saying. and even to a specif band. Maybe even specifically to Die Krupps. I never knew die krupps very well. This type of music is called EBM now, in my day it was just "industrail".

Die Krupps - Wahre Arbeit, Wahrer Lohn (1980) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxoYz044RGM

Starbwoy (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

   I've absorbed pretty much every book, article and documentary I can get my hands on about techno, and none of them support the things you're saying. Few broach these topics at all.
   The influence of industrial/EBM, etc., on techno—especially on German and American techno, is indeed underdocumented, but we can't say very much about it until someone finds something written about it in some reliable sources, so we won't run afoul of the verifiability policy. —mjb (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.16.171 (talk)  

Wrong Album

The album picture and name is wrong in the article, talking about Cybotron. Clear was not the classic 1983 version, that's the remastered 1991 release I think. 'Enter' was the original 1983 release I believe. Kaleidoscopic God (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

yes, you are right. The reason for this is that the original 1983 12" single release of the track Clear (what's mentioned in the article) had no picture sleeve, from what I can see, so instead, for illustrative purposes, this reissue (retitled) album cover was used, we can change this if it's a concern. Semitransgenic _talk. 09:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Pre-1988 techno- prefixes

An anonymous editor tried to add something to the first paragraph of the article about how techno appeared in the phrase techno-punk in a 1978 newspaper article. I reverted this change because it was inappropriately presented as if it were contradicting the statement that techno, as a reference to a genre, came into existence in 1988. The article already says, at the very top, For the technopop genre, see Synthpop. For the prefix, see techno-.

Maybe we can talk about pre-1988 uses of the techno- qualifier/prefix in genre names somewhere, but it would be misleading to cast it as being in the same class as techno, the non-prefixed, unqualified noun, which is what this article is about. —mjb (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Initially, this style was called "Techno House". Like Garage House (-> Garage) and Acid House (-> Acid), the full genre term was abbreviated to "Techno" or "Tekkno". This often led to confusion with the '80s meaning of the word "Techno", which wasn't related to House music.

In the 80s, "Techno" as a noun had described a wide range of electronic dance music from SynthPop to EBM. It all was considered "Techno music" back then. The German Techno Club, founded in 1984 by Talla 2XLC, played Belgian EBM, SynthPop and Post-Industrial music, not House music. The original meaning of Techno had nothing to do with Chicago House. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.244.76.175 (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Back in early 1991, Simon Reynolds distinguished between "Chicago House" and "Detroit Techno House" (SPIN magazine). --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The article describes two different genres

• 1.) Detroit Techno that started in the mid-80s.
• 2.) Techno House that started in the late '80s in Europe. This style is the mainstay of the Techno music of the '90s. In this case Detroit Techno was just an influence besides many other genres from Synthpop to EBM and New Beat.

It's simply wrong to say that Techno started in the mid-80s in Detroit. That's just one form of music that was called "Techno" (and btw not the earliest one, because there were a lot of genres which were called "Techno", especially in Europe). Why not Kraftwerk's "Techno Pop" in 1983? Or Man Parrish's "Techno Trax" from 1982? It predates Cybotron's "Techno City".

But back to Techno House that became known as "Techno" or "Tekkno" in the '90s: This genre clearly started in the late '80s after the Acid House boom.

Yep, the article obviously claims that Detroit Techno is the origin of all Techno. But that's not true. Detroit Techno wasn't that popular in Europe. European Techno music is primarily based on Acid House. That's where the Techno beat comes from.

In this documentary from 2008 Acid House has been described as "proto-Techno". --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Acid/Acid House =(equals) American Techno

See for yourselves 80's Acid House Music Full Mix https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4va9DduFwIQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.16.171 (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Chicago Acid is a basic component of many Techno House tracks. That's for sure. But it's a fight against an established scientific consensus. Impossible to win... Detroit's fairytales will never die.

I mean... Why is "No UFOs" by Model 500 considered a Techno track but Man Parrish's "Techno Trax" or Moskwa TV's "Tekno Talk" aren't? Pure arbitrariness. All these tracks are pop-oriented synth tunes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.244.71.186 (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Introduction of the word "techno" in reference to a specific genre of music?

"The mid-1988 UK release of Techno! The New Dance Sound of Detroit,[73][74] an album compiled by ex-Northern Soul DJ and Kool Kat Records boss Neil Rushton (at the time an A&R scout for Virgin's "10 Records" imprint) and Derrick May, was an important milestone and marked the introduction of the word techno in reference to a specific genre of music"

• http://www.discogs.com/Various-New-Acid-House-Techno-Beat-Compilation/release/50303
• http://www.discogs.com/Various-Techno-Sound/release/350774
• http://www.discogs.com/Techno-Freaks-Megamix-Of-Ibiza-Cocaine-Sound-Of-C/release/536291
• http://www.discogs.com/Bazz-Rrrock-It-Nats-Techno/master/58530

"Techno! The New Dance Sound of Detroit" was just a House compilation, initially titled "The New House Sound of Detroit". And that's what it is. Detroit House, invariably connected to Acid and Chicago House. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.8.245 (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Usually people trot out examples from the Frankfurt "techno" scene from '87, which we have already discussed to death and cover in the article well enough, so it's refreshing to see your examples from the Belgian New Beat scene from '88-'89. But of the four you cited, only the Techno Freaks example predates Rushton's compilation (although even this can't be totally verified). The music is just New Beat, and the meaning of that band's name, Techno Freaks, is open to interpretation, anyway. To me, Techno Freaks means technology enthusiasts, like gear heads or cyber freaks. Even if it is in reference to an aspect of the music, we can only guess at its meaning.

At any rate, these New Beat records are no more valuable in tracing the evolution of the word than any other one-off examples of the prefix "techno" being incorporated into a band, album or song names since the '70s. Musically there is nothing to tie those examples together other than that the music is rhythmic and electronic and the artists are lovers of electronic technology (notably, in an era when it was more mainstream to question and fear such technology).

Meanwhile, the liner notes and magazine articles promoting Rushton's compilation make it very clear that techno, in the sense it is being used there, is very much a genre—a genre previously unnamed and at that moment being influenced heavily by Chicago house, but crafted in Detroit and also influenced by the music of New York and Europe prior to the house boom. This is the trunk of the genre tree acknowledged by numerous reliable sources we've cited. If you can find a reliable source that says some Belgian New Beat bands were using the word techno in reference to a musical style, we can figure out a way to incorporate it into the article, but it's not going to outweigh the mountain of sources that favor Detroit. —mjb (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of Chicago... Maybe I could show you a source from Chicago. In 1985, both Techno and Technopop appeared in a Chicago music magazine to describe SynthPop music from Eurythmics to Laurie Anderson. As far as i know Detroit didn't use it as a genre term until 1987 (see Blake Baxter's "Blake Techno!"). In Chicago the term was well-known, i guess.

Frankfurt Techno in 1987? I'm not sure about that. From early to mid-80s, Talla & friends produced a blend of SynthPop, Hi-NRG and Italo Disco. It had nothing to do with the Techno music as we know it today. IMO, Techno in Germany started in 1988 with some early experiments by OFF (Sven Väth), Bigod 20 (Talla), Out of the Ordinary (Torsten Fenslau), or guys like Westbam. Of course, lot of records have been released in the Frankfurt area, that's for sure.

Talla knew about the Detroit compilation, but in September 1988 in a SPEX article called "Frankfurt House" he stated that the "New Dance Sound of Detroit" was not really Techno, ...not Techno in the "European sense". The same magazine describes the compilation's music as House music ("House Sound of Chicago" and "House Sound of Detroit").

The Detroit theory is not better than the Frankfurt theory (none of them "invented" the term). It all began on both sides of the Atlantic between 1987 and 1988 with slightly different roots. Detroit Techno hasn't spread globally like an epidemic. It's just one branch of the tree. There were similar developments around the world, in the U.K., in Germany, in Belgium. That's why i don't like the article intro. A genre doesn't really start at one place. Especially not in the 80s era with all its global interaction and interdependency. Even a Detroit Techno enthusiast like Richie Hawtin was an 80s EBM/Industrial fan. People like him mixed these genres on the turntables and later in the studio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.1.114 (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Two scans from the Hot Wire magazine, published in the mid-80s in Chicago:

Technopop & Women's music - part 1

Technopop & Women's music - part 2

"Artists as diverse as the Thompson Twins, ..., Eurythmics, and Laurie Anderson are all dabbling in the techno world. It's music that is heavily synthesizer-based."

"Here are the answers according to techno-Sue. Let's deal first with the accusation that techno music is cold and all the same."

No mention of House music or Cybotron. In fact, the definition of Techno music is identical to the European definition of the early 80s. In this article it describes SynthPop music. Techno music was something New-Wave-related. If you collect all the late 70s and early-to-mid-80s songs with "Techno" in the title – most of them are SynthPop-/New-Wave-based or connected to Kraftwerk's danceable Electro music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.26.138 (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there really are some proto-Techno tunes from the U.K., Germany etc. German production team "Mach II" published this dance track in 1986. Speed and percussions are very technoid (dominant kick drum, hi-hat and hand claps).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjcHqitlPxo

CTI's Elemental is more "Detroit-esque" without being from Detroit. Chris & Cosey were definitely proto-Techno.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWDmMEeaE5o

As far as I can see, the article lede is biased and pretty much untenable. But what do i know... --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

lol

"Added to this is the influence of futuristic and fictional themes[7] relevant to life in American late capitalist society, with Alvin Toffler's book The Third Wave being a notable point of reference.[8][9]" <---Seriously? I think my IQ dropped 10 points just after reading this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.75.169 (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's strange to spend half of the second paragraph talking about a "techno spirituality" that I doubt most techno fans relate to, and isn't particularly relevant anymore. Those quote/info should probably be moved into the body of the article. 64.85.243.248 (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Strings of Life

Derrick May said that he added the piano tune (which was called 'Strings of Life', written by Michael James and dedicated to Martin Luther King) to his House track in Winter 1987. After one week, the production was not even finished. So this record was most certainly released in the beginning of 1988. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.13.153 (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

What is techno?

While reading this article (which does contain a lot of musical history, which is fine), I realized that the article doesn't actual inform on what techno is as a musical style, beyond the penultimate paragraph in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.54.162 (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Let's make it perfectly clear

Guys, especially mjb, who has been inactive for a while, let's clarify the following point. The Techno Sound of Detroit (1988) is not techno, regardless of how many mindless "scholar" critics are going to call it Techno. It is house, rhythmically, melodically, harmonically.

I do not concur that techno might have been created in Detroit, but calling 1988 "Detroit techno sound" techno music, as the genre, is a blatant mislabelling. Jeff Mills' "Cyclone" (1997, Detroit) is obviously techno, for example. But it was released in 1997, and that is too late. Another example, what Blake plays in a store in a movie about techno from 1996 ("Ultimate Techno"), calling it original techno sound, is also just acid house. There were lots of such tracks on both sides of Atlantic by that time, because acid house was created in 1987, and it's been a year between 1987 to 1988.

Yes, there is a lot of reliable texts explaining techno was born in Detroit, but many of them will call Cybotron's "Clear" techno as well (when it is obvious electro or electrofunk or both, no matter, but not techno at all). Somehow in this article you have managed to escape calling Cybotron's "Clear" techno (because that would be stupid). But calling "Detroit techno sound" techno music is akin to calling Cybotron's "Clear" techno music. But where is similar refusal / workaround for the "Detroit techno sound" case? I don't see it.

I'm interested first and foremost in music, so yes, I researched a bit, and I yet haven't found what could be considered the first techno record in the modern sense. I only found that Detroit guys were making techno only by 1992-1993, so far. And that's a huge timespan from 1988. I mean techno in the modern general sense, or otherwise guys claiming New Beat/Talla 2XLC spawned techno, because they used that word becomes no better than the deliberate use of the word in Detroit in 1988 - when we know that prior to its release that compilation was supposed to be called "House sound of Detroit".

In a nutshell: Yes, I am OR'ing, but obviously both Cybotron's "Clear" and "Detroit techno sound" aren't techno music. Don't use vagueness as an instrument to obscure the first techno record and calling "Detroit techno sound" "well somewhat of a beginning of techno, but not quite techno, but quite like the sound just before techno etc etc etc". This is an extremely vague wording, If there're no sources clarifying at least the year when first record that would generally be considered techno appeared, then shame on those sources, they ain't worth a dime. -- AK

Piling on to agree that this article has a very bizarre definition of techno. There's almost no mention of the genre during its heyday (early 2000s), nor any reference to the significance of global file sharing in its propagation, the role in early music streams, or really the role of the Internet at all. The major genres derived also make no appearance except in citations. This article may meet some scholarly definition, but it falls short of describing anything that makes sense even to someone with listening experience.   — C M B J   06:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

if you think he "heyday" of techno was the early 2000s you should probably avoid commenting on this matter. 2.120.131.103 (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I would have to respectfully disagree, unless we are not talking about the same genre.   — C M B J   05:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

oh, sorry, you mean 'minimal'? right, yeah, I guess if you think that's techno you are probably right, and clearly you missed everything that happened in Europe between between 89 and 95. 2.120.131.103 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.238.105 (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The *origins* of the genre being discussed aren't really a matter of dispute, but instead the practical meaning of the term. I would not think that many people who were introduced to techno after the advent of file sharing could ever identify with this article. It would make much better sense if titled History of techno, cut down to size, and expanded to include later works — many of which are in Category:Techno. (E: And just to be clear, I came to my sense of confusion with this article as a reader, not as an editor. I honestly find it interesting, but recognize no artists besides Kraftwerk — which is more proto-techno — and Orbital, which is a personal favorite.)   — C M B J   09:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Techno. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080315234608/http://www.mobeus.org/archives/juanatkins/ to http://www.mobeus.org/archives/juanatkins/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040214105200/http://www.techno.de/mixmag/interviews/DerrickMay1.html to http://www.techno.de/mixmag/interviews/DerrickMay1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070813132527/http://raymondscott.com/mripr.html to http://raymondscott.com/mripr.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080501041708/http://www.wintermusicconference.com/events/idmas/winners2008.php to http://www.wintermusicconference.com/events/idmas/winners2008.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080505033528/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1248/is_n10_v84/ai_18749030/pg_6 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1248/is_n10_v84/ai_18749030/pg_6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Techno. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080321215250/http://www.timlawrence.info/linernotes/2005/acidhousesj.php to http://www.timlawrence.info/linernotes/2005/acidhousesj.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110623194409/http://www.afropop.org/multi/interview/ID/203/ to http://www.afropop.org/multi/interview/ID/203/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711020324/http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=6225 to http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=6225

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is an absolute joke!

For starters, the fact that Villalobos, Aphex Twin, Autechre, and Future Sound of London, among a couple of others, are listed here, is utterly ridiculous. None of those artists have ever come out with a single "techno" track, unless you count Aphex's early stuff which was more on the acid side. Also, there's almost no mention of the peak of techno from 1998-2006-ish, when artists such as The Advent, Joey Beltram, Boriqua Tribez, Ignition Technician, Pounding Grooves, Oliver Ho, Hardcell, Redhead, Michael Burkat, etc. etc. etc. were coming onto the scene, with the subgenres of hardtechno, schranz and tribal techno - none of which fall under the umbrella of "minimal" techno at all. Whoever wrote this article clearly worships the early Detroit scene, most of which is closer to Kraftwerk and electro than the actual, defined sound that would come to be known as techno. My god, just look at a Carl Cox mix circa 1998-2006. THAT is techno. Relentless, 135-145 BPM bangers. I don't expect this article to be improved though, as based on earlier discussions I've seen there's clearly some moron with an axe to grind who considers this article their lovechild. Whatever. You obviously have no clue what techno actually is, and appear to have little respect for the European scene, which was and continues to be far more vibrant than its U.S. counterpart. 2001:8003:1821:EE00:C4C0:7104:2966:C9FF (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

the time you spent writing that complaint could have gone to improving the article. If you have sourced material, add it, the only reason the time-period from the end of the 90s to now isn't covered is because no one has been arsed to make a go of it; instead they moan about how crap they think the article is. 2A02:C7D:2E54:3F00:A0FC:D007:30CA:1284 (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Dorian Gray FFM.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 07:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Continued reversions of lead contributions

Hi Acousmana, the article is structured in the following order: 1) origins and influences 2) developments and subgenres 3) musical elements and production. Interestingly, the three paragraphs I already organized the lead into correspond to those categories, with 2 and 3 simply needing to be switched in order. Given this, I cannot understand the logic of your given reversions. That this "stable" article was so long left with a lead that did not reflect its structure casts the worth of the "consensus" in serious question (I.e. there isn’t any evidence of consensus, particularly on this talk page, so I don’t see how I’m contradicting anything).

Additionally, your reversion once again removed cited info on the genre's historical development which is present in the article. Again, no actual content is being removed from the article, as it should already be present in the body. You’ve made no attempts to improve the lead, you simply continue to revert it, which is considerably easier and much less productive. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Removal of cited content

good idea to actually read citations before claiming content is wrong/inaccurate, Kodwo (More Brilliant Than the Sun: Adventures in Sonic Fiction, Quartet Books, 1998) on Afrofutursim for example, Brewster (Last Night a DJ Saved My Life: The History of the Disc Jockey, Avalon Travel Publishing, 2006) on 'first use,' and multiple cited sources re:jazz influences (see the sub-section). If you dispute published sources take it to the appropriate board, don't just delete citations. Acousmana (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I've repeatedly restructured the lead to flow better and organized the information intuitively (P1- origin and influences, P2- style and musical elements, P3 - short history and subgenre developments) rather than haphazardly, as it is in your reversion. No significant information has been removed, as you claim; I remind you that this is a lead—all the information here should be represented and appear elsewhere in the article, so no sources are really being "removed," unless you’ve neglected to source the lead in the body of the article.

I removed mention of jazz in that lead sentence for a simple reason: because it’s not included in the given source—if you’re going to write a sentence in the lead as a GENERAL summary of information in the article, why would you attach a given source that doesn’t support it? My edits don’t remove mention of Afrofuturism, not sure what that objection refers to. The Eshun book is still cited in the article—a great read, too. The Brewster is also still there—in fact, I cited it in my creation of the article of Techno! The New Dance Sound of Detroit. So as far as I can tell, no "cited content" has actually been removed. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, I also added useful historical information about the development of the genre which was incomprehensibly missing from the lead, and which you obviously made no effort to include. Mention of the Belleville Three? No discussion of its spread to Europe? Subgenres like acid house or ambient? Nothing. But you allowed an inane sentence about people arguing over the genre name. Brilliant. Anyway, your reversion removed all of these cited additions. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

[1] - not your edit? unfortunate about your snarky tone, but hey, nothing like a bit of arsey disingenuousness to encourage people to contribute. Acousmana (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly, it seems afrofuturism isn’t actually mentioned in the article, which must have been the reasoning behind this initial edit. Perhaps you should have verified that this content reflected information in the actual article. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

questionable article

"Techno is a form of electronic dance music that emerged in Detroit, Michigan, in the United States during the mid-to-late 1980s. The first recorded use of the word techno in reference to a specific genre of music was in 1988." I sense thinly-veiled historical revisionism here. I'll elaborate.

"In Detroit, techno resulted from the melding of African American music including Chicago house, funk, electro, and electric jazz with electronic music by artists such as Kraftwerk, Giorgio Moroder, and Yellow Magic Orchestra" Two out of the three musicians listed here as "influences of techno" have referred to their own music as "techno" in their own music before 1988, and this is purely off the top of my head, I'm sure there are many more examples.

"Technopolis" by Yellow Magic Orchestra (1979) interesting name of a song for a non-techno band not doing techno or referring to their music as techno. the opening lyrics to the song are "Techno, techno, techno"

"Musique non-stop" by Kraftwerk (1986)

an excerpt from the lyrics:

"Music non stop, techno-pop Music non stop, techno-pop Synthetic electronic sounds Industrial rhythms all around Music non stop, techno-pop"

there is also a song on this album literally called "techno pop" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:2:364F:A095:4C7E:5B82:25AF (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not someone who's interested in fixing up wikipedia articles, I am simply pointing out that this one is flawed, to such a level that I can think up two objective contradictions of the first sentence of the article off of the top of my head alone, for someone who might be interested in fixing up wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:2:364F:A095:4C7E:5B82:25AF (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add after further investigation that there are countless examples of european music throughout the early-mid eighties that fit every definition in this article of the word "techno", from bel canto, yello, the human league, and many other artists. I believe fully that this article is saturated with historical revisionism, and needs expert attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:3:7E20:F957:D5A3:4C75:B28B (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

did you actually read past the lead? Acousmana (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The lead is the problem. Easily observable information contradicts it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:680:17A0:F838:5CC4:7B9F:FF8A (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

This guy just hates African Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.209.171 (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see what race has to do with techno. I'm simply pointing out the fact that there are things that are objectively wrong in this article. A 1986 song literally called "techno pop". What does that have to do with African Americans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.163.3 (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

If you look into the history of the article people have tried to correct the revisionism that's rampant in it. There is someone who is very interested in trying to rewrite history that techno was invented in Detroit. Interesting how dates have been pushed back from '88 to "mid-80s" over time. Still doesn't excuse the obvious existence of the genre in Europe and Japan as early as the late 70s. Hopefully someday the revisionist sleeps and this article is rescued. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:680:54D7:D06E:9392:EA8D:CBD8 (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

"Four on the floor"

Acousmana has continued to reinstate a claim which appears (according to the article body) to be unsourced. The cited author Butler refers to 4/4 time, but the editor conflates this with a "Four-on-the-floor" beat. Attempts to rectify this error were met with dismissive reversions ignoring the substance of my claim. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Should be clarified that the claim is currently unsourced. It's that simple. Nothing in the body mentions "four on the floor" and your sentence in the lead does not contain a citation. If the editor wants to provide this citation to justify the sentence, I invite them to do so. Otherwise, it is unsourced and should be removed. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, the editor has insisted on including an entire paragraph dedicated to the (German) etymological source of the word "techno," which is of dubious relevance to the music genre discussed here. They have not attempted to demonstrate any supposed relevance. Interestingly, they neglect to mention that Toffler's phrase "techno rebels" was the primary inspiration for the artists's adoption of the term. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Editor has been offered page numbers in Butler (2006), seems not interested in consulting them for some reason. German origins far from dubious, additional sourcing is available if said facts continue to be disputed. Acousmana (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

No citations relevant to your actual claim have been provided. It's not my job to verify your own unsourced claims. The lead should simply summarize material in the article body. There is currently nothing in the body referring to "four on the floor"; the closest it comes is this following sentence: "In its simplest form, time is marked with kicks (bass drum beats) on each quarter-note pulse, a snare or clap on the second and fourth pulse of the bar, with an open hi-hat sound every second eighth note"—which makes clear that this is not universal or even typical, just a simplified iteration of the genre. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

"German origins far from dubious" — I haven't cast doubt on their factuality, but on their relevance to the music genre being discussed in the article. Techno is not 1980s German synth/dance-pop. Their use of the term wasn't the primary inspiration for their adoption of the term. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

you would rather argue than consult an actual text listed in the references, you have been given page numbers, why are you not looking them up? Not much more an editor can do to help. Acousmana (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't have the text, and it's not incumbent on me or other Wiki users to support your claim. Provide a relevant quote or directly sourced passage for "four on the floor" as a universal element of the genre, and this problem will immediately go away. Simple. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Nothing in techno is related to the four-on-the-floor beat. What the hell? Stop the edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Lol, thanks for the timely intrusion Binkster. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

"I don't have the text," there's this thing, Google Books. Laziness is a terrible thing; as is ignorance. I find certain editors would rather bicker than consult referenced texts. Unfortunate. Acousmana (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Everybody happy now? Acousmana (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Four to the floor bass drum pattern^ⓘ

Despite having my differences with Acousmana in other points, I have to support him fully in this case. Binkster, how can you write a sentence like this: "Nothing in techno is related to the four-on-the-floor beat"? I really don't get it. Also, if common knowledge, reading the article Four on the floor, and listening to the sound file from that article doesn't convince you guys, Acousmana's sources are valid and clear. Vice versa, can anyone find serious sources claiming that techno is not (typically) characterized by a four-on-the-floor-beat? WilhelmSchneider (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course, the current lead doesn’t say "(typically) characterized," it says "characterized" alone, no ambiguity. Indeed, Acousmana has suggested the very concept of techno without a 4/floor kick is absurd! Kkollaps (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Tracks without a genre?!

Just a list of tracks which deviate from four-on-the-floor patterns, and therefore CAN'T be techno by definition, I’d love to know how to label them! A real condundrum. (Sorry MixMag, I guess you're no authority on techno after all!)

• Carl Craig - "Landcruising" OR "Dreamland" OR "One Day Soon"
• Luke Slater - "Origin"
• Basic Channel - "Lyot"
• Orbital - "Belfast" OR "Chimes"
• Model 500 (aka Juan Atkins) - "The Flow" OR "Last Transport"
• Aphex Twin - "Analogue Bubblebath" OR "Xtal" OR "Isopropanol"
• Move D - "Tribute to Mr Fingers"
• Autechre - "Bike" OR "Egg"
• LFO - "Simon from Sydney"
• Plastikman (aka Richie Hawtin) - "Gak"
• The Black Dog - "Tactile"

Kkollaps (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• editor above is crossposting WP:OR, hissy fit because they have a problem with WP:RS usage, note WP:NOTFORUM. Acousmana 11:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Acousmana: about his EDM ref revert

I don't think mentioning the fact that electronic dance music has "EDM" shorthand is very relevant to the "Techno" article. This has to be written about somewhere in the EDM article. And referencing that "electronic dance music" has short-hand "EDM" in the very first sentence of Techno article is also irrelevant. Article lede should only contain overviews of the topic matter in a very condensed manner, and thus explaining that "electronic dance music" is "EDM" is irrelevant.

I still think that warning readers that some people were referring to all EDM genres as techno in the past is relevant to the article. So if you wanted to do it through this EDM reference, it is clumsy and needs to be redone. Instead of the reference with text, the text from the reference should be put straight to the lede.

I also think that countries in the cultural origins infobox section should be given in alphabetic order. Otherwise that gives an impression of US-centric bias, while alphabetic order is objective. Your arguments on all these three points? 178.121.41.135 (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

How about simplifying it to "Techno is a genre of EDM[1] which is generally..." without the double mention of "electronic dance music" and "EDM". I think it is less readable than "Techno is a genre of electronic dance music[1] which is generally...", but leaving "electronic dance music" without "EDM" in makes it harder to understand what Butler is talking about in the ref, because Butler in his quote seems to only mention "EDM" without further explanation. 178.121.41.135 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Acousmana:, on the other hand, "Trance" starts like this: "Trance is a genre of electronic dance music[ref]..." without mentioning (EDM) in the lede, while its ref is called "Idiot's guide to EDM styles" without further elaborative explanations that EDM = electronic dance music. House (the third "whale" to main Western 4x4 cohort of EDM genres) avoids excessiveness altogether, by putting it like this "House is a music genre...". Given this, i think the lede in techno should be simplified to "Techno is a genre of electronic dance music[1] which is generally.." 178.121.41.135 (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I wanna raise a second concern here too. Both house and trance ledes make it extremelly clear from the start on how house and trance are different from anything else. Trance, as its lede says, "evolved from new age [+other features listed]", house "altering disco songs to give them a more mechanical beat", but techno just "is intended to be put into continuous DJ set and has 4x4 beat". It's vague as hell, because house and trance are also intended to be put into continuous DJ sets. Should be either moved lower down the lede or removed as non-specific, and the techno features clearly dellineating it from house and trance should be listed instead. 178.121.41.135 (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the robotic vibe, extreme repetitiveness and the industrial roots should be emphasized in the lede as they immediately given breve picture of what Techno is and how it is different from house and trance 178.121.41.135 (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• re:EDM: Thanks for your input, there is confusion here between 'EDM' as the standard initialism for 'electronic dance music' (it is) and music industry use of 'EDM' to refer to a US dance music scene post-2010. Butler, like many scholars, uses the initialism, we are doing the same. In prose you generally declare the initialism you intend to use, in brackets, after the first instance of the term you will be initializing for the remainder of the text. The Butler cite was first added to end pointless debate over calling techno a style of EDM (it is). The initialism was in use in scholarly writing long before it was utilized by the music industry to market US dance music. Acousmana 09:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  I get it all, but isn't that wording a bit clumsy still? Like what if the first sentence is replaced with "Techno is a genre of electronic dance music[footer_note][Butler's ref], which is generally..", where footer note would say "often abbreviated as EDM"? I have seen such footer notes in Hardbass article, where they have alternative spellings and clarify that in footer notes. Footer note looks like a ref but is labeled with latin letters instead of numbers. I mean EDM article covers the "electronic dance music"-EDM dichotomy in regards to "EDM boom in the USA" post 2010 pretty well already, doesn't it 178.121.41.135 (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll reiterate, you generally declare the initialism you intend to use, in brackets, after the first instance of the term you will be initializing for the remainder of the article, this is more a MOS:ABBR issue that a content matter. Acousmana 10:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that initialism should be put in brackets after the first use, but the small issue with that in the current article is that "EDM" is not used anywhere in article itself (besides first sentence), only in some references. So in the main text we are explaining abbreviation that is never used in the main article text itself, that's where I see clumsiness 178.121.41.135 (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

See what I am talking about:

Techno is a genre of electronic dance music which is generally produced for use in a continuous DJ set, with tempo often varying between 120 and 150 beats per minute (bpm).

=== Notes ===

===References===

178.121.41.135 (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• you are correct, it was used previously, seems someone has since gone through the entire article and changed every instance of EDM to "electronic dance music," missed that change, will correct this now. Acousmana 10:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Cool 178.121.41.135 (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• re:Lead description: You need to look at this from the perspective of a reader landing on the techno page with zero prior knowledge of dance music, they are given the facts about this type of music, as it relates to he topic of 'music' more generally, and not as it relates to other styles of dance music. We not writing for fans. If someone asks you "what is techno?" you don't start by telling them it's not house or trance because of xy & z, becasue the next questions will be "wtf is house?...trance??." Also, articles are written independently from one another, by different groups of editors, there is no requirement for homogeneity across closely related articles. Acousmana 10:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean I probably didn't clarify what I wanted to say more precisely. I wanted to say that we needn't compare techno to house or trance in the lede, but we need to outline at least a few traits that make techno stand out, or a few traits that you can identify techno with. I mean, I have zero knowledge about techno and someone gave me some 4x4 mix to listen to. According to the current description that mix would probably be techno, because it is 4x4 and it's in a DJ mix. But in reality that mix could be of many other genres. That's what I am saying, 4x4 and being in a DJ mix is not enough to identify techno. 178.121.41.135 (talk) 10:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

solution is to include a short summary of the 'Stylistic considerations' section in the lead. You want to avoid subjective descriptions. We also need to add some musical examples, there were some, but they were binned at some point. Acousmana 10:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Here I agree, I will try to do that 178.121.41.135 (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Take a look, I've added the second paragraph to the lede 178.121.41.135 (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Acousmana: and what do you think about putting cultural origins in alphabetic order? 178.121.41.135 (talk) 10:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

great, lead is more informative now, rather than having key text buried in article. Cultural origins in alphabetic order would seem reasonable. Acousmana 10:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

🤝178.121.41.135 (talk) 10:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic tone

I have twice attempted to clean up the unencyclopedic tone of two paragraphs, per MOS:WTW, and have twice been reverted by User:Acousmana.

−

"Locations" - In the United States, apart from regional scenes in Detroit, [[New York City]], Chicago and Orlando, interest was limited. Producers from Detroit, frustrated by the lack of opportunity in their home country, moved to Europe. A second group of artists from Detroit followed, including Carl Craig, [[Octave One]], Jay Denham, [[Kenny Larkin]], and [[Stacey Pullen]], with [[Underground Resistance (band)|UR]]'s [[Jeff Mills]], [[Mike Banks (musician)|Mike Banks]], and [[Robert Hood]]. New York producers included [[Frankie Bones]], Lenny Dee, and [[Joey Beltram]]. In [[Windsor, Ontario]], [[Richie Hawtin]] and [[John Acquaviva]] launched [[Plus 8|Plus 8 Records]]. Developments in American-produced techno between 1990 and 1992 promoted the expansion and eventual divergence of techno in Europe, particularly in Germany. In [[Berlin]], following the closure of the free party venue [[Ufo (Club, Berlin)|Ufo]], the club [[Tresor (club)|Tresor]] opened in 1991. The venue was a notable location for techno, and hosted many Detroit producers, some of whom relocated to Berlin. By 1993, as interest in techno in the UK club scene declined, Berlin was considered the main location for techno in Europe.

+

"American exodus" - In the United States during the early 90s, apart from regional scenes in Detroit, [[New York City]], Chicago and Orlando, interest in techno was limited. Many Detroit based producers, frustrated by the lack of opportunity in the US, looked to Europe for a future livelihood. This first wave of Detroit expatriates was soon joined by a so-called "second wave" that included Carl Craig, [[Octave One]], Jay Denham, [[Kenny Larkin]], [[Stacey Pullen]], and [[Underground Resistance (band)|UR]]'s [[Jeff Mills]], [[Mike Banks (musician)|Mike Banks]], and [[Robert Hood]]. In the same period, close to Detroit ([[Windsor, Ontario]]), [[Richie Hawtin]], with business partner [[John Acquaviva]], launched the techno imprint [[Plus 8]] Records. A number of New York producers also made an impression in Europe at this time, most notably [[Frankie Bones]], Lenny Dee, and [[Joey Beltram]] . These developments in American-produced techno between 1990 and 1992 fueled the expansion and eventual divergence of techno in Europe, particularly in Germany. In [[Berlin]], following the closure of a free party venue called [[Ufo (Club, Berlin)|Ufo]], the club [[Tresor (club)|Tresor]] opened in 1991. The venue was for a time the standard bearer for techno and played host to many of the leading Detroit producers, some of whom had relocated to Berlin. By 1993, as interest in techno in the UK club scene started to wane, Berlin was considered the unofficial ''techno capital'' of Europe.

References

Concerns include:

• Producers "looked to Europe", or "moved to Europe"?
• "So-called" is specifically mentioned at MOS:DOUBT.
• "fueled the expansion", "standard bearer", "started to wane", "unofficial techno capital".
• Windsor is geographically close to Detroit, but is located in a different country.

The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• Producers "looked to Europe", or "moved to Europe"? Per sources, in the era discussed, American dance music producers, even those who didn't "move to" Europe, focused their attention on selling releases there and securing DJ bookings, literature on the subject supports this.
• So-called" is specifically mentioned at MOS:DOUBT - Per sources "second wave" is term widely used for this group of producers, so-called because we are referring to a term employed by sources, same would be true of first wave in reference to Atkins/May/Saunderson, also used widely by commentators.
• "fueled the expansion", "standard bearer", "started to wane", "unofficial techno capital". all stylistic preferences, not necessarily unencylopedic. One should note too that in the intervening period Berlin has come to be widely viewed as the official "techno capital" (plenty of sources for this), but again, check the source, if Sicko states that in the early 90s it was the "unofficial" techno capital, we should probably stick with this.
• Windsor is geographically close to Detroit, but is located in a different country. so we add Canada.
• Overall, this content has remained uncontested for probably 14 years at this point, tone could perhaps be improved, but what's being said is actually accurate. Acousmana 15:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Acousmana: If you agree the tone could be improved, why have you twice reverted edits to improve the tone? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: because what I saw was more than just tone changes. Hyperbolic pronouncements are indeed unencyclopedic, just not convinced we are currently in that territory? Acousmana 20:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Especially in the following text part I see some problems due to an inaccurate presentation of the development of the techno scene in Germany:

"In Berlin, following the closure of a free party venue called Ufo, the club Tresor opened in 1991. The venue was for a time the standard bearer for techno and played host to many of the leading Detroit producers, some of whom had relocated to Berlin. By 1993, as interest in techno in the UK club scene started to wane, Berlin was considered the unofficial techno capital of Europe."

• First of all, Ufo was an (initially illegal) acid house venue in the late 1980s, and it was not the only prominent acid house venue in Germany at that time. Other Germany-wide known venues for acid house were for example the Negerhalle (1983-1989) and the ETA-Halle in Munich, according to the literature the first official clubs in Germany that organized raves in industrial halls, or also the discotheque Front in Hamburg (1983-1997, see here a TV report from 1988).

Update the content to reflect this, but it should be supported by more than a Youtube cite, that's OR. Acousmana 20:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• Second, Tresor (since 1991) was certainly the most prominent, but not the only widely known techno club of the early techno scene in Germany. In Berlin, for example, there was also the Planet (1991-1993), in Frankfurt the discotheque Dorian Gray (1978-2000, with a history as a discotheque before techno) and the Omen (1988-1998), and in Munich Germany's first afterhour techno club Babalu Club (1990-1994). Omen, Dorian Gray and Babalu Club were also well-known techno clubs throughout Germany, and people traveled there from all over the country. Like acid house, techno in Germany thus also developed very quickly as a nationwide phenomenon, and techno was not limited to Berlin alone. Instead, traveling between the different clubs in the country was a characteristic of the early techno scene In Germany.

We already mention Dorian Gray, Omen, Planet, E-Werk, and Bunker as prominent examples. If you have reliable sources to support additional detail please do add them. Acousmana 20:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• Third, the sentence "The venue was for a time the standard bearer for techno and played host to many of the leading Detroit producers, some of whom had relocated to Berlin." sounds to me a bit like techno had only spilled over into Germany when the Detroit DJs moved to Berlin. But first, according to their own statements, many early German club DJs (e.g. Westbam, DJ Hell) got acquainted with the Detroit sound through buying records (as they did with the Chicago sound before that), second, the Detroit DJs certainly played in German clubs (see above) before they finally moved to Berlin, and third, there is also the question of the role and influence of the Frankfurt sound in early German techno clubs. Then, finally, the technoparade Loveparade, which first took place in 1989, and the festival Mayday, which had its debut in 1991, are considered in several documentaries to be important for the spread of techno beyond the pure scene culture to a nationally perceived phenomenon in Germany.

current content appears to be supported by sources, the Tresor/Detroit overlap was significant, and is well documented, we also mention Mayday and Loveparade, so again if you have reliable sources to support additional detail please do add them. Acousmana 20:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• Finally, the sentence: "By 1993, as interest in techno in the UK club scene started to wane, Berlin was considered the unofficial techno capital of Europe." Is this really what the source says, that there is a connection between a decline of techno in the UK and the proclamation of Berlin as the "unofficial techno capital of Europe"?

Rio65trio (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

check the source, but the suggestion would seem to be that as other styles became popular in the UK - in particular progressive house, drum and bass, trance - interest in harder techno waned there, but in Germany it was still a celebrated scene. Around 93/94 Detroit Techno was back on the menu in UK, and a pure techno scene emerged, one that tried to differentiate itself from the harder German and European techno. We don't document any of this properly, and it's a quagmire, unless someone has time to piece it together with reliable sources we won't be able to get into the details. Acousmana 20:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have a look at the source and I'm also willing to detail the whole part with reliable sources soon. Only, hopefully you agree, the comparison of the whole scene in the UK on the one hand with only two selected clubs in Germany on the other is a very unbalanced presentation. At the moment, in fact, the section reads as if the early (techno/acid house) scene in Germany was limited to just two places in Berlin. I'll think about how to improve the wording in question. Rio65trio (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)