Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

SaltWaterPower · Sep 13, 2007, 03:07 PM

And yeah, I'm bringin' "rad" back. It's cool again.

Anyway:
http://www.di.fm/edmguide/edmguide.html

Very annoying intro, but the inside of the site is Vera niccceee. Great descriptions, multiple audio samples of each genre and subgenre and sub-subgenre, and humorous commentary. Awesome way to learn about electronic music, and it's origins!

starman · Sep 13, 2007, 03:11 PM

Spam? I'm afraid to click it.

Dakarʒ · Sep 13, 2007, 03:12 PM

The link seems clean, but man, someone had a field day with 3D and faux shininess on the intro.

And last ting I need to do is introduce more subgenres into my vocabulary.

SaltWaterPower · Sep 13, 2007, 03:45 PM

It's not spam. I linked it becuase I know there are some electronic music fans on this site. It's really informative, with descriptions and samples of each genre.

design219 · Sep 13, 2007, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by starman

Spam? I'm afraid to click it.

This is Ca$h, right? He wouldn't post spam.

Laminar · Sep 13, 2007, 04:11 PM

The link didn't work for me.

design219 · Sep 13, 2007, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by Laminar

The link didn't work for me.

Works for me. It is Flash, and butt ugly.

Laminar · Sep 13, 2007, 04:26 PM

I tried it again and it worked. Oh well. Not that I'm interested in it.

LyingSack · Sep 15, 2007, 07:51 PM

I can't believe more of you didn't freak out about this. I've never seen electronic music organized this well before, with this much clarity, even with samples. It's fantastic.

Also, I don't understand why Laminar is so pissed at me.

starman · Sep 15, 2007, 08:20 PM

OK, there's a lot of good info here, but the site is sh*t. It's horrific to navigate through, and there's no search function.

The fact that in the Downbeat section they have references to Lustmord, Robert Rich, Halcyon, and others is impressive, but I couldn't find Jarre, Vangelis, Tomita, or Wendy Carols in that mess anywhere.

I mean, put Jarre in the "French Pop" section at LEAST!

EDIT: Found Tangerine Dream, Michael Oldfield and Philip Glass. Still no Jarre or Vangelis. Whoever put this together either needs to add them, or take their site down out of shame.

LyingSack · Sep 15, 2007, 08:51 PM

It's doesn't cover everything man... it just shows you what each genre can sound like. I think it's pretty awesome. The way that you can track progress via time, and see what spun off into what, is pretty awesome.

starman · Sep 15, 2007, 09:29 PM

It's like having a web site about the history of rock without the Beatles or the Stones. Sorry, no approval.

gradient · Sep 15, 2007, 09:53 PM

Sorry, but that site is a joke. Any supposedly informative site that says has this to say.....

New Age is floaty, dreamy, and effeminate--even the stuff made by the guys (who have no genitals, by the way)....... The music itself isn't actually all that bad, but the people who listen to it are ****ing tools. It's really hard to find a New Age composer these days that you wouldn't wanna rather give a swift kick in the shins.

...... is a rediculously biased POS that was probably written by some 15 year old candy raver. Gimme a break.

starman · Sep 15, 2007, 10:21 PM

I didn't read that. Heh. Shows how much they know.

The site COULD be cool if they'd tidy it up (a lot) and get rid of the commentary crap, and add people that were actual pioneers.

analogika · Sep 16, 2007, 05:52 AM

I just saw this thread and had a look.

Initial thought "GAAH!" but then that terrifying Flash intro was over.

Second thought "Wow, this is really great for exploring the different genres and sub-styles"

And then I looked around, and noticed first that he'd ripped a lot of phrasing from other sites (including the description of the Ah-men break, which comes mostly from an *excellent* 12-minute video that any self-respecting hip-hop or electro fan needs to search out immediately).

Originally Posted by starman

The fact that in the Downbeat section they have references to Lustmord, Robert Rich, Halcyon, and others is impressive, but I couldn't find Jarre, Vangelis, Tomita, or Wendy Carols in that mess anywhere.

Jean-Michel Jarre and Vangelis are to be found in the "New Wave" category.

It looks like he lifted a bunch of categories and info from all over the place (nothing wrong with collecting info), but then threw it together in a sort of "intuitive" spread-around in all the areas he obviously isn't old enough to know or has no expertise in.

Which, unfortunately, puts the whole site in jeopardy, as there's obviously enough misinformation in there to make it useless as a source of information.

The descriptive texts are complete ass, with no background whatsoever on the actual musical differences. They come across as having been written either by Rob, or by a fifteen-year-old "pundit". And having two-sentence blurbs on the "Tech12", the TB-303, TR-808 and TR-909, along with not-nearly-representative samples and no note as to which genres are dominated by what is completely useless in a musical branch where differences between entire genres are often equipment-defined (different boxes produce different sounds, even when you do the same things with them).

Still, I'm having fun, and the examples chosen in some of the newer sub-genres actually illustrate the styles quite well.

starman · Sep 16, 2007, 10:18 AM

They're in "New Wave"??? Right next to Devo?

Kevin · Sep 16, 2007, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by starman

I didn't read that. Heh. Shows how much they know.

The site COULD be cool if they'd tidy it up (a lot) and get rid of the commentary crap, and add people that were actual pioneers.

In other words, redo it completely.

analogika could probably throw something together better than this.

analogika · Sep 16, 2007, 10:47 AM

Devo's not in there. Giorgio Moroder is, with "the Chase", which is not *quite* New Wave.

His description of "New Wave" is a perfect example of why this site is useless, too.

New Wave
a.k.a. Electro Pop

Um, what?

Okay, he continues:

As in a new sound, a new mode, a new type of apparatus from which to construct, compose, and perform music. What I like best about this period is everyone who picked up an electronic instrument did so because they were already established musicians and composers looking for additions and enhancements and explorations of their sounds. Today, electronic musicians--especially the bad ones--seem to be mostly lazy, uncreative morons who don't know a damn thing about music because they let the sequencer and preset banks do all the work. It's no wonder that the music 20 years ago still sounds way more interesting than it does today.

Sounds like Musicians' Envy, coupled with a hearty dose of judgemental bullshit that might be taken for informed opinion by someone who has even less of a clue what this guy is talking about than he himself does.

I can see why Rob thinks this is the greatest site ever.

Kevin · Sep 16, 2007, 11:06 AM

I agree, but having said that there are tons of people that consider themselves "talented" because they know how to use a drum machine, and a sequencer, and pro tools. Yet give them an actual instrument to PLAY, and they are lost. Or tell them you want a break to shift keys, and they have no idea what you are talking about. I am not a huge fan of Prince's music. Some I like, some I don't. But that guy is a musical genius. He can play anything. I'd love to have that talent.

I am not trying to come off as pretentious, because I myself have LITTLE musical theory knowledge. But i know what key I am in, and I know what to play over what. That is to be at least expected.

I go down to the local guitar shop, and there are always kids wizzing up and down the fretboard. Something that took me years to do. I am impressed in the same way I would be impressed if someone did a triple back flip or something.

But take these same kids, and play a chord progression and they are ALL OVER the place. Playing out of key, and bending notes way out of tune. They have no idea what it means to actually MAKE music.

Then he went on to tell me how he was better than Hendrix... and I left. I guess since Hendrix didn't play sweeping arpeggios he sucked.

*sigh*

[edit] sorry for the rambling off topic, I know this is about electronic music

analogika · Sep 16, 2007, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

I agree, but having said that there are tons of people that consider themselves "talented" because they know how to use a drum machine, and a sequencer, and pro tools. Yet give them an actual instrument to PLAY, and they are lost.

Yeah, but that's completely irrelevant to this site, since the people that define these genres are the ones that know what they're doing.

And if you think that good drum programming is easy, you've never tried it.

Clapton's playing since the Slowhand era sounds easy, too.

starman · Sep 16, 2007, 11:43 AM

Sequencer != cheating. Hence why I think Jarre should be there. The stuff he did with sequencers was amazing. Vangelis took a different approach and has been doing it since the late 60's. I'm glad they got Tangerine Dream in there. No Suzanne Ciani I noticed, she really deserves to be in an Electronic Music history as well.

Anyone want to work on redoing this RIGHT?

Kevin · Sep 16, 2007, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by analogika

And if you think that good drum programming is easy, you've never tried it.

Oh I've done it. But I've also taken drum lesson for 2 years prior.. I never said GOOD programming was easy. I simply meant the ability to use one.

analogika · Sep 16, 2007, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

I never said GOOD programming was easy. I simply meant the ability to use one.

I fail to see the difference.

Either you're able to use an instrument, or you're no good at it.

Oh, and please cut the "I never said blabla" crap. It's not doing anybody any good, and it's getting REALLY annoying, especially since it makes harmless threads like this one reminiscent of the huge Zimphests of old...

israces · Sep 16, 2007, 06:28 PM

The samples themselves are excellent. I haven't heard some of that **** in years. Nice to see how some of the stuff I used to listen to has evolved.

- - e r i k - - · Sep 16, 2007, 10:25 PM

The site itself is almost as old as the internet itself. It's actually a pretty decent resource (I've had it bookmarked since around 2000-1) and quite fun to poke around.

Kevin · 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by analogika

I fail to see the difference.

Then let me attempt to explain it.

I know people that for example, can play "smoke on the water" riff on a guitar but no one would called him "Good" when referring to his guitar playing skills. Just like I know people that know how to barely work drum machines. (Mostly modified presets). I wouldn't call them good drum programmers.

Oh, and please cut the "I never said blabla" crap. It's not doing anybody any good, and it's getting REALLY annoying, especially since it makes harmless threads like this one reminiscent of the huge Zimphests of old...

analogika, I've done nothing but say good things about you in this thread.
So why you are now attacking me is beyond me. I did nothing wrong. As a matter of fact, reading back at most of your posts, you are attacking someone in just about ALL of them. What is the need for such hostility?

You took what I said, and spun it.

Now I am not saying you did it on purpose. You may have just read over what I said real fast, and replied in like. Me coming back and telling you that your reply really had no relevancy to what I said wasn't me starting anything. So your attack on me is unfounded.

From being able to USE something, to being able to USE IT WELL. There is a difference.

What I said

I agree, but having said that there are tons of people that consider themselves "talented" because they know how to use a drum machine

What you said in reply

And if you think that good drum programming is easy , you've never tried it.

Never once in my quote above did I say "Good drum programming is easy" Had I said that, your response would have been valid. But since I did not, it wasn't.

Again, trying to explain this to you while being as nice as I can. Just like I did the last time.

Lets see if you can reply in like.