teengirl fantasy, miracles club, mi ami, 100% silk and the rise of HIPSTER HOUSE: S/D

also since you are here what is the name of the titan or leviathan that lives in the ocean that people of nessus are at war with? this is really bothering me...

when you say this stuff like "you're more likely to find ..." i also want to ask WHERE?

like you have this big sample set that you can pull from that isn't just your personal experience. i have a personal experience too, and it doesn't really square with a lot of what's being said on this thread, at least not in a way that you can point at and say OH THE INTERNET DID THAT

lamp i think you mean ABAIA, EREBUS, ARIOCH or SCYLLA though i'm not sure which

what i like about ital's "hive mind" is that it seems like a personal vision, not just a gloss or reflection of an absorbed cultural memory

why is this a dichotomy though? I think a lot of "personal visions" are basically a closs or reflection of an absorbed cultural memory, I'm not sure how I would go about distinguishing the two really. maybe the failing is with me.

it means that everyone lives their lives btw the worlds that might be and the world that is along the lines of if

and all that was, all that will be and all that is may yet fall under the shadow of h1psters.

holy fuck this thread

no tim, i agree, that's why i said a misreading, i'm not going to fall into auteur fallacy or something like that

also lamp i understand what you're saying, it's all a continuum, etc

but as a fan of electronic music, i know that when i put on the ital album i'm like "WTF is this" and even though i can come up w/ refractions and amalgamations ("chemical brothers remixed by mark e") of things i have heard it is still something i have never really heard before, because maybe it only existed in his head.

whereas steve moore, i see a track called MOORE/MAJEURE and yep, it sounds like tangerine dream circa force majeure. i see an album under a photo of a yacht, and yep, it sounds like yacht rock. i see a photo that looks like the cover of an 80s sci-fi movie and yep, the track sounds like a john carpenter track, because what he's making is maybe a lot closer to something that is already out there.

this is what i was getting at w/r/t "personal vision" vs "cultural reference"

it seems to me that ital is doing a lot more amalgamating and refracting than someone like steve moore, who is basically just spitting back up the john carpenter / 80s scifi cheese vibe undigested

Oh okay that all makes sense.

I guess how I would tend to define this issue is that communities of taste maybe aren't as constraining as they used to be. This is about what you might call the social structure of taste rather than how open-minded people are (which I'm sceptical about trying to measure).

The fluidity of artist-identity on the web - where setting up an alter ego means making a second soundcloud page - means it's a lot easier to, say, set up a sideline in a second or even third genre, than when you had to work through labels and live venues and so on.

All of which comes down to the idea of investment, and whether our past habits of making a virtue of that necessity were a good thing or a bad thing. I suspect they were both really.

What I don't think changes - or at least doesn't necessarily change - is how interesting or unique or thoughtful or etc. the resulting musical product is. A half-hearted note for note tribute to one genre and a half-hearted mish-mash of various reference points are both half-hearted.

"making a virtue of necessity" sounds to me like a good way of thinking about the idea of "post-internet" whateverr

a lot of the artists were always pretty open-minded, late great, but I think fandom is more open-minded now. although you're bringing up plenty of good exceptions. and I mean, you could say babyboomers in the 60s were pretty eclectic in their influences: rock n roll, folk, blues, rnb, country, and then even moreso going into psychedelia and prog.

I generally go with the assumption that art will always be a product of the various forces around it, so of course the Net is going to play a large part in shaping what's out there now, and not just wrt eclecticism. but interpretting it all is def a matter of projecting a bit - resonant projections maybe, but not anything for which one could always pull up the satisfying evidence you would want. I don't like to approach art too rationally, interpretation is more a vaguely poetic extension of the larger something it's all a part of (that is, I don't have much faith in the rational as far as exploring art goes, I don't think you can be reductive about it)

lamp i think you mean ABAIA, EREBUS, ARIOCH or SCYLLA though i'm not sure which

scylla was the one i was thinking of - i cant really remember much about them but i knew their names were references to other things although i thought more obscured than that

and all that was, all that will be and all that is may yet fall under the shadow of h1psters.

that darkness @ noon

fwiw i think the primtive neural pathways release (now on cassette!) is really good, even as much as its a pastiche or 'unsophisticated' in the way that it lifts and winks. like i mean the actual songs are emotionally appealing to me, i like their 'vibe', the way they unfold as familiar bits unexperienced yesterdays

yeah i don't mean to be shitting all over this stuff, there is a lot of sweet eye candy on that steve moore tumblr and i own and enjoy the com truise album so what am i on my high horse for anyway

What I don't think changes - or at least doesn't necessarily change - is how interesting or unique or thoughtful or etc. the resulting musical product is. A half-hearted note for note tribute to one genre and a half-hearted mish-mash of various reference points are both half-hearted.

otm

new 100% silk joint, perhaps a bit undigested compared to ital but vibes for days

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3QKWDPZTUU

sfv acid 12" probably my fave 100% silk thing after magic touch

Fort Romeau album is fantastic, a real step up in the sound quality stakes and more than capable of hammering a sound system

100 Percent Silk Goes Abroad: A Documentary

http://beta.indiegogo.com/silkdoc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpKR17YYfDQ

new album out by Cuticle. i like the weirdness!

not really feeling the vocals though.

New Mi Ami album (Decade) is out on 100% Silk. Anyone heard it?

sorry, i'll answer just as soon as i've finished spending my entire life listening to dolphins into the future

I challenge one of you hipster house lovin' hipsters to make a POX or Spotify playlist of the good stuff, cuz I have a feeling there are some real bangers here but I can't find them

i wouldn't really know, but i wouldn't be surprised if hipster house is set up specifically in opposition to bangerism

well you're obviously not a tru hipster. banger = anything that's good. as in, "did you hear the new kindness album? it's chock full of bangers, mate"

(please please, don't take the thread *there*)

Fort Romeau did a mix for Mixmag the other week, nice ground but familiar tracks. They mention he was/is La Roux's tour drummer.

http://www.mixmag.net/music/mix-of-the-week/motw-fort-romeau

Needs more bangers imho.

Fort Romeau album is fantastic

amen

^ i have been listening to this fort romeau record constantly for months now, did not expect it to become one of my faves this year but dang

anyone check out the new mi ami thing yet?

i guess i need to give it a closer listen. my first impression of Fort Romeau was that it was pretty straightforward and not terribly unique stuff, but a few friends have been recommending it.

Anyone mention the Pharaohs EP on Silk yet? "Flutter & Moan" is great.

Love the Fort Romeau too, gorgeous background music in the best sense.

where did you get the record? i only have the mixes. haven't looked illegally.

http://soundcloud.com/stereogamous/light-asylum-stereogamous

Ooooohhhh. Light Asylum are sort of late 80s goth industrial pastiche with a heavy Grace Jones influence?

So yeah, catnip.

Stereogamous managed to make that even gayer.

And of course the only way to buy this is on a limited run 300 clear vinyl pressing.

Cool thread. I'm pretty late to this conversation, but I'll add a "few" thoughts:

The Ital interview where DM-M name-drops Glass and Riley and Reich is for me the “key” to “understanding” HH. I’ve always thought the “official” narrative of house’s composition (i.e. 90% disco/funk/electro + 10% Kraftwerk, as found in Generation Ecstasy, Wiki, every mainstream music publication) to be simplistic and reductive, and that minimalism (‘70’s variety), krautrock, industrial, punk, post-punk and psych were also important influences at the time (coincidence isn’t correlation, I know, but the aesthetic affinities between house and these other genres are just too damn numerous, and the cultural cross-pollination in the early ‘80’s was rampant). To the extent that HH music in general is openly brandishing these minimalist influences, and also to the extent that “proper” house itself originated from said influences (even if only second-hand via Kraftwerk), I think you can view HH as a sort of “revivalist”/”back-to-the-roots” movement, albeit a contentious (some would say “revisionist”) one. I think that this “argument” over the genre’s origins (and the subsequent implications for house’s “meaning”) is largely what’s driving the debate in this thread re: HH’s current “aesthetic place” relative to “mainstream” house. Many of the tracks linked to this thread are blatantly pushing the ‘70’s/stoner/psych/minimalist influences of Glass/Reich/etc., which explains why they’re mostly “droners” instead of “bangers”. This particular aesthetic embrace also reopens all of the classic fault lines in house: black/white, gay/straight, club bangers/armchair tracks, the joy and uplift of the vocals/the cold grind of the beat, and the mechanical, hypnotic repetition of the sounds, etc. Generally speaking, this thread is a testament to the "dislocation" that results when a previously “buried” influence in a genre is brought to the fore and featured prominently (i.e. HH musicians might also be embracing any number of the other “buried” influences that I mention above, and the conversation doesn’t change much if at all).

And I might even be “wrong” about the origins of house in a very literal, pre-Internet way, but the “kids” making HH had and continue to have all of the above ‘80’s underground influences laid out for them side-by-side on a platter via the ‘net. Any dots that weren’t explicitly connected in the first place can be joined so easily that, for all intents and purposes, they might as well have been from the very start. As mentioned upthread, HH obviously facilitates conversations about both house’s “DNA” and the contemporary dissemination of aesthetic information. I’ll just throw in that I “like” a number of these tracks, but generally agree that much of the HH above feels “hesitant” and “detached”, as opposed to driving and loud and exuberant, which is I think due to the shift in the music’s emphasis towards the more “subdued”, “theoretical” influences of minimalism (and possibly some of the other “buried” genres I mention.

/unhinged rambling

Seems reasonable.

Well, except of course for the weak link between electronic minimalism and house.

There's maybe another explanation which would be to consider the hardware of 80s house and whether certain affinities and connections were being transferred between those two formations technologically. I remember a story that Lil Jon's crunk productions had so many 'rave' sonic signatures from presets. Instruments that make their own relations, etc.

That said, I don't know much about Glass and Riley and Reich, etc. Always struck me as academic, although clearly Arthur Russell moved between those worlds.

"Well, except of course for the weak link between electronic minimalism and house."

Yeah, the link between minimalism and house is a weird but interesting hinge. There are several ways to look at this relationship: According to the “official” history of house, there is no direct link at all (that I’ve seen presented; this obviously doesn’t necessarily mean that such a link doesn’t exist). From this traditional perspective, you could possibly argue that the minimalist influences were smuggled in via Kraftwerk/postpunk/electro. You could also pull back from the house scene a bit and look at the larger, more general context of “underground ‘80’s music” in which minimalist aesthetic ideas were freely circulating in a number of orbits. Seen from this larger perspective, the “relationship” between minimalism and house makes a lot of sense, but of course raises the question of “validity” with regard to the scope of the context being referenced. And then there’s HH, which has put these two genres together in a fairly seamless fashion, at the very least confirming (in my mind) their aesthetic similarities. (I’d also like to not get too hung up on minimalism per se, because I think this discussion can also be applied to the other “outside”, “unofficial” influences that I mentioned in my original post).

Regardless, to the house “purists”, the juxtaposition of these genres may seem like just another ridiculous “postmodern” hybrid that has no relevance to the actual origins of house. HH producers, however, may feel an aesthetic kinship between these genres that renders irrelevant (in a pragmatic way) the predominant, received history of house. So where does that leave HH in 2012? In a real sense, the “documented” history clearly doesn’t matter to the extent that people are going to make the music they want to make, with all of the aesthetic tools at their disposal, “gatekeepers” be damned. The question, then, is whether or not HH is “legitimate” (and does it even matter?). In the Ital interview, DM-M seems to be staking a claim for the historical legitimacy of his music as “proper” house by claiming minimalism (and its "offspring" krautrock/post-punk/etc.) as a part (albeit obscure) of the “true” narrative of house (perhaps at a second- or third-hand remove, however). How important this legitimacy is to listeners, and how this legitimacy may affect the “seriousness” with which his music is taken by critics are open questions. Personally, I think minimalism, industrial, postpunk, krautrock, etc. are “in there somewhere” with regard to the aesthetic makeup of house, and I think HH is “legit” house (whatever that means). Still, I’m one of those “noise”/”postpunk” guys who’s been drifting closer and closer to house and techno over the past twenty-odd years, so caveat emptor & etc. That being said, I’d like to see the narrative regarding the origins of house open up a bit so that a conversation regarding “legitimacy” doesn’t pop up every time house switches aesthetic gears, but that’s probably unrealistic.

I think its pretty safe to say that all these guys came to house via the DFA and the various balaeric diggers one encounters via beatsinspace route who have been drawing the dots between house and kraut for a good decade. Add that to design school theorising et voila. i dont see the need for all discussion around its genesis, cool kids always need to dance every 10 years or so

True. I'm 100% sure that no one actually "needs" to discuss any of this crap, ever.

xps wow, so many weird assumptions and strange arguments being built upon those weird assumptions

in what way have minimalist influences ever been 'buried' in 'proper' house music, esp in the past 10-15 years? and how this is something that hh exhibits more so than other movements/subgenres? i feel like house purism is so intertwined with minimalism at this point that it's sorta hard to distinguish, and i'm having a real hard time understanding how something like that fort romeau album or tgf or even the ital album is more 'minimalist' than voices from the lake or theo parrish or w/e

i feel like i am not the best dude to make this argument but it's hard not to picture v4h1d foaming at the mouth after reading this stuff so maybe he shouldn't really step in either

Yeah, just to clarify, I'm talking about the '70's variety of "minimalism" (Glass/Reich/etc.), not the contemporary techno/house genre also (confusingly) known as "minimalism". Hopefully that makes the assumptions less "weird", or at least "weird" in a way that's not totally fucking nuts (not holding my breath).

yes you said that earlier

i had a long paragraph written out about all the connections you could make btwn house and minimalism but then i realized it sounded ridiculous and i think all this stuff is super intuitive and i have no idea why hipster house makes these connections more obvious than something like the grandfather paradox, which is the quintessential "IN CASE YOU NEVER REALIZED IT, MINIMAL IS INFLUENCED BY MINIMALISM" beat you over the head with a stick argument

i mean, grandfather paradox is the extreme but i think most examples of truly competent non-vocal house/techno from the last 10-15 years exhibit almost every single trait one could think of to define minimalist composition without making it as explicit, and this is even more true in a full length mix as opposed to a single track but it goes for both really. i would say that hh is even less fluid/gradual than other house music but i guess stuff like blondes proves this wrong to a degree

I understand what you’re saying, but I think we’re having two different discussions, so I’ll try to clarify what I said earlier.

During this entire thread, people are trying to “understand” HH. They ask a number of questions:

1) Can HH even be considered house?
2) If it is house, is it really an “alternative” to existing house genres?
3) If it’s not house, then what the fuck is it?
4) If it is house, does it sound different from the more “mainstream” varieties of house because it truly embodies a different aesthetic, or because the producers suck and the music is shitty?
5) Why the fuck should I care if it is/is not house as long as people like it and can dance to it?
6) Is HH more of a marketing angle than an actual genre?
7) How do the producers expect people to like when it sounds like shit played over a club system?

& Etc.

I think it’s an interesting discussion, so I read through the whole thread and listened to all of the linked tracks. One aspect of the thread that jumped out at me is the Daniel Martin-McCormick/Ital interview for LWE. In the interview, DM-M talks about what I’m going to refer to as “classical” minimalism (Glass/Reich/Riley). He talks about it in a way that suggests that the genre directly influenced the actual origin of house (back in the early ‘80’s, obviously). I haven’t seen anyone else make this claim. Maybe “everyone” already "believes" it so there’s no need to ever make such a claim, but the absence of “classical” minimalism in the “official” narrative of the origin of house is weird. I understand that “contemporary” minimalism (Kompakt, etc.) has been a popular house style for years now, and that people do associate this style with “classical” minimalism, but I’m talking about the actual origin of house. Every time I read about the origin of house, I note that the writer talks about electro and Moroder and Kraftwerk and that’s about it. I’ve never seen references to Glass and Reich and Riley, so I think DM-M’s angle is interesting, and maybe even a “key” to understanding HH. Now, I’m obviously not talking about the last “10-15 years” of house, I’m talking about the origin of house from thirty years ago. DM-M also claims that his own music is directly influenced by “classical” minimalism, and I can genuinely hear this influence. Some of his tracks actually sound a bit more like Glass/Reich pieces than house tracks. To me, (and apparently to some of the posters upthread) his tracks don’t sound at all like “contemporary” minimalism (of the Kompakt variety). As other posters have noted, his music drones and drifts and has repetitive melodic fragments (and sounds a bit like Philip Glass at times) but doesn’t really “bang” like most house (or even like most “contemporary” minimalism, for that matter). Also, quite a few HH tracks in general have a kind “lo-fi” sound that seems to intentionally reference ‘70’s analogue recordings. So DM-M and other HH producers are not referencing Richie Hawtin or Kompakt or whatever, they’re referencing actual “classical” minimalism circa 1975. For some DJ’s and fans, this is a problem. “Classical” minimalism is not a “funky” music, and it's not a "club" music. It has “detached”, “cerebral” and “academic” qualities that don’t translate to the dance floor. The repetition that it exhibits is more "abstract/mathematical/complex", and does not establish anything resembling a funky groove. Other posters have noted that HH is also aesthetically informed by contemporary “noise”, which I think is really just fourth-hand “classical” minimalism (Glass > Branca > Sonic Youth > Wolf Eyes). Either way, HH apparently doesn’t always work so well as dance music because of its embrace of some of the very specific qualities of “classical” minimalism mentioned above. The music deviates too much from its electro/funk origins, and for some people that’s enough for them to question whether or not the music qualifies as “house”. (Now, I’m generalizing here, because this discussion has about five different topics going on at any given time, and I’m trying to keep things simple. I realize that there are going to be exceptions to every single thing that I’ve said. I'm just trying to wrap this up without writing a goddamn book.)

Regardless, I see the debate about whether HH is/is not house boiling down to an “issue” about the “official” narrative of house, the “concept” of house music that results from this narrative, and the qualities that people expect or do not expect house to embody in accordance with this general concept. I’ve always seen a connection between “classical” minimalism and the origin of house, despite the lack of a “smoking gun” directly linking the two. Obviously I think the two genres share a number of aesthetic traits, and I think that they're close enough on the historical timeline to be linked (“classical” minimalism’s influences by the early ‘80’s went far and wide, and there’s a good chance that it did have a direct impact on early house), but I’ve never seen, for example, a straight line drawn between Frankie Knuckles and Philip Glass. The connection between the two genres seems aesthetically obvious but historically opaque, and so it gets left out of narratives about house’s origins (I’m not sure why this angle hasn’t been explored more fully, but maybe it has and I’ve just missed it).

Okay, so why does this matter? I think it matters because DM-M, in the interview, is actually trying “legitimize” his music by creating a kind of “alternate” genealogy of house. He’s admitting that his music isn’t really “club” music, and that it doesn’t “bang”, but that it’s still “legit” because it's actually referencing one of the “buried” parts of house (“classical” minimalism). In other words, he’s creating an “alternate” history of house that explicitly joins electro/funk/disco with, say, Philip Glass, but in a way that reaches back much further than “contemporary” minimalism (because he’s talking about the origins of house). So to all the people saying that his music isn’t really “proper” house, or who dismiss it as mere electronica because it occasionally sounds more like Philip Glass than anything on Kompakt, he’s saying, No, you’re wrong, because house, at its inception, also absorbed “classical” minimalism (along with probably a number of other influences like post-punk, but that’s another argument). I think that he’s essentially trying to cut off the people who say that his music can’t be included with house by broadening both the history and definition of house itself, and, more importantly, by broadening it beyond the parameters of “contemporary” minimalism to embrace very specific aesthetic qualities associated with “classical” minimalism from thirty to forty years ago. In general, I agree with him. To sum it up: I think his music, and HH in general, can be considered “legit” house, even it doesn’t “bang”, even if it seems “detached” and “cerebral” and “academic”, even if the production sounds a bit murky like ‘70’s analogue recordings, even if it references Glass/Reich as strongly as it references disco and electro, and - this is important - even if it doesn’t really sound all that much like “contemporary” minimalism (because it really sounds more like "classical" minimalism). As a “noise”/”post-punk” guy who listens to house, I feel like I “understand” where DM-M is “coming from”, but I also understand that my perspective is probably going to be different from a serious house producer/DJ/fan who occasionally listens to post-punk and is coming from the opposite direction.

And that’s it. Maybe it’s 100% obvious, or 100% wrong, or whatever, but that’s the gist of it. You don’t have to agree. I make a lot generalizations and speculative leaps, admittedly. People are going to disagree, and bring up exceptions and what-have-you. But this is my general “take” on the discussion at hand. I still may have to clarify some parts of what I've said, but hopefully you have a better idea of what I'm saying.

i understand your argument, i really do. i'm trying to point out why it's sorta problematic though.

media about hipster house has been constantly making all types of uninformed statements about 'normal', 'proper' dance music, and it is usually extremely off base. i'm not doubting that minimalism had something to do with the 'origins' of house, though i really hate making those types of assumptions, and i think that dm-m is prob very reverent of many many types of house/techno and his statements should certainly be read as more legit than a lot of this pap, but you are taking one thing he listed in an interview once wayyyy more literally than you ever should. take these things with a grain of salt, but most importantly realize that there is tonsssssssssss of house/techno out there that doesn't 'bang' and 'drones' and comes off as 'cerebral' and 'academic' and w/e, and it's not just minimal and it doesn't need to go out of its way to market itself as these things, yknow? (perhaps BECAUSE it absorbed these things so long ago, but again this is a statement i don't feel comfortable making with too much authority) and i'm asking how the ital album does this moreso than (again) artists like voices from the lake or theo parrish or ame/dixon. the reason i'm talking about the last 10-15 years, not the 'origins' of house, is because i'm saying that this aesthetic has been swallowed whole and spit back up and redigested several times just in this time period and you should not make overarching assumptions about hh (probably at all considering how loosely defined this all is, but def not as this newfound injection of 'cerebral drone detachment' etc etc) because this ignores a very wide swath of amazing music that fits these exact same definitions and denies the massive influence that contemporary house/techno has had on hh to begin with

k i'm done, sorry for huge thread derail.

“understand” “alternative” “mainstream” “classical” “everyone” "believes" “classical” “official” “contemporary” “classical” “key” “10-15 years” “classical” “contemporary” “bang” “contemporary” “lo-fi” “classical” “Classical” “funky” "club" “detached” “cerebral” “academic” "abstract/mathematical/complex" “noise” “classical” “classical” “house” “issue” “official” “concept” “classical” “smoking gun” “classical” legitimize” “alternate” “club” “bang” "legit” “buried” “classical” “alternate” “contemporary” "proper” “classical” “contemporary” “classical” “legit” “bang” “detached” “cerebral” “academic” “contemporary” "classical" “noise” ”post-punk” “understand” “coming from” “take”

dammit I thought it was a code that was going to form song lyrics or something when I put them all together