Talk:Minimal techno

Translate the style description from the german article
a sincere suggestion, for my surprise the german article is more useful for this. --89.13.175.23 (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Dark Minimal
Shouldn't Dark Minimal be added as a subgenre or fusion genre of this? I've recently discovered this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg_yl9Ctq6Q — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.71.113.35 (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Bollocks
I am removing the stuff about "skeletalism" and "massification" for a second time. Both these terms appear to be neologisms coined by someone called Philip Sherbourne in an essay in an obscure book published in 2006. A google search for these terms produces less than 10 results, ALL OF WHICH are discussions of THIS wikipedia article. Hardly anyone interested in or involved in Minimal Techno - producers, djs or punters - has heard of "skeletalism" or "massification".

This is my justification for taking this stuff out.

I think that's pretty reasonable.

I'm guessing that Philip Sherbourne is using wikipedia to promote his third-rate Simon Reynolds wannabe undergrad bollocks and will restore the original crap in a day or two, in which case I give up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.37.220 (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I do sympathize with your complaint but the material will be reinstated. Sherbourne does not appear to be a qualified musicologist but he has built a reputation for himself as a music journalist, so like it or not, people seem to believe he is some kind of authority on the matter. The article you mention does appear to be made up of original research, therefore subject to POV issues but the terminology is sound and can be found used in other contexts. However, I have my doubts regarding the validity of his observations, for example, he says: it's hard to say why, precisely Techno grew minimalist in the early 90's which seems odd when you have people like Hood, Bell, and Hawtin, stating why this happened. Unless you can come up with verifiable information to counter Sherbournes' claims we are stuck with it. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. "I do sympathize with your complaint but the material will be reinstated." Nice use of the third person there mate; the material "will be reinstated" by YOU. Stop reinstating this stuff and we can all go home. 'People' do not believe he is any kind of authority on the matter. NOBODY HAS HEARD OF THIS GUY. I repeat; the only references to "skeletalism" and "massification" that google can find reference THIS article. There is no criterion upon which to judge the 'soundness' of his 'terminology'. He/you just made this stuff up and typed it into wikipedia. I don't have to come up with "verifiable information to counter Sherbournes' claims" because they are not factual claims. 'We' are not 'stuck with it'. The only reason anyone has even heard of this stuff is that YOU keep promoting it here.


 * You have not heard of this guy? well I regret to have to inform you that you are not everybody. Please view WP:3RR Semitransgenic (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ye be Warned, The next person to make a personal attack will be banned, I suggest you edit your posts to remove the PAs immediatly!!!! Prom3th3an (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for losing my cool. I repeat, HARDLY ANYONE HAS HEARD OF THIS GUY and his dubious theory about "Skeletalism and Massification" as a quick google search can easily establish and yet most of the article appears to be this guy's opinions. I give up.


 * you are free to edit the article to deemphasize the authoritativeness of this material. Simply frame it as a proposition by this one commentator, it is a theory, it is not gospel, but it is notable, so should be mentioned. I already made a start at this by presenting contrasting material from Sicko relating to Hawtin et al. There are WP:NPOV issues that need to be considered in a case like this. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Minimalism
Shouldn't this article be linked to minimalism? Some of the minimal sound has been derived from these earlier composers dj chainz 15:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's linked to minimalist music, isn't this good enough? Rootless 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

WTF is Ketamine house???? That's not a subgenre, It's a drug! that's just bs. Can I delete it? Nutz000

This is Wikipedia. Rootless 04:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is incorrect. Artists like Hawtin, Maurizio and Robert Hood have been creating this style of music since the early 1990's. and achieved great success at that time.

Well, find some sources and edit this, then! THE evil fluffyface 06:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert Hood
It states According to Daniel Chamberlin, "Minimal techno was patented in the Nineties by Basic Channel"

However, Mad Mike Banks holds Robert Hood responsible Mike Banks interview

I think Banks is the authority on this matter considering the Basic Channel stuff was pressed in Detroit and shipped from Submerge.

Also Chamberlin is making assumptions which are without foundation regarding the connections with Young, Reich, and Riley, and is forgetting that Reich et al ripped off African music to create a template for the minimalism they concocted - and Young was heavily influenced by drone concepts taken from Indian music. It is feasible that minimalism in techno was arrived at independently and that these connections are being made in retrospectively. Admittedly the Orb did sample Reich for Little Fluffy Clouds and there was that Reich remix project but I don't see how tis relates to the origins of minimal techno when there is an abundance of ethnic music that could have inspired the sound Semitransgenic (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two distinct styles of Minimal Techno - 90's and 00's
I'm sorry but this article is a POS.

Like Electro, the label "Minimal Techno" can be validly applied to two distinct styles of music.

In the 90's minimal techno meant stripped back detroit techno - it still kept the 130-140 bpm range of detroit techno but was for want of a better word - more minimal in its approach. This what you would find Robert Hood and Jeff Mills playing. Possibly the last notable example of this style would be Richie Hawtin's Dex FX & 909 - released in 1999.

In the 2000's minimal techno came to mean a amalgam of tech house and techno (of course in a more minimal way than either). It took the textures of tech house but did away with the siganture house 4/4 timing, and it took the repetition, experimentalism and flow of techno. The buildup/breakdown feeling of house was replaced with the more compelling, but less obvious rise and fall of techno. BPM range is generally 120-130 (ie slower than minimal Detroit techno). 00's minimal techno generally uses a wider range of sounds and tonal palette than does detroit techno.

The first notable album of 2000's minimal techno was Ricardo Villalobos' Alcachofa released in 2003. To this day (2011) the famous track from that album - Dexter - remains as a prime example of 00's minimal techno. Villalobos was Berlin based and many of the key sounds emanated from Berlin in the period 03-09. Many notable producers but taking a geographical spread you would need to include: Ellen Alien, Audion, Gabriel Ananda and Mathew Jonson.

How do I know this? - I was there in both decades.

I would dive in and edit - but don't have time for edit wars. As always, xkcd is applicable http://xkcd.com/386/

check out my old last.fm account for some listening tips - http://www.last.fm/user/Nectar_Card

thanks for reading,

Nectar Card

ps: Phillip Sherbourne is a pretentious knob (as are the rest of pitchfork). Pretentiousness and techno don't mix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.148.121 (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "ps: Phillip Sherbourne is a pretentious knob (as are the rest of pitchfork)." this statement invalidated an otherwise constructive comment. "Pretentiousness and techno don't mix" is a rather pretentious proposition."did away with the siganture house 4/4 timing" nope, it's still 4/4. I think you are also ignoring the fact that one of the figure-heads of the current so-called "minimal" scene is Richie Hawtin, someone who along with Bell, Hood and others, practically invented the minimal techno aesthetic. Minus is considered a "minimal" label, it was launched in 98 to capitalise on the strong foundation Hood and others had successfully built. It's that lineage the 00s scene came out of, the sound simply evolved/changed/deteriorated (depending on your point of view) once it became a Berlin sub-culture (the city Hawtin has been based in since the mid 90s). And to be really pedantic, arguably it was the track 'Minimal' on Speedy J's first 12" on Hawtin & Acquaviva's Plus-8 imprint, in 1990, that gave us the first "minimal" techno track. --188.223.6.168 (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It strikes me that the whole field of EDM and techno and all the subgenres is struggling with taxonomy (i.e. classification) problems, and I think there will always be disputes about how to classify what seems to be multitude of different styles.   I was shocked to learn that there is a proposal to scrap this article.  I am fairly new to techno - in the sense of  its history and development - and found this article very useful, even though I concede after reading the above that it may be flawed.  Surely this article is better than nothing, for readers who know next to nothing about techno and have come to Wikipedia for enlightenment (!), and should remain until it can be replaced by a new one that editors feel is more accurate.  I can quite see how edit wars would develop, but to create such a big gap by removing this one would be madness, IMO.  (NB I have edited this article recently, but knowing my limits, stuck strictly to copy-editing, to make the text read better, i.e. correcting grammar, syntax, etc.)  ~ P-123 (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)