Correlations & Causations: Does Technology Define Dance Music?

PATRICE SCOTT

Life-long deep house talent from Detroit who runs his own Sistrum label and is soon to release a debut full length, Euphonium.

Basically most music that is released nowadays is a repeat of something we've already heard.

I do not think dance music is defined by technology and its limitations. Creativity is limitless; it’s up to the individual not to limit his or herself, the sky is the limit. If you have ideas, you can basically do what you want to do. As an artist you have to know how to use your tools inside and out, and if you haven’t taken the time to learn to use the tools that you use extensively, then you are limited. We only stop ourselves.

I don’t think there’ll be another [technology-driven] explosion like acid. There can be, but we need someone like Dave Smith to create an instrument with a unique sound for that to happen. Electronic music has not shocked me in a long time. When I shop for records I hear some good music still, but a lot of it sounds like something I already have. Basically most music that is released nowadays is a repeat of something we’ve already heard.

I have never got a bit of kit that totally defined a track I made, because I don’t use [preset] kits to create my music. I make my own drums, chords and so on. I discover many techniques and sounds all the time, but I never get hell bent on making a track using one particular sound or technique. The reason for that is because I like to combine a lot of the things I discover with old things I’ve done in the past. This sometimes takes me somewhere that I never thought I could go. It widens the creative window.

I feel that more choices, more settings, more filters and so on are good for creativity, because it gives the artist more options to create more sounds that they would have not been able to create. It is really up to the individual if they want to fully learn the equipment they use; if you want to limit yourself and not explore all of the possibilities, that’s a personal choice.

I'm always learning new things that I can do with my machines; I wouldn't consider it a struggle but it is always a learning process.

One EP that stands out to me in my discography as a proud moment of mastering my hardware was Sistrum 004. The track was called ‘Motions’ and I used a Yamaha Motif 6. Back during that time I learned how to use the gates and filters on the Motif to create new sounds. I ended up making three different versions of the same track on that EP.

I’m always learning new things that I can do with my machines; I wouldn’t consider it a struggle but it is always a learning process. I may not always be able to do exactly what I want to do, when I want, but I always achieve good results whether it was intentional or not.

Every track I make is by trial and error. I never set out with a particular thing in mind when I’m creating music; it’s always sort of a mistake. Most of the tracks on my upcoming album were me experimenting with sounds, chords that I know, effects and tweaking. I always create music this way. I make drums and build upon that. Sometimes it turns out to be a great track, sometimes it does not.

MO KOLOURS

London-based beatboxer, muddied hip-hop producer and sample digger with a roughshod and organic sound all his own.

For me dance music is defined by whether you can dance to it, not technology. I've always considered James Brown to be dance music.

For me dance music is defined by whether you can dance to it, not technology. I’ve always considered James Brown to be dance music. Technology’s limits are always expanding, and I suppose it depends who’s using the technology to define a limit. I tend not to have a tune in my head when I start to make music. I find it works to start with something spontaneous, grab at something and then add, and gradually add more – I let the tune form itself. So, whatever’s around me, my tools just aid that process. I’m lucky if something ‘cohesive’ comes out at the end, but it’s a fun way to get ideas out.

I think there will always be some kind of [technology-led] craze every now and again. Maybe not quite like the acid scene, but lots of things made acid seem to explode the way it did, not just the music. If we are talking just the music’s role in the acid explosion, then sure, that’s happening all the time, just not with all the other hype. I’m shocked every day by electronic music, it’s just I’m rarely shocked for the right reasons!

I normally discover new surprising sounds and techniques during the making process, but whether I can harness those same forces again is not so certain. I think having a limited palette helps to realise how infinite the possibilities can be with what you have because you’re forced to search all the avenues and you quickly see more and more possibilities open up. But if you think having all the gear will make you great music, then that’s where creativity is compromised: thinking all the choices will make you the music.

Throw a coin enough times and it will land on heads.

I think I manage to get a voice heard using my machines (not exclusively). Sometimes I like it, mostly I don’t, but there’s always something there. It’s much like speaking with your nearest and dearest: it’s difficult to say exactly and do exactly as you like – if you don’t mind causing offence – and of course it can be a struggle. Speaking through machines is similar. And learning not to struggle, not to fight against the current, helps, with people and machines. All my stuff comes along out of nowhere – every track I’ve released. I’m just there ready to capture it, noticing little bits here and there. Throw a coin enough times and it will land on heads.