What is 'house' music?

[Keef Rob]

In terms of context, yes, it's useful to do so. House music arrived at a time when the pop song, that had dominated popular music, was being de-constructed and reshaped. Disco began this, but Disco revolved around a song -which House does not necessarily -and thus fell into the pop song category. Because pop (and rock) songs were, for many people, elemental to popular music, House was a bit of a game changer in terms of how popular music was perceived.

Comparisons are useful AND fun!

I have no clue what context you mean. I've never heard a house non-song, and I guarantee I've heard more house tunes than you have. I also don't have any clue about these categories you're talking about. I suppose progressive rock is also full of non-songs?

[pachubatinath]

The context means what came before house, and so by comparing house to (if you will) pre-house, you get a better idea of what house is. I'm writing this for the benefit of making it clear to those who aren't clear about House and how different it is from, say, synth-pop or the aforementioned disco. Because of the revolution/chain-of-genres that House sparked off, it is important to point out the subtle differences.

Many of the early house tracks shifted the focus away from the song element (i.e. a focus on the extended craft, depth and poetic merit of the lyrical content) toward the primacy of the track (hence label names like Trax), whereby the 'track' was the true star, the piano-vamps, the drum-machine programming and (for the early champions) the skills of the DJ. I don't mean that House did NOT have songs, take Jefferson's Move Your Body, which has fine atypical house lyrics, but the real star is the sparky-piano riff and the belly-thump 4/4 beat that has centre stage for the first minute and a half before the largely uncredited vocal begins.

Perhaps we crossed swords. I don't doubt you've heard many, many more house tunes than I have or ever will (as I abandoned the genre years ago), I just wanted to point out that the central house tracks aren't remembered for their lyrical prowess and wordplay, but actually the kinetic-craft of their track. They do have (incredible) structure but that structure differs from the pop song, used as a comparison due to it being an accessible point of reference.

Your point about prog rock is valid -it also de-constructs the song as a format, spreading it out across vast track times and introducing structural elements more akin to classical or jazz, but prog does to the genre of rock, from which House is distantly-divorced, and so not as easily comparable to house.

Although, interestingly, prog and house do share many similarities -not least their ability to incorporate and graft other genres on top of themselves as a fundamental characteristic. Indeed, one of the reasons we refer to 'progressive house' is because it shares the same style-gobbling absorption potential as prog rock. Prog rock uses the rock song template as its start point, if you will.

I'd love to hear some of your favourite house tunes and, in fact, a better explanation of the genre's characteristics put in a way that somebody new to it could understand. That, it seems, is something I'm not so good at...

[Keef Rob]

You're overanalysing. This is supposed to be felt.

You've missed the meaning of the word "progressive" by the way -- as in the song moves from point A to B. The genre doesn't progress, the track does, in both genres. Progressive house is supposed to take you on a journey rather than just make you shake your arse. Or buy drinks. Or look for that cross between an industrial hoover and a human being.

For me the structure is no different from Baroque preludes. The difference I hear is that instead of harmonic development of a 3-6 note motif (equivalent to a hook in house music), you have timbral and orchestrational development. And the kick from hell. Or you could relate it to jazz -- head, solos, head. Instead of solos, you have .. guess what? Timbral and orchestrational development. And it could be within the context of a pop song. The focus is the tension and release.

Here's a list for you: http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/be...house.html

I don't rate or have favourites, as the journey is the most important. But that list is representative, I'm familiar with about 95% of it without hearing it, and it's chock full of pop songs. There's a bunch that have a vocal hook instead of verses and choruses but that's just a different spice. They seem to have missed Grace/State Of Grace/Planet Perfecto (pick the project name you wish) "Not Over Yet" -- a fine example of house with verses and choruses -- but they may have just simply left it off because of that silly Oakie backlash that's been happening ever since he destroyed his career on Essential Mix.

[pachubatinath]

Thanks for such an interesting response, your thoughts have really added to my understanding of House.

Oh, yes, I totally acknowledge and agree with progressive being in regards to moving between A and B, I was pointing out that this usually involves melding another genre on top of the original one e.g. classical onto rock, jazz onto house etc. I know this isn't universal, but it is a trend that I've noticed in progressive genres (see Liquid D&B and jazz/soul/funk).

I noticed on the list that Acid Trax was near the top. I think this is a good example of the way that House and its offspring were structurally different to that which preceded it; this track has wonderful timbrel development as well as thrilling programming but in terms of the arrangement and organisation of the parts (one and the same, I guess), it is in contrast to the large proportion of pop/rock/dance music that came before it, even if subtly so from disco. Classical can't really figure in the same time line as it is sort of on a separate stream to rock/pop music but the comparisons to Baroque are valid nonetheless. I'm perhaps not as good as you in musical theory so I'm not best able to express what the perceived difference is as I don't have the necessary technical language.

You're overanalysing. This is supposed to be felt.

Perhaps, but I feel first and then analyse -especially in a historical/genre based way. My analysis is, I guess, how I express what I've felt. Believe me, I never understood House better than when I was on the dancefloor -one can study and listen to the tunes obsessively but there's vital information encoded in the dance floor experience. This, I guess, is the epiphany of feeling.

Your comparison to preludes is fascinating, my wife's a Baroque junkie so I instantly clicked with what you said. I'll keep that in mind while looking through this list, which by the way, I'm really grateful for. I don't know many of these but the couple I've spun through YouTube are great (some not, though!).

Let me know if you have/know of any killer House mixes, as this is something I've enjoyed but don't have any for home listening. Already been scanning my local listings for House DJs playing soon too...

So, can we synthesise an explanation for a layman of what makes House so distinct that involves both your able description and my consideration of context? Y'know, to address the original post in this thread.

[Keef Rob]

I don't know ... for me it's a blur and I intentionally set up my listening that way ... for me dance music (all genres) focuses on that timbral and orchestral development rather than a melody or lyrics, and the tension/release thing is tantamount to me. That's what makes me enjoy music and I suppose house is that music that strips it down like that.

[SteveO]

any Vocal Trance artists that you guys can recommend ?

[hatchetman]

So I don't know a lot about house, but I went to a house club when I was in China. Sucked. It's just too damn repetitive.

[Keef Rob]

any Vocal Trance artists that you guys can recommend ?

Sort of. It doesn't quite work that way. Think of it like Apple Records singles (the non-Beatles ones).

Check out on discogs for Vandit, Black Hole Recordings, Armada Music, and such -- it's more interconnected than you could ever imagine and there are tonnes of fantastic labels that never bothered with "albums". Better yet checkout http://www.junodownload.com or beatport. Tribalmixes.com is a fantastic place to stay up to date. And of course there's di.fm. I can't remember all the project names but as far as DJ's, I would name Armin Van Buuren, Daniel Kandi, Roger Shah, Aly & Fila, Above & Beyond, Gabriel & Dresden, M.I.K.E. and Markus Schulz as favourites.

When I realised how snobby people were in the 70's and 80's insisting that Everything Must Be An Album that's when the floodgates opened. To me there aren't albums, singles, eps, whatever -- there's only releases. And then there's all the mixes that never make it out but make it into DJ sets as exclusive to that DJ (and this is really common). I don't see how you can be into it and focus on albums because that's just not the focus.

[SteveO]

"Sort of. It doesn't quite work that way. Think of it like Apple Records singles (the non-Beatles ones)."

I don't understand your comment. I am familiar with Jackie Lomax, Mary Hopkin, Badfinger, John Tavener and Billy Preston ....why not The Beatle singles...not unknown enough ?

[Keef Rob]

Well, it's singles. Albums exist and there's quite a few of them but for me this music works best with the remixes and a DJ added, and most albums are mixed by the DJ or are comps. I don't feel I've actually heard a song until I've heard a few remixes in context. The way I got into it was by DJ mix tapes because they were given away as promos, so that's how I heard stuff back in the cassette days. Typically they wouldn't include tracklists so you didn't know what you were hearing. Rock people don't seem to be able to enjoy it on that level -- they have to know which album, presumably to validate it somehow, and all the extras about the performers. I'm more interested in the actual music and largely don't care what the title or project name or performer is for what I'm hearing unless I need a reference to put in my portable.

Grant Nelson is a perfect example of why it doesn't work as albums or artists... http://www.discogs.com/artist/Grant+Nelson. There's many aliases of his and projects where he was a collaborator -- the ones I know best are Wishdokta, Vibes & Wishdokta, Naughty Naughty and Ruff Rider but those are 92 era oldskool breakbeat and he doesn't really play that stuff anymore. He also hosts a radio show and has done so for several years so it's like a comp album a week that you don't have to pay for. That Ruff Rider release "Shaggy Riddims" is one of the best ones I've ever heard, and it's the only one he ever did with that project name. I mention him specifically because his show is a good house fix for me. Naughty Naughty is really interesting to me because it's cheeky reworkings of well known tunes, no titles, 12 different records. Slipmatt also did that with his SMD releases (code for Slipmatt Dubplates), which were also all untitled. Great stuff, very anti-collector and I find that most appealing.

There's a whole genre, happy hardcore, where one crew (the Bonkers crew) didn't bother with hardly anything but comps and they were all doubles, triples, or box sets for really cheap -- I think I paid 12 quid (about $24 at the time) for Bonkers 3, a triple. Their releases on 12" are rather scarce and I have tunes I really like in that genre that I've never heard 100% all the way through 15 years on. Happy hardcore to me sounds like kids' telly show songs pumped up. Very simple harmonically, largely verse/chorus based, singalong even though about half the songs are instrumentals, so many lyrical love-cliches thrown at you that it just becomes irrelevant. Lots of people who are into other genres hate it but for me it's like the Ramones or Kiss pumping up girl-group songs. it's about 20 or 30 producers and they're all making tracks for the genre and they're coming out as compilation albums mixed rather than 12s, and the project names vary tremendously.

With the Apple stuff think of all the great records that didn't have an album release -- like Black Dyke Mills Band, Sundown Playboys, Hot Chocolate (at the time), Chris Hodge, Trash -- that sort of stuff. The people who made the records -- well that's just irrelevant ... you really have nothing but the song. No stories about the performers, no tabloid things, no rumours, none of that stuff. I find that very appealing because I'm just sick of people prattling on about this musician or that one and putting them up on a pedestal. It's old, it's boring, it's not 1972 anymore. Zappa wrote a song about it "We're Turning Again" that sums up my attitude perfectly, if you've heard that.

If you need an album to start with try this one: http://www.discogs.com/Sasha-John-Digwee...ase/100874. This started it for an awful lot of people and it's a favourite for most people. Try to get the original release with the M-People tracks. This is progressive house but man is this good. http://www.discogs.com/John-Digweed-Rena...ter/237228, the second part is amazing as well. Both 3 discs and while they're not in print anymore they were so popular that you can get them fairly cheaply.

Oh yeh, "unknown" has nothing to do with it. It's not caring.