Dubstepforum.com

test recordings wrote:There are some parallels to them, but they aren't identical obviously. The way Wub framed it is interesting though, shows the different reactions to similar circumstances in UK society (or music culture at least)

Indeed...I'm not holding up a mirror and saying they are blow-for-blow identical.



The social conditions that bore them, the methods of distribution through ease of media (photocopy/social media), and the appeal to the downtrodden...these are the similarities.

OGLemon wrote:deep house is apolitical tbh

As our most of today's youth. See my earlier diatribes on Slacktivism and general political apathy in the UK.

Tbh, looks like you've come up with the idea and are trying to force deep house to fit the idea, rather than looking at genres that fit it better, which imo, are Dubstep and Grime.

you forgot the most important thing though:
they're both shit

garethom wrote:Tbh, looks like you've come up with the idea and are trying to force deep house to fit the idea, rather than looking at genres that fit it better, which imo, are Dubstep and Grime.

But Grime was what, 2001/02 when it first started picking up before the commercial wave in 03/04.

That's nearly 15yrs ago...I wouldn't therefore categorise it as 'this' generation.

Well depends what your categorisation of "this" generation is then. People that listened to music in the early 2000s are still listening now. If we're going on the basis of separate generations though, I'd say again that the closest thing to punk was the brostep side of dubstep. Initially pretty underground (people like Caspa, Rusko, etc.), was part of a genre that was a reaction to the glitz and glamour of the scene that came before it, a lot of the guys set up their own labels, and then with a few pivotal releases (Fabric 37, etc.) it blew up, quickly became watered down and died a death.

Deep house isn't a violent or opposing reaction to what came before it. It isn't particularly new, ground breaking or eye opening. As far as I'm aware, it's not politicised in the slightest. The DIY aspect is irrelevant in the modern age, as it's not unique to deep house at all. The last time that deep house was counter culture was in, what, the 80's? Which means that it hardly holds up to being this generation's either.

garethom wrote:Initially pretty underground (people like Caspa, Rusko, etc.), was part of a genre that was a reaction to the glitz and glamour of the scene that came before it, a lot of the guys set up their own labels, and then with a few pivotal releases (Fabric 37, etc.) it blew up, quickly became watered down and died a death.

Interesting.

Picture is related;

garethom wrote:If we're going on the basis of separate generations though, I'd say again that the closest thing to punk was the brostep side of dubstep. Initially pretty underground (people like Caspa, Rusko, etc.), was part of a genre that was a reaction to the glitz and glamour of the scene that came before it, a lot of the guys set up their own labels, and then with a few pivotal releases (Fabric 37, etc.) it blew up, quickly became watered down and died a death.

in that analogy, wouldn't brostep be to dubstep more like what new wave was to punk? like Blondie and similar bands were sort of an underground off-shoot of punk before they blew up in the charts in the 80's

I guess so. I was reaching a bit because Wub wrote off stuff that started in the early 00's as not being of this generation, so brostep made more sense than dubstep as a whole.

punk itself wasn't very "punk". if you look at it, early 80s american hardcore (before the youth crew thing that attracted rich kids from the suburbs happened) was much much more "punk" than any of its british counterparts. while the clash & co were signed to major labels, these kids were pretty much homeless

deep house wasn't completely apolitical at its origins. but like most things it got watered down. and being targeted towards minorities mostly (blacks, latinos, gays) meant it wasn't as obvious as say punk

this theory ain't gunna make theorem
clientele for punk= clentele for deep house
I really doan think so.
Punk was more scabrous.
Deep house is more ghey.

also deep house doesn't really represent a counterculture. not does dubstep or grime or whatever else was mentioned

garethom wrote:Well depends what your categorisation of "this" generation is then. People that listened to music in the early 2000s are still listening now. If we're going on the basis of separate generations though, I'd say again that the closest thing to punk was the brostep side of dubstep.

yr not normally so wrong gareth
brostep, if anything, is more equivalent to New Wave after the raw confrontation of early punk
totally about commercialization as per, say, Visage
but, because they're not perfect equivalents,
stressing the rowdiness for ear-dead kids.
I mean, Skrillex even copied the Human League haircut.

Punk wasn't just Malcolm McLaren hype.
even in Oz, Saints & Radio Birdman were really anti-business-as-usual

Yeah, dfault brought that up and tbh I agree with you both. I was going on Wub's criteria that early 00's was out of the picture, so picked brostep. Remember, Wub's point was that it got watered down and commercial, so to write stuff off because it's commercial now is forgetting his point.

ultraspatial wrote:also deep house doesn't really represent a counterculture. not does dubstep or grime or whatever else was mentioned

Dubstep and Grime were at least aggressive and opposite reactions to the glitz and glamour mainstream bubblegum scene that UKG had become. As I said in an earlier post, deep house hasn't been counterculture since the 80's when it was for the marginalised bods.

ultraspatial wrote:punk itself wasn't very "punk". if you look at it, early 80s american hardcore (before the youth crew thing that attracted rich kids from the suburbs happened) was much much more "punk" than any of its british counterparts. while the clash & co were signed to major labels, these kids were pretty much homeless

Agree with this.

Haven't read the whole thread but the premise is fucking retarded.

Well UK punk fronted by the Sex Pistols was a joke in the end because Sid Vicious' persona was manufactured and he really wanted to make avante garde crap which he ultimately ended up doing when the band wagon crashed. The punk scene was pretty criminal though, the Clash might have been on majors but they had a well dark streak to them

apologies for being lazy & not reading all of thread

Grime is this generation in the UK's punk (minus any political movement). Raw DIY released music made by people with little technical knowledge. Simple, energetic and to the point. Unfortunately with big label signings going to shit and loads of people about the image more than anything too. Plus a now sort of post scene with people not involved in the original grime style of culture making more weird or atmospheric shit like the whole post-punk thing.

Let's stop trying to make things fit punk and figure out who radiates it…

I'm gonna say Richard Aphex is punk…
Dean Blunt is punk...

My problem with the analogy is more on an aesthetic level, to me house has never defined itself properly. It's electric disco at first and boiled down it's just anything with a groove and an open hihat on the offbeat.

It should've been more about being gay, like in how punk was about seperation.

tsk tsk


y'all have CLEARLY got it all wrong.

deep house (haus?) is all about FUNK. soul.. a "feeling". dreaming about shit ya know?


punk is self hatred.


seen?