Talk:Techno/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Nominate example tracks

We have the option of adding audio clips to the article. This could be a huge can of worms, but I'd like us to begin nominating some tracks which would make good examples to help someone with no knowledge of techno understand what techno is (or was), and to do it in such a way that they'll get a sense of how it's different from other forms of EDM. I'm afraid that we'll have clips that aren't sufficiently unambiguous on their own because they could be confused with other genres (trance especially), but maybe it won't be an issue. So start naming some tracks that you think would be good to include as educational examples of what techno is, not a top 10, but just things you could play for someone and say "now that is techno." —mjb (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm.. The track that keeps coming back to my head for "now this is techno" is Juan Atkins's "The Mission". Someone with a larger and older record collection might want to be deciding this though, I'm sure there are many other tracks by Atkins which are more suitable which I haven't heard. On a different angle, underworld - born slippy:NUXX might be a good example of a track which had a lot of chart success. - filelakeshoe 00:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Strings of life by Derrick May, The Bells by jeff mills, and maybe something by cybotron...cosmic cars or clear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.37.124 (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Description of the genre?

I came here looking for a quick description of the genre such as "techno is characterized by...", but instead I just find a bunch of history. This article needs a short description of what techno music is in the first paragraph! I would do so myself, but obviously, I don't know. Thanks! --Jeiki Rebirth (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

ummm, "Techno is a form of electronic dance music (EDM) that emerged in Detroit, Michigan, USA during the mid to late 1980s", that's a quick description: there's a "bunch of history", because, there is a bunch of history, read the article, it answers your question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.228.238 (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Jeiki was referring to a description of what the music sounds like. When and where it was conceived does not answer that question. - filelakeshoe 00:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to write that kind of thing and adhere to Wikipedia policies of citing reputable sources. Very few people have written anything coherent or meaningful about what techno actually sounds like. A typical music journalist only tries to relate it to other forms of music, and doesn't have the vocabulary to explain it in terms which a student of music theory would understand, or which wouldn't also be applicable to house, trance, etc. That's why it's not in the article. It's possible some of the musicological analysis by Ansgar Jerrentrup could be cited (like "Techno Music: Its Special Characteristics and Didactic Perspectives"), but it's only in expensive academic journals, and might be biased toward the kinds of techno popular in the author's home country, Germany, at the time it was written. That's why I'm advocating (in the thread above this one) the nomination of clips to serve as examples. —mjb (talk) 04:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the way it SOUNDS. Isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia to inform? It seems like we are getting bogged down with rules if we exclude very basic information. The type of information I was looking for is what tempo is it, is it melodic, is it repetitive? Etcetera. --Jeiki Rebirth (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

are you actually suggesting that the article is not informative? have you read it at all? and, the information is not excluded, the three queries you have here are discussed in the section entitled Music Production Practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.238.248 (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, the information is in there, yes. And I didn't read all the way down to there. My suggestion is to move a summary of this information up to the intro paragraph. My guess is that most people who come to this article want a very basic description of what the genre sounds like, rather than an in-depth history.--Jeiki Rebirth (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Post-disco

the point being "post-disco dance music in which most or all of the sounds are electronically generated" = EDM. That's pretty clear from my reading of it. Adding the description in the lead implies that there is a direct sucession, but it is not that simple. 78.105.238.248 (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think, you're wrong, source says: "post-disco dance music in which most or all of the sounds are electronically generated", but source doesn't say: "post-disco dance music in which most or all of the sounds are electronically generated = EDM". That's the difference, and please avoid from WP:OR. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between OR and making necessary assumptions. Is there any electronic dance music which isn't "post-disco"? We already have a source calling techno EDM, and saying that the name EDM came in to use to describe what was formerly known as house music, and there are plenty of sources out there which will tell you that house music came after disco. You won't find a source calling techno "post-disco EDM" because that's completely redundant, which is why we shouldn't use it here either. - filelakeshoe 01:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Yes, Disco.. Hi-NRG and Eurodisco.. these three (and probably more) genres that have been originated not in post-disco era (1979-present) but in ... disco era. So you're right. However, there is also a genre with the same name that could influenced techno music. But, you know, that is contentious. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that with regards to the word "disco", I think we have a bit of a language barrier issue. In Czech, people use the words "disco" and "diskotéka" commonly to refer to pop-influenced dance music and clubs that play it, whereas in English, "disco" as a type of music refers to the 70s movement and that is it, and the word "discotheque" in English has long since fallen out of common use to refer to a nightclub. I'm not sure if an equivalent to "post-disco" is in common use in Czech language, and it may well be, but in English definitely not. - filelakeshoe 14:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. European (eastern [more often]) people often use the word "disco" in relation with "discotheque" and discotheque music, so when some czech say "disco!" he probably means a variety of EDM styles like techno, house, trance. In Europe the word "disco" is just umbrella term for EDM. The term "post-disco" is in Europe (except UK, of course) absolutely unknown. Post-disco is an umbrella term for characteristic post- disco (I mean .. after disco, you know) music, that have "stripped-down" sound due to 1979 backlash and new musical techniques. It is a New Wave of disco (70s music) (so literally sweet!), that gave birth to techno, contemporary R&B (r'n'b), dance, hi nrg-eurobeat, house, boogie, etc.. and helped with creation of all modern musical styles. But there is a question, that post-disco had direct influence to techno as post-disco "boogie" or post-disco movement. If second is correct, so "is a form of electronic dance music" lasts, if first.. so "post-disco" is in the right place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk • contribs)

Let's try and get this straight: there is no genre of music called "post-disco"!!

The source responsible for perpetuating this myth is Allmusic (and it provides no attribution for the claims made).

The article on Boogie you appear to suggest supports this myth does not state anywhere that post-disco = Boogie (note also that the source is WP:SPS so whatever it says it has no place on wikipedia).

There does not appear to be a single reputable musicological source available to support this myth.

Can you provide a single reputable citation to support the claim that post-disco is a genre of music?

Consistent throughout the research literature on popular music/dance music is the occurrence of "post-disco" (or simply postdisco) in reference to the era succeeding disco (during its period of decline in the early 1980s).

Yes, a number of notable genres surfaced in this period but "post-disco" is not one of them.

Techno is not simply a post-disco genre, it is a fusion of genres that arose during the post-disco era, this is the point you are missing here. More correctly, the line of inheritance would run: disco->postdisco->techno (postdisco being a collection of genres).

Finally, stating that Techno is "post-disco electronic dance music" is incorrect; however, there is in fact one source (Starr, Larry. American Popular Music : The Rock Years) that uses this exact construction, but that same source calls Moby's 1999 album Play the work of a "techno musician". The source adheres to the use of the term techno as a grab bag for all electronic dance music (viewing the term as interchangeable with "electronica"), therefore displaying ignorance of the advances other musicologists specialising in dance music have made in delineating various dance music subgenres. 87.198.250.34 (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

OMFG, this absurd debate kills me so much.

Post-punk, post-rock is a genre.. so the post-disco. But we can also understand "post-disco" as a term referral to after-disco [era, movement].

Too bad, that post-disco references are hard-to-find. That's the main problem. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For you to continue to suggest that post-disco is a genre, despite being unable to provide one single citation, other than an anonymous Allmusic description, simply evidences a shameful and willful disregard for scholarship. Take a look at the sources, look at the level of research out there, on all aspects of dance music, why is no one proposing that a genre called post-disco exists? because it doesn't. If you can prove otherwise I will happily retract all of the above. 87.198.250.34 (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it does. But just missing additional references, that's all.

Your comment about post-disco existence or post-disco non-existence is WP:POV. This is Wikipedia and we doesn't care about your/our point-of-view comment. Sources something says.. and that's all. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Footers

Please check WP:LAY & WP:FOOTERS the additional footers are not warranted. 78.105.238.248 (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

EDM

I suggest removing "(EDM)" from the titular sentence. It is quite clear what EDM is, and "Electronic dance music" article is the only right place to list alternative names for this, say, metagenre -- Appletangerine un (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

techno or edm?

I don't really have any evidence of this, but it seems to me that the article is a little to general still. When it says "commercial varieties of techno" the music it's referring to isn't techno. It's more likely some other electronic dance form.Freeeekyyy (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Complete re-write required. 'The Techno Twins' coined the phrase 'Techno' in 1977

I totally agree that this article needs to be completely rewritten. It totally neglects the British/European input (for example 'The Techno Twins' in 1977). Perhaps the sounds have been largely influenced by American/German progression, but in terms of coining the phrase 'Techno,' I have not come across any earlier reference than 1977. (Hickleton / 14th Feb 2010) (Hickleton (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC))

This article isn't about every use of the word "techno" in music, it's about a particular genre. The Techno Twins used synths in their pop songs (as did 1000 other groups in the late 70s & early 80s) and they had the word techno in their name, and you're arguing that somehow this makes the entire article about techno music, which otherwise has nothing to do with The Techno Twins, needing to be rewritten to say that The Techno Twins / The Technos are the originators of the genre?

Erm, no. At most, they might be able to have a footnote in the proto-techno section, since they did use "techno" in their name even though their music is no more relevant to that which became the techno genre than hundreds of examples of quirky synthesizer pop from that era, or DJ Talla 2XLC's early/mid-'80s use of "techno" to describe his collection of New Wave/synth disco/synth-pop/industrial dance records, or Kraftwerk's use of the term "Techno Pop" on their 1983 album. But before adding that kind of material, you'll need to cite some published, reputable sources correlating "Techno Twins" with the techno genre, rather than just contradicting multiple such sources with your original research. —mjb (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Techno a non-representational or abstract music / art?

I did NOT find any reliable writing or anything about one thing. I think, techno music is an abstract or also non-representational form of art. In parallel to the painting, where you have abstract art (Braque, Picasso) and non-representational art (Kasimir Malevich). Etc. I only found one source on the net that quotes literature, too, but this literature is nothing really abot techno – and also this source is just a blog: [1]. Anybody can help so that I could write a passage in the WP-Article? Reliable source? Thanks, --Bufi (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Error above Tecno was around (and probably started) in the late seventies from Funk and always has a funky beat. If synthesizer music has a rock beat like Kraftwork (1974) then it is most likely 'New Wave'

Origins

The entire origin section should be rewritten. Techno existed for at least 10 years prior to when the article alleges it was "invented" by the 3 guys in Detroit. It's insane to only mention Kraftwerk and Tangerine Dream (and Cabaret Voltaire, etc) retroactively. Get over it guys, it existed in Europe for years prior to it being "invented" in Detroit. It is probably the only thing the Euroweenies have actually contributed to human society in the last 50 years :-) Etmarkt 03:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Etmarkt

Agree that the lack of Cabaret Voltaire is a glaring omission, and that other artists did exist that were producing similar music - but the Detroit genre effectively gained the Techno "tag" first. Many UK/Euro acts were actually being described as Industrial at that time. A man who knows what he knows and knows what he doesn't know, is the sign of a man who knows. 21:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that techno was founded in Germany by the likes of Kraftwerk and Tangerine Dream, and modern techno is only influenced by these Detroit people. This article puts all of the credit towards these individuals, while the core essence of Techno was founded in Germany.

I agree. Though I'm a huge Detroit techno fan and would love to perpetuate the bias, I think that realistically, the "three" didn't "invent" techno, but refined and focused it. Here's a quote from Juan Atkins:

"In fact, there were a lot of electronic musicians around when Cybotron started, and I think maybe half of them referred to their music as 'techno.' However, the public really wasn't ready for it until about '85 or '86. It just so happened that Detroit was there when people really got into it." - wired interview - http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.07/techno_pr.html --AlexandertheP 19:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well ... this article is at least very "US centered" to say the least. I whould not say that KRAFTWERK or TANGERINE DREAM are techno at all, but never the less, you cannot tell the story of techno without mentioning Frankfurt (Germany) and Rotterdam (NL). BTW, the WORD "techno" was used first in Frankfurt AFAIK. UltraBlonz 16:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Karlheinz Stockhausen has yet to be mentioned, which is quite suprising, given that he was composing electronic music as early as 1953. As for the name; Techno, as has been mentioned elsewhere within these discussions, Network/10 Records' Neil Rushton was the first person to actually "tag" the genre with the name Techno. A man who knows what he knows and knows what he doesn't know, is the sign of a man who knows. 21:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, techno was not "founded in Germany". Techno, just like rock itself in which there would be no Kraftwerk or Tangerine Dream, are American creations. The "core essence" was founded in Detroit. And techno's influence is more than just Kraftwerk. Pete Townshend, Stevie Wonder, Wendy Carlos, soul music, funk, disco, etc., all have their tremendous roles. "Techno" was not even used first in Frankfurt either. It certainly was being used before Kraftwerk even recorded a single song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.125.133.75 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing a completely random spam fragment from the Origins section. 24.145.176.125 19:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Anonymous

" It certainly was being used before Kraftwerk even recorded a single song." LOL! You mean Amerikans had Techno music before 1978? ROFL. Very very funny. The rest of what you said is true but trivial. So as if whould say "Rock´n Role whould not have been possible without the tremendous influence of ...say... Beethoven". Thats uselless information. UltraBlonz 18:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The Belleville three? Okay, let's be specific, what instruments were they using. Please tell me they weren't just playing other peoples records. I know German music isn't cool, but let's get to the truth here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.37.217.123 (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll lay my cards on the table. Detroit has NOTHING to do with techno. The Belleville three are SHIT. There you go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.37.217.123 (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"The Belleville three? Okay, let's be specific, what instruments were they using. Please tell me they weren't just playing other peoples records. I know German music isn't cool, but let's get to the truth here."

The 707, 808, 909, 303 and a few other Roland synths/drum machines.. I don't know about the non-roland stuff though.

Ash256 20:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The article says that the initial blueprint for techno was developed during the mid 1980s in Detroit, but Andreas Tomalla (alias Talla 2XLC)published electronic music records and used to call that style of music techno already in 1982! I think the article should be completely rewritten. The german version is much better, and I would take that one, as it's discussing techno under a more "evolutive" approach, and it's exploring the music genres that lead to techno. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.0.202.151 (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• I can't find any support for the claim that Tomalla created a style of electronic dance music that he was calling techno in 1982.If this is true, and you have a verifiable source, please provide it. He did open club called Technoclub in 1984. But then again, Cybotron (Juan Atkins) releasedc a record called Techno City in 1984. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still trying to get the name of the publishing company, in order to check the claim. In germany looks like that claim is well accepted, as many websites are reporting it, but I would like to find an article, a record.. something!! .. published in 1982 or earlier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.0.202.151 (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Without a verifiable source such claims cannot be supported in the article. Also, it appears the German Techno page does not provide any references or citations so it amounts to WP:OR and WP:POV which is surprising considering that a number of German books on the subject have been published. The version here is still developing, there is much to be done, but editors are encouraged to provide sources for entries so issues with hearsay based assertions can be avoided. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but we should put in the article references regarding the use of the term techno before 1984 in Detroit too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.108.217 (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• There is a clear distinction between the use of the term techno to describe a distinct genre of music and the use of the word techno as a general descriptor. Atkins is reported to have used the word techno to refer to Kraftwerk, and other electronic music, prior to 1984 and this is mentioned in the text, but it is not well supported. There are a number of published sources that support the claim regarding the first mainstream use of the word techno; in referring to a genre of music. It was clearly the release of Techno:The New Dance Sound of Detroit in 1988 that put the name on the map, and that's how the history has been written, unless there is documentation to prove otherwise. Semitransgenic (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of who influenced the belleville 3, techno as we know it today was invented in detroit. I remember a quote somewhere from juan atkins(i think) saying that techno was the result of george clinton and kraftwerk stuck in an elevator and with only a sequencer between them. Basically, the word "techno" describes the music from detroit in the 1980's and any derivative forms(germans wouldn't have developed techno the way they have it on their own, all of europe's techno was imported from detroit originally, tangerine dream, kraftwerk, george clinton, even though they all influenced the belleville 3, are definitely not techno)

The Vikings had discovered the American continent long before the Spaniards, but it was the Spaniards who turned into a huge colony, etc. So, regardless of who invented it, techno is a quintessentially European phenomenon. The same way Columbus "discovered" America. --24.251.17.123 (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I find it amazing that there is no mention of the Japanese band Yellow Magic Orchestra. They were very instrumental in the development of cheap electronic instruments and worked closely with the Roland Corporation during this time period. This whole notion that techno came from the Detroit scene is unfounded and should be dismissed as self promotion. Detroit can still lay claim to the Motown scene, but techno ... not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.168.2 (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've listened to every studio album by YMO, and a few live tracks, and didn't hear any techno. I heard lots of goofy synthesizer-based novelty pop, some of which was quite good, but I didn't hear any techno. Come on, folks, every band that used synthesizers and had electronic rhythms was not automatically techno. Find some reliable sources to support such claims, as per the verifiability policy, and then you'll have a case for adding it to the article. The only mention of YMO in Techno Rebels is in a useless statement that the group's song "Technopolis" "foreshadowed" the experiments of Cybotron. —mjb (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Disputed origins again

Twice in the past 24 hours I've removed this and similar unverifiable material that is mostly original research:

The term "Techno" was first cloned by the German group Kraftwerk in the mid 80s. This term was used to "describe their unique use of technology in electronic music and contemporary pop music" (J. Laarmaan- Frontpage)In contradiction to some beliefs, Techno music as we know it today is purely a German invention. Long before the so-called Detroit scene Frankfurt spawned the first soley Techno clubs. Talla 2xlc is considered throughout the whole music world as the innovator or the Godfather of Techno. It does not stop there. European Techno groups like Techno Freaks, Bigod 20, Moskwa TV, 101, Out of the Ordinary and Robotiko Rejekto (Talla 2xlc) were exploding to the scene by early as 1986-7. In 1987 Robotiko Rejekto had released its first Techno single "Rejekto" [2] In early 1988 a few best Techno hits compilations "New Beat" and "Technodrome International" from the German based company ZYX Records (now Music)[3] , [4] (the 1996 re-release) were released. These releases even pre-date the release of "Techno! The new dance sound of Detroit". In 1990 ZYX Records release "Tekkno Roots", a compilation that recognizes the forefathers of Techno music. It was cleary the beginning of what was to come in the early 90s.

I'm not even going to bother with a point-by-point rejection of the hyperbolic, weasel-worded, uncited content. The one cited source, Laarmaan, is controversial[5], and the Discogs links only support peripheral details of the claims they're attached to, not the main one ("early 1988").

We've been down this road before. Read the previous conversations here and in the archives. People came here and said things like:

• the early '80s music of Cabaret Voltaire & New Order is techno
• House, EBM, etc. are all forms of Techno
• the origins of Techno are in Germany 1983-1988
• Kraftwerk were the originators of techno
• Kraftwerk wasn't techno, it was Krautrock, like Tangerine Dream
• Krautrock is techno
• The 'Techno-Rock' wing of Progressive rock is techno
• Karlheinz Stockhausen is techno
• Bruce Haack is techno
• DJ Talla 2XLC coined techno and opened the first techno club
• The synth pop group The Techno Twins coined techno
• Techno is a fusion of African rhythms and German electronic musique concrete
• Juan Atkins simply enriched the simplicity of records like "Numbers" and added soulful strings

These are uncited, contentious claims, every one. They were all rejected and/or outright contradicted, and no one other than the original posters stepped up to offer any support for these marginal points of view. When asked for citations, no one has been able to produce anything to back them up.

We do need more and better-quality material in the article about the reciprocal influence of New Beat, EBM, Acid House, and Techno in Europe and England. And if there is something important about Kraftwerk that hasn't already been accounted for in the article, let's hear it. But nothing of this sort can be added without citing reliable sources. You need to find journalistic, academic, or biographical publications from credible authors. Some documentaries and interviews are OK, but they can't be used for any sweeping claims, only for statements about what people said in the interviews. Blogs, forum posts, and folklore are not OK. —mjb (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The Undisputed German Origin of Techno music

I have re-removed the so called detroit origins of Techno for the simple reasons being that its a falsification and outright fabrication of the truth. When people give you links to releases of songs and companies that clearly show that Techno had roots in Germany much earlier than Detroit you should respect and accept the truth for what it is. "European Techno groups like Techno Freaks, Bigod 20, Moskwa TV, 101, Out of the Ordinary and Robotiko Rejekto (Talla 2xlc) were exploding to the scene by early as 1986-7." is not a lie, Or do I imagine that I have these records in my possession? I knew of European Techno back in 1987 when it was non-existant here in the USA. Really, if you want to be fair and show both sides of the story ill be more than willing to back off but If you want to remove the facts then it will become an editing war on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4august (talk • contribs) 16:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

this is a fringe theory, the bulk of the published historical accounts available on the matter support the Detroit origins narrative. Provide at the very least one usable WP:VER, WP:RS to support your position and a discussion on the matter will then be warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.6.168 (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Fringe theory? then this link is a theory right? Perhaps there was a label called Techno drome international that started in 1987 ( a FULL 1 year before the Detroit Techno cd release by the way). Why would a company call its self this? just for the sake of the way it sounds? I really doubt that. The fact remains printed records with the word "TECHNO" existed in Germany because of the style of music. So simple facts and yet there has to be a one sided view only. Sorry folks most will not buy this lie that Detroit came first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4august (talk • contribs) 17:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

American-biased free amateurish encyclopedia is american-biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.20.213 (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The "X Y is X" cliché is not a constructive comment. But if you want to devolve to that level, "reliable sources are reliable." "Sour grapes are sour." "Obvious troll is obvious." "Dead thread is dead." —mjb (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Techno Drome International , the link to the first ever Techno releases from 1987

http://www.discogs.com/label/Techno+Drome+International —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4august (talk • contribs) 17:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Any attempts to retroactively call "techno" anything prior to the mid-1988 release of Techno! The New Dance Sound of Detroit will be subject to much scrutiny. The further back in time and the further from Detroit you go, the less support you're going to get for such an endeavor. People will generally consider older releases to be techno only if they involve the artists on that compilation and only if the music is very stylistically similar; for example, 1987 releases like Rhythim Is Rhythim's "Nude Photo" are universally regarded as techno, but the mid-'80s electro tracks by Cybotron are the subject of debate. German electro/industrial dance music from 1987 and its antecedents are certainly not going to be accepted as techno without due skepticism.

Despite the name of the label, all of the 1987–1988 releases on Techno Drome International are quite appropriately tagged by Discogs users as various combinations of EBM, Industrial, and New Beat – not Techno – so the Discogs link is not backing up the claim you're trying to make. Now, "Acid to Body" and "Rejekto (Presentation Mix)", both released in 1988 (possibly recorded in '87) might be up for debate, but there are no sources we can use that seriously call them techno. They were important releases, I'd say, daring to incorporate elements of house and acid house into what were otherwise EBM/Industrial/New Beat fusions, and thus were a step closer to both the Detroit sound of the day and the later European techno/tekkno/hardcore styles...a step closer, but still one or two steps removed. The other material on the label isn't even in the techno ballpark until the Love Parade era.

Thanks to the quality, published sources we've already cited in the article, we know that in the mid-'80s, Talla 2XLC used "techno" as a collective name for the various genres of electronic music he spun, and he even named his Frankfurt 'Technoclub' after it. As these sources report, this definition was basically unknown outside of Frankfurt, and it was very much his term, not acknowledged by other DJs. We don't know the origin of the Techno Drome International label name, but it's probably safe to assume it's related to Talla 2XLC's "techno" & Technoclub since he was a member of the first bands signed to the label.

As I understand it (gleaned from the cited sources), the term "techno" as a genre name eventually did catch on in Germany and beyond, but only after 1988, in reference to 1. the post-Techno! compilation music coming out of Detroit & the UK, and 2. the German, Belgian & Dutch fusions of Detroit techno, Chicago & UK house and acid house with the existing EBM and New Beat trends. The latter form of cold, hard, bleak and/or noisy techno then had a direct influence on UK 'hardcore' producers and some of Detroit's 2nd-Wave producers, the result being wide acceptance of all of these forms as techno.

You seem to think that a choice must be made between acknowledging Germany and Detroit as "the first" and the "true originators", whereas artists in both places, and more, had significant roles in the development of techno. The article's emphasis on Detroit reflects the wide availability of published sources which document that prevailing point of view, and that's in accordance with Wikipedia policy and is not going to change anytime soon. Perhaps we're not giving enough attention to Germany until too late in the article, and that can be addressed, but it's simply unacceptable for you to continue to remove all the heavily researched, carefully worded, copiously cited information about Detroit with what amounts to "everybody knows techno started in Germany, and this is undeniably true" as if this were a shouting match where the most emphatic, hyperbolic expressions of confidence get to define reality. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Please review WP:V and WP:RS; also you've already violated WP:3RR and could be blocked from editing if you continue with the undos.

Lastly, your only other source, J. Laarmaan's Frontpage magazine (originally a fanzine, I believe), is a poor source for general statements about techno, since it presents a very personal, localized POV, and is difficult to find. It could be used as a source for what Laarmaan says, but not for the validity of his statements. As I mentioned, scholarly publications have dismissed Laarmaan's claims, at least the one where he says techno is "Continental European music and youth culture that is not caused by Anglo-American hegemony" [Google translated]. The citation itself was insufficient as well; we need to be able to verify that what you're citing backs up how you're using the reference. Please give us an issue number, date, and page number, if not also an exact quote (in its original language) and a pointer to a copy of the publication itself. —mjb (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In a way you are being slightly more fair by saying that you are not giving enough credit to the Germans in the wiki artcicle (which I totally agree) but to say that Techno drome International was just a label can be debated. Techno Drome International (or lets just use TDI for short)was a sub company of ZYX records at the time. ZYX (MIKULSKI) was well known for producing Italo Disco. But by mid 1987 music was evolving,and TDI was created. Now like I said, I would like to get the final word from ZYX music on this (which would be more than fair), but the label from as far as I know , was created (perhaps, like you said- from Talla, or perhaps not) for the sole reason of this new genre style of EBM music- Techno. The evidence points very strongly. All the new heavy drum beat, hammering sound, heavy synth artists would be directed exclusively under the TDI label and not under the mother label, ZYX. Maybe it now it is a little more clear? And in fact one of the earliest releases was Robitko Rejekto- rejekto in the fall of 1987 to be more precise. Now it is a fact that "TDI" came before "Detroit ! the new sound of Techno", but for only one to get recognized as being the root of Techno is unfair and pretty biased. What we really need to do is hear the German point of view too. Perhaps get in touch with ZYX? Did you ever consider that? What would happen if TDI was verified by say ZYX as a label created for the sole purpose of Techno music? You also fail to mention on wiki one of the very first (if not THE first) group (artists) to use the word "Techno" in their title name, The "Techno Freaks". The name of the group was conceived in late 87. And their famous Europesan hit "IBIZA" had all the elements of a Techno song. The haevy beat, the melodic Synth sound, way ahead of its time. There was even a remake of "IBIZA" in 2003. Was there any research done on this as well? probably not. Maybe you should now? Can something come to exist in two different places at the same time? Yes its possible. But I can see where this wiki article favors. That is the real problem. Another thing that was failed to be mentioned is that in mid 1988 ZYX records released the compilation "Techno Drome International vol 1" which is a compilation of tracks from 87- to early 88. I dont know how everyone overlooks that historic release. In plain and simple words, ZYX already had recognized the new style of EBM by late 1987 and that is why TDI was created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4august (talk • contribs) 14:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As for the comment about the Frontpage quote, "Lastly, your only other source, J. Laarmaan's Frontpage magazine (originally a fanzine, I believe), is a poor source for general statements about techno" I hope you know that this whole article was even published in a ZYX 1996 release "The History of Techno" which recognizes both Detroit and Germany as the founding fathers of Techno equally. But clearly state that Talla put the word "Techno" on the map as a style of music. You dont have to believe me, go check it out yourself.Or will you just come out and say that "ZYX Music" is commiting scrutiny as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4august (talk • contribs) 15:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

the biggest load of bull ever posted about Techno music

"Techno is a form of electronic dance music (EDM)[1] that emerged in Detroit, Michigan (USA) in the mid to late 1980s. The first recorded use of the word techno, in reference to a genre of music, was in 1988.[2][3] Many styles of techno now exist, but Detroit techno is seen as the foundation upon which a number of subgenres have been built"

Techno my friends was well established in Germany a whole year prior to the detroit so called movement. If that bothers you people so much well keep fabricating history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4august (talk • contribs) 17:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

dude, there's no documentation to support this narrative, you are out on your own here, good luck to you in establishing a consensus for the inclusion of this fringe view, as far as every usable academic, journalistic, and popular source is concerned, the article is, for the most part, accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.6.168 (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Then you are smoking something, because I quoted an editor from the German Frontpage on the first sentence. But since its a German source its no good right?!Someone else then said it is controversial to what he said but yet this article is not? Please. Detroit might have had some type of indsutrial scene but the whole Techno genre was 100% a German invention. That is an undispted fact. Maybe I am imagining that I have German Techno records that date as far back as 1987? Before you or anyone out there makes a blundering remark , why dont we compare the releases that came out of Detroit to what came out of Germany? Are you people so thick headed and unable to read in simple black and white? Why did "Techno drome International " exist? to produce hip hop or rock? NO. They wanted to focus on releasing Techno music. And the company came to exist in 1987. I want all you detroit guys to find me an american company that is older? I Know I will wait forever for this answer bt it would be fun to wait around and see "0" answers on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4august (talk • contribs) 02:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't even have to wait more than a few hours. Your answer is above, in the lengthy comment I just added in the previous section.

You may want to watch the We Call It Techno! documentary about the mid-'80s to mid-'90s German club scene. It pretty much covers all this. —mjb (talk) 06:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

dude, break the delusion, your argument is basically: "Techno is a word used in the name of this record label that started in 1987, therefore the music they were making in 1987 is the first techno". dude, you have some EBM records on a label called "Techno-Dome", but nobody in 1987 was referring to music on that label as techno, because it was EBM.

John Scofield released an album in 1985 which features a track called Techno, but I don't hear anybody calling Schofield the inventor of "techno".

Using the word in a name or title does not infer that a genre of music has suddenly been invented.

You are simply ignoring the the fact that Atkins was using the word "techno" to refer to his music long before its usage was publicised, and you are also ignoring that he was releasing this music on Metroplex as early as 1985, this is the history, as documented by multiple sources, some of which include German commentators, you are the revisionist here, not us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.6.168 (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have answered you above. Especially focusing on the label "Techno Drome International" and why it was created as a label under the wing of ZYX Records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4august (talk • contribs) 15:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

But to make two more points clear , Cybotron was influenced by Kraftwerk. that is without doubt. So without Kraftwerk there would be no Atkins, Davis Belleville three and so forth. Second the quote "Catalog No.: PLX-029 Label: Plexifilm Released: 09/19/06 Director: Gary Bredow Length: 64 minutes Summary: HIGH TECH SOUL is the first documentary to tackle the deep roots of techno music alongside the cultural history of Detroit, its birthplace. HIGH TECH SOUL focuses on the creators of the genre -- Juan Atkins, Derrick May, and Kevin Saunderson -- and looks at the relationships and personal struggles behind the music. Artists like Richie Hawtin, Jeff Mills, Carl Craig, Eddie Fowlkes and a host of others inconclusively explain why techno, with its abrasive tones and resonating basslines, could not have come from anywhere but Detroit." is just a opinion. What gives it away as being JUST an opinion is the last line which anyone could just say "well it had to be this...". No, It did not just have to be from this, there is much more involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4august (talk • contribs) 15:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Talla to be Recognized as the Founding father

Talla 2xlc will finally get his place in history. The man who coined the word "Techno" and the 1st man to open a Techno club. Instead of only quoting Atkins (who the heck is this guy anyway???) over and over and over. Lets give at least a few moments to the father of Techno?! "The founder of the worlds first techno club, "DJ Talla 2XLC" will be awarded with the badge of honor by the city of Frankfurt!

This is what Mayor Petra Roth told the artist for his contributions. "The music producer and community leader of the techno generation has brought our city’s name into the world with his innovative music, and he has advanced Frankfurt’s international cultural reputation”.

Talla was extremely honored to receive this official credit from the city, which has been related to techno for years, just like himself. “In Frankfurt I invented the term ‘techno’ and used it for the first time as a genre name in a recordstore”, Talla reveals. And he continues “The journey started with the foundation of Technoclub in 1984, that dominated the beat of the time at Dorian Gray for years, and it will be going on for a long time to come.”

Furthermore Talla states: “Particulary, I am fascinated that with this honor, I will be entered into a group of meritorious honorees coming mostly from politics, the banking sector and universities. Actually, I don’t know if a german DJ ever has received such a high honour from his city.”

Talla 2XLC will be invested with the badge of honour by Frankfurts Major on April 20th in the Limpurgroom of Frankfurt Cityhall Römer. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.32.32 (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

so now we go from Talla 2xlc being the person who originated a genre of music to the person who first coined the word 'techno', sorry but entomologists would beg to differ on that latter claim, the former is also fiction, please do some research before making such stupid assertions. 188.223.6.168 (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Dude you really should stop being so thick headed and accept the facts , just look at what is going on in the world. Tall is being awarded for putting the word "Techno" on the map! and for also opening the worlds first Techno club. Basically what you are attempting to say is ALL of Germany and Europe are wrong and you right. Sure. Just read here and eat your heart out. http://www.trance.nu/v4/news/talla-2xlc-to-be-awarded-with-badge-of-honour , so before you call someone stupid look in the mirror —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4august (talk • contribs) 23:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC) You really shot yourself in the foot when you easily accept Atkins (who?) claim that he created the word Techno but totaly crush Talla when he was qouted saying the same thing. It is your word against a whole nations word. I will go with the second. The man will go down in History as being the father of Techno-like it or NOT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4august (talk • contribs) 23:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

again you are ignoring reality, you have a link to a website where this guy claims to have done something. For the record, since you insist on claiming ignorance, the word techno is derived from the Greek work 'techne' (technique) and was in use as a prefix long before your friend Talla "coined it". One such example that is relevant here is Alvin Toffler's usage, (a cited influence on Atkins). The term "techno rebels" appears in his book The Third Wave, and Atkins, as you are so wilfully ignoring (it is mentioned in the article), released the record entitled 'Techno City' in 1984. I'm happy to let consensus decide what is most appropriate here as it is you who has the revisionist agenda. 188.223.6.168 (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

4august, You seem to think Twan van Loon's article for the trance.nu blog is an important source of information. But aside from being a publication of marginal journalistic value (no editorial policy, no fact-checking, no corrections), it really only says these things:

1. Talla 2XLC is a German DJ / producer.
2. Talla 2XLC is founder of "the world's first techno club".
3. The Mayor of Frankfurt is going to give Talla 2XLC an award on April 20.
4. According to an unspecified source (perhaps Talla 2XLC himself), the Mayor referred to Talla 2XLC as "community leader of the techno generation".
5. Frankfurt has been related to techno for years.
6. Talla 2XLC has been related to techno for years.
7. Talla 2XLC claims to have invented the term techno.
8. Talla 2XLC claims to have first used the word techno as a genre name in a record store.
9. Talla 2XLC feels very honored to receive the award.

Re: #2, Not really. His club (actually I think just what he called his weekly at the Dorian Gray club) was called Technoclub, but the music there was from many electronic genres. We know from the We Call It Techno documentary that he called all those genres "Techno", but they had nothing in common and already belonged to other genres. So Technoclub is no more relevant than Tech-Noir (the club in The Terminator).

Re: #4, The Mayor's comments are just hyperbolic praise, completely meaningless. The Mayor also said Talla 2XLC "has brought our city’s name into the world with his innovative music, and he has advanced Frankfurt’s international cultural reputation." This would explain what the award is for, but it does not constitute any kind of claim to techno itself being a German invention, Talla's or otherwise.

Re: #7 & #8, we've been over this. He used the word techno as a catch-all for electronic dance music he was into across many existing genres. This mattered to exactly one person: him. Maybe his patrons at the unnamed record store that nobody ever wrote about. And not that it matters since we don't care what he has to say about himself, but if you read carefully you'll see he doesn't actually take credit for inventing what we now know as techno.

So even if trance.nu weren't a blog, and even if it named its source, there's nothing in that article we can use, at least not for the purpose you're trying to bend it toward. There's nothing about Talla being the "founding father" or whatever. —mjb (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"actually I think just what he called his weekly at the Dorian Gray club" is Just YOUR opinion and a very poor one, and that is irrelevant. The Club DID exist like it or not (I know you dont)

2nd) the Mayor's comments are irrelevant yo say? I believe its the other way around. You are just jealous that Atkins(who?) doesnt have such credit.

3) Your wiki propaganda has many quotes taken directly from Atkins mouth, ironically YOU accept him (and his quotes as the truth) claiming he created whatever but debunk Talla totally. Very nice.

4) You are also starting that a whole music company - ZYX , who specialized in Techno( under the Techno drom International label) to be lying when they printed arcticles about Talla (even in their ) cd releases. So You are a better soucre than ZYX, sure yea right!

5)Just for your info- the word Hypocrite in ancient Greek meant "the one who spoke the truth" and look at what the word means today. And trust me I know where the word Technie came from. Talla did not invent the word Techno, But he was the FIRST to place the word for a certain style of music we know today. Period. Atkins will slowly fade into a footnote of history while Talla will get the credit for what he rightfully deserves! You are probably buddies with this Atkins(who?) character and are desperate to give him some claim to glory at the expense of Talla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4august (talk • contribs) 18:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I also wanted to comment about your statement, " This mattered to exactly one person: him. Maybe his patrons at the unnamed record store that nobody ever wrote about. And not that it matters since we don't care what he has to say about himself". In fact you show exactly what you want to promote. It is so clear to many fans. Its clear propaganda that favors one side. By saying that "we dont care" and it only "mattered" to him, proves your malicious intentions. I am really starting to wonder who you are and where are you from. Maybe Detroit? and you have this urge to need to prove to the world on wikipedia what you and a few others believe.

And I am going to ask you, will YOU the great journalist, go and interview Talla, or someone from Techno Drome International (ZYX music) or some other European sources (that are not ONLY to your liking, if you dont know what I mean think about this) and get THEIR side of the story instead of propagating the Detroit side of the story? Of course NOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4august (talk • contribs) 18:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

4august, your continued bad feeling is not going to get you anywhere, please see WP:GF. Can you please note that this is not a forum.If you are unclear about sourcing issues check WP:RS and WP:VER before you throw baseless accusations at people. This entire debacle boils down to one thing: your failure to present a reliable and verifiable secondary source that supports the claims you are presenting here.If you find this situation unsatisfactory I encourage you to seek WP:3O or perhaps post your grievance on the appropriate notice board. 188.223.6.168 (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

4august, DJ Talla 2XLC isn't even a techno producer, he isn't known in techno circles, he does "trance". his OWN WEBSITE says "His legendary Technoclub brand (1984) is considered by many to be the world’s first major super-club, and this was also where Trance Music first got it’s home." . Also: "From 1989-2000 Technoclub was located in the legendary Dorian Gray (R.I.P) located inside the Frankfurt international Airport." So yes, Technoclub was not a place itself... But that is irrelevant anyway. And how can you say "Who is Juan Atkins?" ???? Please, be rational and actually LISTEN to this man's music and understand his direct contribution to techno music, techno , REAL techno, not music such as Talla's "Can you feel the Silence", that ain't techno. 87.216.16.212 (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC) JUANCS

Techno Rebels 2nd. ed. content

A credible reference to Talla 2XLC and the alleged German origins of techno has finally been found on pages 118–120 of the recently published 2nd edition of Techno Rebels. It makes the following claims, which I feel are fairly neutral:

• In Frankfurt there was a "techno" scene separate from what was going on in Detroit.
• This music scene was closely connected to Hi-NRG and EBM.
• A prominent figure in this scene was DJ/musician Talla 2XLC.
• Talla 2XLC had a Technoclub, a 1985 song with the word Tekno in its title, and a "techno"-themed fanzine.
• The term Tekno began as a joke to make the word seem "hardcore", with more ks implying harder sound.
• There is (or was, at least in the mid-'90s) controversy over whether techno originated with Detroit techno or German Tekno.
• The Tresor rep who explains that the Tekno spelling was a joke says she abandoned the use of the term in the mid-'90s in an effort to assert her strong belief in techno's Detroit origins.

In addition to adding the 2nd edition of Techno Rebels to the bibliography, I've distilled and connected all of these details into a carefully worded addendum to the Berlin section of the article, following where the term tekkno is introduced:

This alternative spelling, with varying numbers of ks, began as a tongue-in-cheek attempt to emphasize the music's hardness, but by the mid-1990s it came to be associated with a controversial point of view that the music was and perhaps always had been wholly separate from Detroit's techno, deriving instead from a 1980s EBM-oriented club scene cultivated in part by DJ/musician Talla 2XLC in Frankfurt.

I feel this is a reasonable and concise summary of the points made in the book, phrased without giving undue weight to a marginal point of view and without implying that all of techno, rather than just early/mid-'90s German techno, should be connected to whatever was going on in Frankfurt in the '80s.

I omitted the reference to Hi-NRG, which I'd like further evidence for, because it's the first I've heard of that genre being part of Frankfurt's "techno". I also omitted the details of Talla 2XLC's use of the word techno/tekno, because I think it would be better suited for a separate sentence or paragraph. As I said before, we can probably find more to say about the Frankfurt scene and its relevance by using information from the We Call It Techno! documentary. Semitransgenic and I have started on it and I'll try to get something added soon. —mjb (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This dispute is now becoming ridiculous. There are hundreds of DJ's in europe that saw Talla 2xlc had a category in his record store with the name techno in 1982, and thousands of people that went to a club called "Techno-Club". If you want an american-pride wikipedia, then write what you want. If the problem is that there isn't somebody that wrote a book about the use of the term techno in europe in the 1982 and that's enough to dismiss what the people saw, then continue to believe that techno is an american creation. The fact is that in 1982 people in Frankfurt were listening to techno music and some DJ's were buying techno records. Discussion about what was considered techno in 1982 are just silly. Those records surely weren't exactly the same style of the later techno music as this kind of music, like all other genres, had an evolution. It's funny to see how some years ago the discussion was centered on the fact that there weren't records of the use of "techno" to describe a music genre prior to 1988. Now many records have been found, and some people are starting to argue what was called techno in 1982 or 86-7 is different from what the techno was in 1988 and thus not to be considered techno. That makes no sense.

I appreciate the great work the users above me have done in searching and reporting what ZYX published and what some groups have done before 1988 and I think that should be way more than enough to close the argument. At this point I do not understand anymore why the article in wikipedia hasn't been changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.5.159 (talk) 02:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, but what, specifically, do you think the article should say about the Frankfurt brand of techno?

The problem, aside from needing to adhere to WP:V, is that the genre we call techno today is very easily traced back to Neil Rushton's mid-1988 compilation album, an album whose tracks were selected from a repertoire with a relatively cohesive sound. It is this "techno" that was popularized worldwide and that evolved into the global phenomenon. The reason techno is called "techno" is because of that compilation, not because of the Frankfurt scene's use of the same term in reference to a relatively broad, unfocused set of styles, and not because of the ZYX label's short-lived EBM imprint with Techno in its name.

The Detroit scene's "techno" had specific influences and antecedents, which as far as is documented, don't include anything Talla 2XLC had anything to do with. They do, however, include some of the same music that was earlier called "techno" in Talla's shop: the early-'80s music of Kraftwerk and Depeche Mode being the examples that come to mind. This might be meaningful if Talla 2XLC's "techno" didn't include pretty much all electronic dance music with hardly any stylistic similarities, or if that use of the term had caught on worldwide, or if the Detroit musicians had called their influences, rather than just their own productions, "techno".

But it was only the Detroit scene's music that was marketed globally as a relatively focused "techno" genre, so that's the use of the term that caught on. Waves of producers over the years have made music imitating these styles, not the styles of Talla 2XLC or the music played in his club. This is what techno is, as far as most of the world is concerned, and that's what the article should concentrate on. —mjb (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth Talla 2XLC's influence in the United States was extremely significant in Houston, TX where much of his music and music from his label got considerable club play in the mid to late 1980s as well as some airplay on local radio stations. In fact reps from billboard would even personally call the DJs there who sent their playlist in each week asking them what the heck that music was. Most of the credit goes to one record store owner who essentially imported that music scene into Houston. It is no coincidence that Houston had the earliest and biggest Ecstasy drug scene in the world. Visit Youtube and search some of his old Robotiko Rejekto and Bigod 20 songs and you'll see numerous comments from Houstonians about how they loved listening to it at the clubs there. Club 6400 and Club NRG had a huge influence on the music scene in Texas as well as the Rave scene nationally as well. Anyway my point is many people in Houston recognize Talla as the "father of Techno" and know him better as the "Techno Pope". We still appreciate the contributions from Detroit but that genre really didn't take off even in Houston until 1990 or so... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.99.9 (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Plausible, and agrees with what I've heard about the Texas scene from a friend who was there (though she didn't mention specific DJs or bands), but YouTube and Wikipedia commenters or personal friends aren't exactly sources we can cite. The Dallas & Austin ecstasy/club scenes are mentioned in Generation Ecstasy and it's said that the music was things like Section 25's "Looking from a Hilltop", Chris & Cosey, Wax Trax-style industrial, and indie pop like The Smiths' "Girlfriend in a Coma". Houston's ecstasy/club scene is mentioned in a credible white paper on raves but without any reference to the type of music that was played in the '80s. Talla 2XLC or his bands aren't mentioned at all, although they probably fall under "Wax Trax-style industrial". That's not enough to change any part of the techno music article for. —mjb (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, yea those songs you mention among many others were very popular. Talla's contributions to the music scene there were evident but not profound. Most people knew the music but not the artist. I personally thought of him when I thought of techno, though after speaking recently with the record store owner mentioned above he too credited Detroit with Techno and even threw out some names while being well aware of the movement in Europe but saying Europe borrowed it and changed it, though Talla did concurrently come up with his own unrelated "genre" of it apparently. Talla's work certainly affected this Texan personally while mainstream techno never was hugely to my liking but for most of the rest of the world I concede it started in Detroit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.99.9 (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Bud Powell

There is a claim that Jazz legend Bud Powell influenced Detroit Style. You might want to check this out if it is somthing to add to the "Jazz" section. Here is the information that I found out. This quote is from a paper that I just wrote for my Jazz history course in college on Bud Powell. "Powell influenced an entire school of pianism that developed in Detroit, called the “Detroit Style.” The students of this style took different aspects from various artists to develop and refine their style through the decades, which all traced back to Powell (Gioia 240)." Gioia, Ted. The History of Jazz. New York: Oxford UP, 1998. Print. 206.57.40.102 (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Jeff Corbett - jeffcorbett@hotmail.com - August 4, 2010.

MCing

An anonymous contributor added MCing to the list of techno instrumentation in the infobox, saying in the edit summary that it's common in live gigs, not studio-recorded techno, and that techno's historical connection to electro has some weight in the matter. I don't disagree that MCing happens on occasion (Underworld comes to mind), but does it really belong in the infobox as an implicitly common (if not essential) component of techno instrumentation? It's more of a novelty, not an integral part of the culture or really all that common, in my experience. And the electro roots of techno don't seem relevant. Any opinions on this one way or the other? —mjb (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

YMO and "foreign" influences

"foreign" inappropriate. the vast majority of electronic music, from Moroder and the entire Italo-disco thing to Kraftwerk, Tangerine Dream, Gary Numan, Yellow, Visage, Telex, Ultravox, etc. etc. that was spun on MFA, and influenced the first wave of techno, was European. YMO is being given undue weight here (WP:UNDUE). 188.223.6.168 (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"foreign" is a really bad word to use in an encyclopedia. Foreign from whose perspective? - filelakeshoe 18:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

188.223.6.168: Just because you disagree with a single term ("foreign"), that doesn't mean you should revert everything. I've already cited several sources that mention YMO as a primary influence on the genre. If you think YMO are given undue weight, then we can re-word it differently, but overzealous deletion is not the solution. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Filelakeshoe: You should pay more attention to what you're reverting. That second edit of mine that you reverted was completely unrelated to this topic at hand. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I've now restored my edits back again, but changed a few words here and there, taking the issues raised here into account. If there's anything either of you disagree with, feel free to re-word the parts that you have issue with, but at least try not to revert everything next time, since I've also made other edits that are unrelated to this issue. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Synthpop? Electropop?

Notice there is some kind of distinction being drawn here when there is none, electropop is what the American music press called European synthpop. see here. --Semitransgenic (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

see also relevant merge discussion @Talk:Electropop#Merger_with_Synthpop--Semitransgenic (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

extremely us-biased perspective

This article has to be completely rewritten. It's completely biased and not taking into account the widely documented facts that are showing the obvious european origin of techno. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.104.206.125 (talk) 02:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it challenges your long-held assumptions does not make it biased, and just because you think something is "obvious" or "widely documented" does not make it so. In accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability policy, numerous published, reliable, relatively scholarly and credible journalistic secondary sources (and a handful of relevant primary sources) support every potentially contentious assertion the article makes—which is why the article is full of gobs of citations and is so remarkably stable. Techno's European connections are even discussed in the article several times, and they are all cited. If you know of some reliable sources to which we can attribute specific claims that contradict what the article currently says, please mention them, because we'd like to see them to see if they're credible and noteworthy. However, due to Wikipedia policy of not giving undue weight to fringe points of view, a full rewrite is too much to expect unless you can produce enough secondary sources to show that your beliefs are more accurate than what we have here already. —mjb (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

One piece of evidence I can point to (I'm not the OP above nor European) is Manuel Göttsching's "E2-E4" which was released in 1984, and recorded years earlier. It was certainly being played by DJ's like Larry Levan at NYC's Paradise Garage-- and according to this article, was often used to close the club. (Its undisputed that Levan and that club were at the headwaters of mutation of disco into the garage/house music genres).

http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-08-12/music/manuel-g-ouml-ttsching-revisits-minimalist-classic-e2-e4/

"Detroit innovators such as Juan Atkins would credit it with kick-starting techno." http://emusician.com/remixmag/artists_interviews/musicians/remix_manuel_gottsching/

More sources are needed, and sorry I'm not capable of being a real wikipedia editor myself, but those two articles are a decent start, are they not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.108.46 (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

not sure what exactly the issues is, there's no conspiracy here, article clearly details influences and antecedents. Looking at a range of WP:RS sources, the general consensus, regarding where and when a genre of music called "techno" originated, is that it happened in Detroit. We are reflecting what the RS sources are saying.If you have a valid alternate interpretation of events, supported by RS citations, get writing. --Semitransgenic (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, techno began in Detroit. Yes, there were influences, but there's a difference between being influential and actually starting something. The Belleville Three acknowledged their influences as stated in the article, but they are the ones that started this musical genre. B-Machine (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

What about Steve Rachmad?

What about Steve Rachmad? http://www.discogs.com/artist/Steve+Rachmad Is a noted techno artist (detroit style)

n.n u.u 19:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by N.n u.u (talk • contribs)

yes, notable, will be covered when section on Netherlands is added, will happen at some point. Also, no Steve Rachmad article exists, if you write one and we can then link to it. --Semitransgenic (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Techno

In Europe, the use of the word „Techno“ in reference to a genre of music was as early as in 1982 (by Andreas Tomalla - alias Talla 2XLC) - see "Technoclub" in Frankfurt am Main, also called "Techno Club D.G." (http://technoclub.tc/about/history/).--IIIraute (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It has been pretty well established here in previous discussion and in the documentary film that covers this topic that Talla's "Techno" was not this or any other specific genre, and that his use of the term was confined to his sphere of direct influence (Frankfurt's scene and his own music projects); the wider use of the word in Europe and elsewhere is not attributable to him, nor is its use to refer to a distinct genre, regardless of what technoclub.tc (hardly a reliable source) might say. I think the article covers this well enough already. mjb (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

FIRST TECHNO RECORD

Discussion regarding the first Techno record. Reason: to challenge the reliability of the citation to the 2008 article that states Catalog# M-001 is Techno. I have gone back into the archives, and here is my synopsis. I believe the reference to No UFO's is false claiming it is Techno. This record in particular is of the Cybotron strain with Rick Davis. It can be said it's a blueprint for Techno. The other reason is, Techno wasn't even a genre this early on. The word techno didn't appear until around the time of either Good Life or Big Fun, two House records in fact, but the term "Techno" appeared on the sleeve. This essentially appeared on the "DJ International looking sleeve", as a way to re-brand the records the Detroit guys were making, as something different. Prior to this 're-branding' effort, Techno wasn't a genre this early on, neither was the word 'Tech House' either, but I use the term to describe the style, since it is not a genre. "Tech House" describes House music with bits of Techno sounds produced in.

Catalog#

1987
KMS 007 House
KMS 008 House
KMS 009 House
KMS 010 House
KMS 011 House

1985
M-001 Electro or Electro House (Electro sounds on top of Mark Imperial 'fist' record)
M-002 Electro or Electro House

1986
M-003 House
M-004 Electro House
M-005 Electro House
M-006 House
M-007 House

1986
MS001 House (A1&B1), Tech House (B2)

1987
MS002 Techno (A&B1&B2) ***FIRST TECHNO RECORD***

I will go back over to confirm otherwise. Hope people can add in their opinions. My opinion as of tonight, is MS002 (1987) is the first American Techno record. This is subject to change of course, but these are the main 3 labels. I don't recall very many other Detroit labels at the time (1985-1987). The point I consider the first techno record, is when the detroit producers broke away from House (such as MS001 Let's Go being 'pure' house), and it started to take on the 'robot sound' (MS002), like in Nude Photo. Prior to this, Derek May was spending his time being schooled at the music box. All the detroit guys were creating music to be purchased by Chicago residents (there was no scene in Detroit this early), therefore, it had to somewhat fit in with what Ron Hardy would play at the music box, or else nobody would buy it.Danceking5 (talk) 05:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Calling another editor a "cock blocker" is not really how we communicate around here. Unfortunately all of this is WP:OR, and as a means of generating content, it is unusable. Additionally, this is your view, it is not a view that is representative of the WP:RS sources we have to work with. Continually removing reliable sources in favour of your own view could easily be construed as disruptive editing. Can you please take a good look at the guidelines on original research and reliable sourcing before editing content? I get the distinct impression that you have either not read them or are simply adopting a wilfully ignorant stance. -- Semitransgenic _talk. 10:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Semitransgenic, you know what I think? I think you have no idea what I'm actually talking about. And I think it bothers you that I am trying to discuss this information in public. The fact remains, that sources need to be reliable. Just because something is printed in a book, DOES NOT prove it is reliable. Lastly, there is absolutely nothing wrong with discussing these topics. Possibly it is the act of discussing that makes you feel uncomfortable that the information could be wrong. If this were the case, then no information in the world could be discussed. Whatever 'appeared' in writing would be law. Is it possible for you to actually discuss any of the questions I raise, instead of reverting back to rules?Danceking5 (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

My 2¢: I understand your frustration and you raise some valid points here in the talk page, although I don't fully agree with the changes you've been trying to make to the article, changes which don't actually match what you're saying here. I support reverting the edits you've been making so far.

In the article, you are demanding to add a completely unsupported, dubious claim that three heretofore-unreported Swedish guys invented techno, and in your edit summaries you further demand that the claim remain in place for two months while you search for sources and further info. And then here you say citations are overrated. Come on, there's no way anyone will tolerate that, and it doesn't even warrant discussion.

In the article and in the genre infobox, you are also wanting to remove, if not change to "late", the "mid-" in "mid-1980s" as the time of techno's murky origins. To support this, you're saying it's uncited (apparently citations are only overrated some of the time?), and you're pointing out that the pre-1988 releases by the Detroit crew are more-or-less electro and/or house. There's room for discussion here, but what we're supposed to put in the infobox has never been very clear; "origins" of a genre are typically very indistinct. It's normal for there to be no distinct date when the genre "began", no first recorded example that started it all. That's certainly true in the case of techno, and the article's content reflects that. I think "mid-1980s" is a reasonable summary of what the article does say about the techno's origins, date-wise, though. I don't think it can be assumed that we're saying mid-1980s because of "No UFOs".

More generally, we have long been struggling with how to characterize techno's origins. Even the sources we have cited have divergent points of view. We try to neutrally report on what the sources say, but it would be irresponsible to blindly treat them all as being equally valid. To some extent, we are inevitably going to be guilty of producing a "synthesis" of these ideas with our own impressions, as we elevate some sources above others in our narrative history of techno. So there is always room for improvement, and your concerns are not just being dismissed out of hand.

Don't get me wrong; your point about the style of "No UFOs" and other early Metroplex releases is well-taken; you're basically right about the electro-ness and house-ness of the releases that you point to. But it's not like the article says "techno began in the early or mid-1980s because that's when 'No UFOs' and 'Techno City' came out." It doesn't say that at all. Even the part with the 2008 citation you mentioned doesn't say that. In fact, we've been very careful in many places throughout the article to ensure that we don't try to define or give undue weight to anyone else's definition of any "first techno record", American or otherwise. I don't think we do a good enough job of talking about exactly how electro-ish Cybotron's early releases are, but in every place where "No UFOs" is mentioned, at least, we deliberately avoid any claims that the song is techno. Important in the history of techno, yes (and that's what the 2008 citation says), but techno itself, no.—mjb (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

the point is DK5 is offering an interpretation that is derived from personal experience; something that does not address our needs. Like I said already, when this user takes the time to appreciate how we build consensus using the best sources available, maybe there will be something to discuss. DK5 if you have something to offer other than your own unsubstantiated views lets be having it, otherwise understand that the talk page is for discussing sources not personal opinions. Semitransgenic _talk. 22:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

False again Semitransgenic. The talk pages can be used to challenge the reliability of a source. If something is published and it's wrong, there is absolutely nothing wrong with discussing it. Unless it is the actual discussion that scares you. MJB I agree with the reference to the origins. Since it doesn't say "Genre Start" or anything, so your true on that. The request for citations could be removed on that. But in the first statement, it says the genre emerged "mid", stating 1985. Completely false since there were no techno records made this early. Even you know that No UFO's isn't "Techno". It's an electro record with the mark imperial beat. I'm also not frustrated with anything. I do get annoyed with Semitransgenic stalking my editing, but it is to be expected from someone who feels threatened.

>I don't fully agree with the changes you've been trying to make to the article, changes which don't actually match what you're saying here> Asking for a citation is not wrong.

>In the article, you are demanding to add a completely unsupported, dubious claim that three heretofore-unreported Swedish guys >invented techno, and in your edit summaries you further demand that the claim remain in place for two months while you search for >sources and further info. And then here you say citations are overrated. Come on, there's no way anyone will tolerate that, and >it doesn't even warrant discussion.

"You are demanding". First off you assume that I even wrote that information. For your information someone else wrote it. I'm only allowing this other writer to gather citations, because you and or Semitransgenic deleted it within less than 12 hours of it appearing. How can anyone add anything to this page if you two are monitoring it like crazy all the time. Otherwise we would have people playing god, deciding who can or cannot collaborate for the article. In my opinion, as an outside view, I think this writer deserves the time for other people to collaborate his writing, since he's writing on 'blueprints' after-all.

The reference to No UFOs, did say it was "the first techno record", that's why I brought this up. It is NOT Techno. Techno as a genre didn't exist this early on. You can say it was an influence on Techno, but its single significance is highly questionable.

Regarding the year, I don't think it should be removed, I just think it should be changed to 1980s, so it covers various points of views. Mid 1980s is too specific. Early Cybotron in 1980s was also part of the blueprint, this is why I think it should span all years of the 1980s. There's also no difference between the earlier 1980's Cybotron Electro than the M-001 & M-002 Electro. The part with the 2008 citation did refer to No UFOs as being the first Techno record, that's why I changed it. Thanks though for at least being open to my suspicion of this false claim that No UFOs (an Electro Record) is the first Techno record. It's not.Danceking5 (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but just to be clear, just because I agree it's electro doesn't mean I think "No UFOs" absolutely isn't techno. A lot of people say it is. They also say "Alleys of Your Mind", "Techno City", and even "Share Vari" are techno. In their view, techno was very experimental at first. It had a strong electro and New Wave synth-pop influence, and later a strong house and acid house influence, before settling into its more distinct and familiar stylistic trends (and clichés) in the 1990s. Personally I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, "No UFOs", like "Technicolor", is way more like "Planet Rock"/"Al-Naafiysh"-style electro than most of the techno that followed. But on the other, it's almost a perfect bridge in the progression from "Techno City" to "Sound of Stereo"/"Off to Battle"...so where does the electro end and the house and techno begin?

I started paying attention late and didn't realize you weren't the original adder of the Swedish info, but you kept re-adding it, so it doesn't matter who put it in first. I also didn't realize the article previously said that "No UFOs" was the "first techno record". I'm glad it doesn't say that anymore, and I apologize for assuming you had misinterpreted it. But the way you talk about it makes it sound like you are very certain about "Nude Photo" (1987) being the first techno record, but that's just as debatable as "No UFOs", really. It's a waste of time trying to identify one record as "first". If there was one, everyone would agree on it :)

I try to stay out of genre infobox disputes. People are always changing them, in part because the fields are so vague, and the info that goes in them isn't definite; you have to be vague. As long as it's not too far off the mark, I don't care what's in there. 1980s is as good as mid-1980s. Others disagree. I feel that "mid-1980s" is a good way to summarize all the many things that the article says, so it's not something that needs a direct citation, but if that's a point of disagreement, please explain further. —mjb (talk) 05:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

@dk5 can assure you the discussion does not "scare" me: sorry, but what age are you exactly? this is characteristic of your level of engagement with editors you disagree with, you try to patronise, insult, and taunt them and still expect a constructive response. The message you are sending is that talking to you is a complete waste of time .You also seem to think that a dick-waving credentials boast is required to satisfy every dance music enthusiast that shows up and spouts their personal view of music history. Let me repeat, your personal opinion does not matter here, there is no discussion on what you believe to be true, unless you have reliable sources to back it up. Additionally, my personal opinion - based on my personal knowledge of the subject matter - is also immaterial, but in this particular instance, I happen to share the view of multiple published sources. You cannot dispute multiple sources without presenting viable oppositional material that can be used to challenge the sources we are currently drawing upon. -- Semitransgenic _talk. 11:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

When you say 'a lot of people say it is', can you give me a list of who these 'a lot' are? I agree that the early stuff is very experiental, but experimental in of itself doesn't make it Techno. Regarding the infobox, you've stated Alleys of Your Mind already as a Techno release. If 'many' people are already stating that this 1981 release is Techno, I think it should be included in the point about origin not being specific to mid-80s. According to 'they', Techno already existed then in the very early 1980s.

RE: My stance on the "Start". I like to refer to earlier published vinyl that resembles the popularizing period of Techno (ie. early 90s when labels like UR & Tresor emerged). Very early on, there are so few vinyls actually published, that it is my opinion that the genre hadn't started yet. E2/E4 was extremely experimental, and electronic, and we don't refer to that as Techno. It's easy for us to go back and say "hey, this was the first techno record", but in actual reality nobody was using the term WIDELY back then to catalog it Techno. The main thing that matters is if the public had a. Recognized the record back then and b. Identified it BACK THEN as Techno, giving evidence that the buzz-word "Techno" had penetrated the public. Any 3 guys in a bedroom can call something Techno, but it is not until the term is widely used by 3rd parties (ie. public), that we can actually say a genre emerged. If people want to argue this point, that a genre had emerged called Techno this early, and these Detroit guys made it in 1981-1985, I think proof in published writing from back then, needs to be given. And not someones opinion in a book written years later saying "Yes, it was called Techno".

For instance the word started appearing on the record sleeves around "Big Fun", on the DJ International looking sleeves. It also states that the term was applied by the 3 Detroit guys when they needed to label that LP that came out around the same time. To me, the official stamping of the vinyl, is when what we know as Techno began, as this is the only verifiable printed source from the time. Semitransgenic - I don't disagree with a lot of editors. I disagree with immature stalkers like you, who try to revert every single thing I say within 6 hrs of posting it. So far there are only 2 or 3 like you in this world. Please stop reverting back to the personal opinion thing. I explained that I am discussing the reliability of existing sources. The fact that you have zero argument regarding my points, basically equates to me, that you aren't qualified to speak on the topic of Techno music THIS EARLY ON IN THE SCENE. I'm in my 30s. I'm also a Canadian. I also have sort of an autocratic tone. This tone in of itself is not personally targeted to you (or the other 'editors' you refer to). This tone in of itself does not make the information wrong that I speak about also. After all it is just tone & words. I agree that talking to me is a waste of time if you have no argument or input to add. Simply complaining about my vast years of knowledge in dance music isn't really solving any problem, it only makes you look like a hater. Please leave other peoples writing for a chance to compile sources. This is why I've added the request for citations. Anything other than this would be you trying to play god on this page.Danceking5 (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Who calls "Alleys of Your Mind" techno? Who argues about whether "Share Vari" came first and whether it's techno?

• Click.
• Might as well do the same for "No UFOs".

Additionally:

• [6] (2001 Metro Times article)
• [7] (see the comments; apparently Atkins himself said so; I've requested more details about where the quote came from).
• [8] (the 313 discussion list, in its early days, had so much bickering about this issue, they made a fairly diplomatic FAQ answer for it)
• [9] (in case you thought people stopped caring about it; and a followup was posted in the comments of a recent interview with Atkins).

...just answering your question. As for dates of things in print referring to techno, the article agrees with you; it does not refer to any music that came out before the 1988 compilation (and that wasn't on it) as "techno". We were very careful about that.

Let's evaluate each of the things you want to change:

• The music genre infobox "cultural origins" field: You want "Mid-1980s" to be just "1980s". First look at Template:Infobox music genre. There's zero guidance there whatsoever as to what "cultural origins" really means and what we're supposed to put there. People have chose to interpret it more generally than just some mythical "exact date and place the genre started". So given that techno was "incubated" in the mid-1980s, mid-1980s is valid, as is late 1980s, mid-to-late 1980s, or just 1980s. As long as it's close, I don't care. What is mid-1980s anyway? 1980, 1981, 1982 are definitely early. 1983 can be early or mid. 1984, 1985, 1986 are definitely mid. 1987 can be mid or late. 1988 and 1989 are definitely late.
• The main lead: It kicks off with Techno...emerged...during the mid to late 1980s. You want it to just say "1980s" instead of "mid to late 1980s." I don't get it. "Emerged" is already intentionally vague. 1980s isn't any better; if anything, it's worse, because it suggests there's techno-ish music in the early 1980s, which isn't really supported by the article. The article doesn't take much of a stand on whether techno really existed before it was named, and indeed, the very next sentence clarifies that the name didn't come along until 1988. The two sentences should be taken together: techno was named in 1988, and the musical trends evident in the techno of that era had been forming over time, specifically during the immediately preceding years, but probably not as far back as 1980-1982 (although like I said, there are those who believe it was). So I don't agree with changing it to just "1980s."
• The "origins" section lead: It kicks off with The initial blueprint for techno developed during the mid-1980s and you want to change mid-1980s to 1980s. It's the same situation as before. If we had said Techno came into existence in the mid-1980s you'd have a case, but the choice of words is deliberately talking about techno's "initial blueprint" which was in a state of "development" in the mid-1980s. It's just another way of phrasing what's in the first sentence of the article (which is actually a summary of this content). Further, this "blueprint" statement follows text that says 1988 was when techno was named. So I don't think readers reach this point and feel like the article is saying "techno started sometime between 1983 and 1986". Instead, they come away with the knowledge that music was being produced in the mid-1980s that was stylistically approaching and thus laying the foundation for the 1987-1988 music that came to be called techno. If the article needs to be more clear about this, we can work on it, but it's not incorrect as it is.
• That lead goes on to say in Belleville, Michigan by the Belleville Three (+1). Even though you say it's someone else's content, and even though you have no defense of it whatsoever other than the false "citation-needed requests should be kept for up to two months before the content is deleted", you keep reinstating amendments to this text to referring to 4 non-notable Swedes as co-inventors of techno. This was just someone's idea of a joke! There is no leaving it in. Call me whatever name you want; I will not let it stay. If you are so much about the article's validity, you should be just as aggressive in removing outright silly content. —mjb (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries Mjb, you can do what you want. I choose not to partake in these immateur editing games. Good luck with the Techno page.Danceking5 (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)