 Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is free.
| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Backmasker |
I've noticed recently that some people are being criticized for releasing Hardcore music that is not "Hardcore".
I'm wondering when you as listeners, players, producers and purchasers of Hardcore music think a tune stops becoming hardcore. Is there a particular tempo that is too slow or to fast ? Is there a sound or instrument that should never be used? Can you think of any examples of when a producer has taken the influences from another scene and pushed it so far that their music is not what they think it is?
Be nice, this could be a good debate.
|
| Quicksilver |
Personally, to me it's about the bass (which also seems to relate to the kick). When it becomes like the vast majority of the tunes on CXH8, I don't consider much of it hardcore anymore even though I might still like the tunes (don't care what the genre of the song I'm listening to is, if I like it I like it). In other words, softer kick and a longer, less sharp bass.
I think in short words, when it loses the distinct, stabby "kick - bass - kick - bass"-rhythm, then it doesn't sound like hardcore anymore. |
| jenks |
I think at this point the defining feature of hardcore is pretty much just the BPM. |
| Kebab Head |
Hardcore doesn't even have a definitive definition to start with... Never mind where does it stop.. |
| Breakbeat Jon |
Hardcore has always been about taking bits of other dance music and chucking them together at a faster speed. From the early 90s taking hip hop, house, techno and reggae, throwing together sped up, to the early naughties, with it's trance and hard dance influences, to the electro, dub step influences currently being produced.
You've also got the hardcore breaks stuff that produced at 140-150bpm, but in keeping with the 91-93 sound. I still consider that hardcore.
At the risk of sounding cliched, if the musics good, it doesn't matter what it's called. |
| Triquatra |
I guess it all stems from BPM - if its around 170BPM I would say its hardcore...after that its down to how the beats are broken down (if its a 4beat track...or a breakbeat driven track..dependent on kicks used and drum patterns)...but I would say BPM is probably the starting point. |
| Skidzorz |
I dunno, I consider the the intro track to Luna-C's Supaset 12 (disc 2 of the free Breaking Free album (Twin Time - The Beat Shook) to be hardcore, though definitely trying to sound like a tune released in the 90's, but from the people I've talked to I seem to be alone in this opinion. Genre's are very subjective as is the music. The whole DNA dnb/bbhc set fiasco at Slammin Vinyl is a perfect example of this.. looking back at that old thread, nobody could agree on which tracks were dnb and which were bbhc. I can't remember which track it was (I'd like to say either Chime or Can You Hear The Silence), but I remember CDJay saying that one of their bbhc (or at least very distinctively bbhc to any hardcore fan) tracks was topping the dnb section at either Beatport or Trackitdown for a little while.
CXH8, though very different from the upfront hardcore everyone is used to, is still very much hardcore. Remember Hixxy and co's trance stage in the late 90's? I don't, I was too young, but the point still stands. The music is constantly changing everyday and there is always going to be a producer, or group of producers that are pushing a different sound. Once again, I wasn't into hardcore when freeform was first starting, but I can imagine it got a lot of flack at the start for being too trancy, or lots of "**** that floaty acid shit".
Now, I'm not fully comparing freeform to electrocore because **** electrocore, but still.. genres change, sub genres are born and die every day. There's plenty of great, non electrocore, upfront, riff crazy hardcore out there. I just bought We'll Be Coming Back by Dowster & Vagadond (which sounds suspiciously like a "we're leaving the scene" record.. maybe I'm just being paranoid) and D-Linquants' remix of All Of The Lights (which I'll admit does have a bit of electrocore in it, though has a very bouncy, 2008-2012esque riff), and both sound just like the hardcore I've known and loved. WBCB especially so, since it sounds like it was plucked right out of Vagabond's vault from 2005-2007. I know I went slightly off topic, but meh.
tl;dr - there's LOADS of shit you may consider hardcore that someone else would laugh at you for, and vice versa, so take that into consideration before you flame an artist for producing elctrohousef@ggotdubcore. |
| silver |
It's Hardcore til you die
:) |
| Kebab Head |
quote:
Originally posted by silver:
It's Hardcore til you die
:)
No no
It's
Hardcore Til I Die
I'd of thought 10 years later you'd of known that? |
| eddiewould |
For me, hardcore means ravey (fun) and makes me want to dance like a lunatic without caring what anyone else thinks.
As soon as it starts sounding too polished or trying to be cool (or jump on the latest bandwagon) it ceases to be hardcore and starts to become pop music.
Drum & Bass isn't hardcore because even though it's a similar speed and has many similar musical elements, the listeners (typically) care too much about looking cool/image. So it lacks the craziness that makes it hardcore.
Trance isn't hardcore for pretty much the same reason.
Eurodance is pretty much the closest thing to hardcore that isn't hardcore in my eyes. But it's again too obsessed with image (hello? - it has music videos). |
| Breakbeat Jon |
quote:
Originally posted by eddiewould:
Drum & Bass isn't hardcore because even though it's a similar speed and has many similar musical elements, the listeners (typically) care too much about looking cool/image. So it lacks the craziness that makes it hardcore.
I thinks thats a massive misconception often trotted out by hardcore fans thats way off the mark, in the same way D'n'B heads wrongly assume that hardcore kids are mostly e'd up retards in cyber gear.
D'n'B has far more in common with the original style of hardcore than hardcore has. Lets not forgot many of the djs and producers who laid the foundations of the hardcore scene progressed it into Jungle / D'n'B. As someone who grew up in the early 90s it was all the same to me, as result I love both genres and think it's a shame they are so far apart these days and hardly anyone mixes it up Easygroove style like it used to be. Obviously there are exceptions out there, Luna C, and Kutski for example.
It shouldn't matter if a track is bbhc or D'n'B. More often than not that tag is defined by the producers background. Hamilton releases D'n'B on Ram, if he released the same tune under Ham on Next Gen it would be defined as bbhc. End of the day, it would still be awesome.
|
| Samination |
I'm not sure if I'd get into hardcore if I actually started to listen to it back in 1990...
well I'd be 6-8 years old when the old Hardcore style came about, and I first started
buying music in 1995, and that was mostly Europe and Will Smith :P.
So far I haven't really heard any Harcore/Jungle/Oldskool track I like.
I've started to like the new "Breakbeat" Hardcore alittle, mostly because they pertain
the BPM Hardcore has had since 1995. So yea, to me Hardcore is about fast music
and heavy melody, preferbly accompanied by a heavy gabber kick :)
I don't know about the people, heck, I've only been to 1 rave, and that still feels
ackward to me :P But about the music, I do feel it's about letting go and having
a blast. |
| scottyd2k9 |
it has :
it stopped when they started adding electro an dubstep in |
| danielseven |
quote:
Originally posted by jenks:
I think at this point the defining feature of hardcore is pretty much just the BPM.
So even the Eurobeat stuff that's over 170 BPM can be called hardcore? I don't think so. |
| Beeferchiefer |
For me it stops being hardcore either when it loses that slightly tongue in cheek and humorous side that I associate with all the best (and even the most serious) hardcore. Other than that anything goes. A dubstep-like tune can still be hardcore IMO. However, dubstep is not a style that lends itself to particularly fun music and for me this explains why much of the 'dubcore' of the last year has been ill-received and fails to please people. Breakbeat hardcore, even that which sounds close to dnb, is almost always good fun. I find this a good measure of whether hardcore is good at all. It has always been a genre that takes great influence from others, but its the originality and tenacity with which these elements are put together that makes it fun music to listen to dance to. |
| Ionosphere |
^ |
| Warnman |
Tmo, Hardcore is a fast electronic music with a very uplifting (slightly childish) sound that immediately urges you to totally freak out, dance around and causes a bright smile on your face automatically. BPM can reach from 160 up to 220 (because I personally dislike to divide as much between Happy/UK Hardcore, Freeform Hardcore/Trancecore and other styles of Hardcore music as others usually do). Gabba is Hardcore, too, but there is a true difference between both genres.
Non-hardcore are tracks that drop in the main part and the big majority of all Minimal, Electro and Dubstep influenced tracks do it. For me it's simply paced up Minimal, Electro and Dubstep. Destroy the uplifting main part and you'll receive what I really enjoy to call "coitus interruptus".
Hardcore is meant to rave around, freak around: being crazy, but the above named genres are making a fool out of this genre, because they sound slow, "relaxing" and are killing the atmosphere.
I really mean it! Do you love the feeling when someone jacks you off close to the point of no return and than smash your balls between two bricks? In this case you must be a masochist, but "Rave" truely is the wrong community for you. Read a f**king dictionary to understand the definition of Rave; myself rarely understands it, but I think I have experienced enough to react as emotional as I do atm.
I'm truely sorry, if I have hurt someone's feelings. It's 1 am over here, I'm close to be drunk and my only wish is to listen to Hard Hitters for the next 2 hours.
Love me, hate me! I don't mind! |
| Smoogie |
Dont even get me started. As someone pointed out, the 'Clubland' Series and anything else to do with Raverbaby AATW and copycat labels to be avoided. I like hard kicks, hoover, breaks. Listen to any Fantasia set from 91-92 or Rez set from 93-96 or Dutch stuff from 91-97 for a taste of Hardcore. Different styles all hard. Some Freeform is hard also but all those pop songs are not. |
| jenks |
quote:
Originally posted by danielsomma:
quote:
Originally posted by jenks:
I think at this point the defining feature of hardcore is pretty much just the BPM.
So even the Eurobeat stuff that's over 170 BPM can be called hardcore? I don't think so.
Examples? I'd say so though yeah, to be fair. |
| Samination |
quote:
Originally posted by Smoogie:
Dont even get me started. As someone pointed out, the 'Clubland' Series and anything else to do with Raverbaby AATW and copycat labels to be avoided. I like hard kicks, hoover, breaks. Listen to any Fantasia set from 91-92 or Rez set from 93-96 or Dutch stuff from 91-97 for a taste of Hardcore. Different styles all hard. Some Freeform is hard also but all those pop songs are not.
why would i listen to something so painfully slow? |
| Breakbeat Jon |
quote:
why would i listen to something so painfully slow?
I wouldn't say 140bpm is painfully slow, although I can appreciate kids into the new styles of hardcore thinking it is. I remember as a nipper buying the Prodidgy Experience album when it came out, and thinking my god, I can't believe how fast this is. And for the time it was.
The great thing about hardcore is during it's 20 odd year existence it has constantly evolved, meaning hardcore is a lot of different things to a lot of people.
I quite like Simon Reynolds 'Hardcore Continuum theory' which is more along the lines of the people into the original hardcore sound moved onto Jungle - DnB - Garage - Dub-Step, along with obviously hardcore. And I can see his point. I think if a lot of the original hardcore ravers were 17/18 now, they would be raving to dubstep. It's an interesting theory, and well worth picking up a copy of his Energy Flash Book. Or just read a bit about it here http://www.kmag.co.uk/editorial/features/enter-the-nuum.html
|
| Hard2Get |
quote:
Originally posted by Samination:
quote:
Originally posted by Smoogie:
Dont even get me started. As someone pointed out, the 'Clubland' Series and anything else to do with Raverbaby AATW and copycat labels to be avoided. I like hard kicks, hoover, breaks. Listen to any Fantasia set from 91-92 or Rez set from 93-96 or Dutch stuff from 91-97 for a taste of Hardcore. Different styles all hard. Some Freeform is hard also but all those pop songs are not.
why would i listen to something so painfully slow?
Why you not listen to something based purely on bpm? It's also not slow. |
| Samination |
Jon & Matt. Well considering I got into Hardcore in early 2000... yea it's too slow for me.
I don't listen to only fast music. I listen to Trance, **** I even listen to Jean-Michel Jarre. But oldskool Hardcore? I just can't stand it |
| Dante |
Old school hardcore (breaks) is so different from new school (post ~1999-2000) that you can't compare them to one another as the same genre, even though I very much consider the 91-93 sound hardcore, as well as the newer revival styles like rave breaks.
Also, eddiewould: Don't you realise that you are exactly as conceited about your music as you claim DnB fans are? You seem to be primarily concerned with hardcore's _image_ as a "fun" and silly genre.
It's worth mentioning (and might already have been) that early hardcore grew out of dark and brooding styles like acid house and Belgian new beat (some may even claim that New Beat was the first style of hardcore. I would say the early 90s breaks was the first, but I won't be too stubborn about it) rather than light hearted and silly styles. Either way I will probably always prefer the more euphoric and maybe even dreamlike aspects of hardcore (Jonny L - Hurt You So, etc. Yes, it's one of my favourites), and try to stay away from the silly shit. To each their own.
Hardcore has always been the 'jack of all trades, master of none' of dance music, borrowing elements from virtually anything that drifts by, particularly contemporary popular styles. Since this has spawned so many different sounds over the years, the boundaries of hardcore have gotten incredibly vague, and there are probably as many definitions as there are listeners. These days the only thing that can pretty safely be labelled hardcore is kick drum led music at 160-165bpm and up, but hardcore is so much more. I for one think the dubstep and electro influenced hardcore tracks are a great thing. It doesn't always make for great tracks, but it's a step in the right direction (towards diversity), and very much in keeping with the spirit of the genre.
This same merging is happening, and has been happening for a while, in other genres. This is a great thing. Hopefully in the future we can be (at least partially) rid of ridiculous and restrictive concepts like genre names, and listen to the music itself. Excluding an entire genre just because you've heard a couple tracks you don't like, is so narrowminded, I might liken it to a certain political party that rose to prominence in the 1930s in Germany. Yeah, you know what I'm talking about. God damn fucking nazis, motherfuckers.
I think it's time to wrap this rant up. Lova ya, fuckheads.
PS: For those who don't really know me (almost everyone who will read this), take this post with a cup of salt. You'll get really thirsty. |
| The Doc |
I consider myself very lucky to know when a Hardcore track is ever played, If you don't know, unfortunately you never will! |
| Samination |
I don't mind that the genre merge, but man I'd love to see someone mix a fast (170BPM) track and a slow (130BPM) track without them clanging :) |
| Hard2Get |
quote:
Originally posted by Dante:
Old school hardcore (breaks) is so different from new school (post ~1999-2000) that you can't compare them to one another as the same genre, even though I very much consider the 91-93 sound hardcore, as well as the newer revival styles like rave breaks.
Also, eddiewould: Don't you realise that you are exactly as conceited about your music as you claim DnB fans are? You seem to be primarily concerned with hardcore's _image_ as a "fun" and silly genre.
It's worth mentioning (and might already have been) that early hardcore grew out of dark and brooding styles like acid house and Belgian new beat (some may even claim that New Beat was the first style of hardcore. I would say the early 90s breaks was the first, but I won't be too stubborn about it) rather than light hearted and silly styles. Either way I will probably always prefer the more euphoric and maybe even dreamlike aspects of hardcore (Jonny L - Hurt You So, etc. Yes, it's one of my favourites), and try to stay away from the silly shit. To each their own.
Hardcore has always been the 'jack of all trades, master of none' of dance music, borrowing elements from virtually anything that drifts by, particularly contemporary popular styles. Since this has spawned so many different sounds over the years, the boundaries of hardcore have gotten incredibly vague, and there are probably as many definitions as there are listeners. These days the only thing that can pretty safely be labelled hardcore is kick drum led music at 160-165bpm and up, but hardcore is so much more. I for one think the dubstep and electro influenced hardcore tracks are a great thing. It doesn't always make for great tracks, but it's a step in the right direction (towards diversity), and very much in keeping with the spirit of the genre.
This same merging is happening, and has been happening for a while, in other genres. This is a great thing. Hopefully in the future we can be (at least partially) rid of ridiculous and restrictive concepts like genre names, and listen to the music itself. Excluding an entire genre just because you've heard a couple tracks you don't like, is so narrowminded, I might liken it to a certain political party that rose to prominence in the 1930s in Germany. Yeah, you know what I'm talking about. God damn fucking nazis, motherfuckers.
I think it's time to wrap this rant up. Lova ya, fuckheads.
PS: For those who don't really know me (almost everyone who will read this), take this post with a cup of salt. You'll get really thirsty.
Great post.
|
| DJ Immenze |
I believe that now a days hardcore is know for its early 2000s stuff and the clxh cds not for the early happy hardcore vibes back in the 90s. My generation has grown up with the kick-bass-kick-bass at 170bpm. To me that is hardcore.
Honestly and truthfully I think that the way hardcore is going at the minute is making the scene die out because of this dubstep influence. it's making people question, well what is hardcore now... |
| Hard2Get |
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Immenze:
Honestly and truthfully I think that the way hardcore is going at the minute is making the scene die out because of this dubstep influence. it's making people question, well what is hardcore now...
To be honest, the scene went downhill in 2005 so if it can go a further 7 years while getting progressively worse without dying then i don't think you have to worry. |
| snerkler |
I hate these questions as everyone has an opinion (including myself). But the facts are that Hardcore is a big umbrella that encompasses a whole variety of music, ranging from oldschool, to happy hardcore, to techno, to jungle to drum n bass.
Typically any music that uses atonal beats, as well as industrial sounds and samples can be deemed to be Hardcore. So, it does not refer to a BPM as oldschool is at 130-145 bpm, happy hardcore 160-175bpm, drum n bass 175bpm+. However, hardcore can be under 100bpm.
Neither is it defined by bass, as again just the styles mentioned all have different sounding bass.
Most dance music we listen to today has spawned from Hardcore (Hardcore itself being born in the late 80's), and because it has now become so diverse we have to categorise the sub genres, eg happy hardcore, jungle, techno etc, each of which can be defined in it's own way. but it's still all hardcore.
So depending on how you view it you can argue that Happy Hardcore is not hardcore, it is purely Happy hardcore, which happens to fall under the hardcore umbrella. It depends how pedantic you want to be.
I've been around since day one (showing my age now) and I refer to the early 'rave' stuff as Hardcore (as this is what it was only known as), and the rest of the stuff as it's own sub genre. But technically to call Jungle, for example, hardcore is not wrong. |
| snerkler |
edit: Done it again, clicked quote rather than edit  |
| djDMS |
If i'm still wearing pants at the end of the night it's not Hardcore. |
| Backmasker |
quote:
Originally posted by djDMS:
If i'm still wearing pants at the end of the night it's not Hardcore.
and with that all agreed that the discussion was closed 
|
| Samination |
quote:
Originally posted by snerkler:
I hate these questions as everyone has an opinion (including myself). But the facts are that Hardcore is a big umbrella that encompasses a whole variety of music, ranging from oldschool, to happy hardcore, to techno, to jungle to drum n bass.
Typically any music that uses atonal beats, as well as industrial sounds and samples can be deemed to be Hardcore. So, it does not refer to a BPM as oldschool is at 130-145 bpm, happy hardcore 160-175bpm, drum n bass 175bpm+. However, hardcore can be under 100bpm.
Neither is it defined by bass, as again just the styles mentioned all have different sounding bass.
Most dance music we listen to today has spawned from Hardcore (Hardcore itself being born in the late 80's), and because it has now become so diverse we have to categorise the sub genres, eg happy hardcore, jungle, techno etc, each of which can be defined in it's own way. but it's still all hardcore.
So depending on how you view it you can argue that Happy Hardcore is not hardcore, it is purely Happy hardcore, which happens to fall under the hardcore umbrella. It depends how pedantic you want to be.
I've been around since day one (showing my age now) and I refer to the early 'rave' stuff as Hardcore (as this is what it was only known as), and the rest of the stuff as it's own sub genre. But technically to call Jungle, for example, hardcore is not wrong.
Some like calling it Techno. Some like to call it Rave. Personally, it's both since Hardcore (and genre's alike) take as much from both genre's as any other :P |
| Luna-C |
I wrote a thing about this at the end of my book, and if I get time I will grab it and post it on my site.
For now, I will just say this topic touches on the big problem hardcore has - which is that it has no defined sound. Back in the day, it had its own sound, and it stole from others as part of that sound. Nowadays, it just lurches between stealing from this, and being influenced by that.
Its a huge issue because hardcore cannot move forward or grow when so little of it is strictly hardcore.
The result is that if you really want to define what hardcore is right now, then its Darren Styles / HTID type stuff with the 4x4 kick / trance stab / vocal about flying / ecstasy / higher rinse and repeat. All the rest is either trance but faster, or d'n'b with rave elements, or old school.
Thats not to say that there are not some great tracks...it's just that they cannot claim to be "hardcore" because their influences overwhelm them. |
| warped_candykid |
We all know that Happy Hardcore became the big image of the Hardcore genres. In essence, Happy Hardcore had a mixture of break beats underlying a 4/4 kick drum. Synths, Pianos and pipe organs were used at hyper paces over the 4/4 kick drum, which mainly consisted of over-the-top happy melodies. Chirpy female vocals were placed over the pianos, with lyrics that usually consisted of love and happiness. The production tempo was between 160-180 bpm, with most mixing tempos based in the 170s-180s. I feel this is the most grounded frame for Happy Hardcore, without all the borrowing from other genres. The argument with tempo is what do you say to justify that Hardcore is solely based on the 170bpm tempo when there are other genres producing at this tempo as well? You got to have that framework to show what each genre IS. When a track from an outside genre is remixed, as long as that particular remix is constructed within Hardcore's framework, then that remix is now considered a Hardcore version. No matter what the evolution of a genre is, as long as it sticks to it's framework, it is what it is. To me, I still considered the electro/dub step influenced production to still be hardcore because it still falls in Hardcore's framework. It really just comes down to you researching your music, researching the past releases from a particular artist, and knowing the frameworks. |
| Underloop |
Hardcore isn't about the start or end point, its about the journey |
| Archefluxx |
quote:
Originally posted by Underloop:
Hardcore isn't about the start or end point, its about the journey
Ive been making my music to include more of a journey these days.
My 'Take Control' remix has an African feel to it.
A collab with Ranzor is more Egyptian.
|
| Josephson_Junction |
quote:
Originally posted by Luna-C:
For now, I will just say this topic touches on the big problem hardcore has - which is that it has no defined sound. Back in the day, it had its own sound, and it stole from others as part of that sound. Nowadays, it just lurches between stealing from this, and being influenced by that.
Its a huge issue because hardcore cannot move forward or grow when so little of it is strictly hardcore.
The result is that if you really want to define what hardcore is right now, then its Darren Styles / HTID type stuff with the 4x4 kick / trance stab / vocal about flying / ecstasy / higher rinse and repeat. All the rest is either trance but faster, or d'n'b with rave elements, or old school.
Thats not to say that there are not some great tracks...it's just that they cannot claim to be "hardcore" because their influences overwhelm them.
I've noticed this. It also seems like a lot of hardcore songs from between 2000 and 2004 are at a halfway-point between the classic "hardcore sound" and the heavily influenced sound like you said.
I've also noticed some songs that seem confused about their genre; Substanced & Horzi - Superior Pressure (Sam One Remix); Full Circle DJs - Things Past; Buzzmasta - Cloudy Day; Amalgamation Station & Ephexis - With Full Spiral. They're great, but their tempo and sound make their genre kinda hard to define for me!
Alright, so... what happens if you replace the supersaws with different synths? Haven't they become a pretty big part of hardcore? |
| Samination |
quote:
Originally posted by Underloop:
Hardcore isn't about the start or end point, its about the journey
if you consider music an art maybe. I consider music being an entertainment form. Or maybe you consider Mona Lisa being entertaining? =P |
|
|
