IS this a DANCE board or a HIP HOP board??????

[Wildstyle K]

This is why I'm beginning to reuse the original word electronica that everyone is familiar with. That's one of those terms from back in the day when we had appropriate labels for each sound to the point where you could make compilations for particular sounds and appropriately title them in such a way that people knew precisely what they were getting

Who do you mean by “everyone”? Certainly not the average American or even music consumer. There are plenty of people who’d refer to BEP, Flo-Rida, and LMFAO as hip-hop but not electronica.

As for the examples you gave, my guess is that many in the “dance” community wouldn’t consider those “dance” or “electronica.”

Notice my very last line/sentence in my previous post. I kind of started off talking about one particular uptempo sound then drifted into another that's not included in "electronica".

 

[Morpheux]

This is why I am not fond of the term "dance". People dance to Polka but no one would consider that genre as dance.

 

[andone]

This is why I am not fond of the term "dance". People dance to Polka but no one would consider that genre as dance.

Actually, I remind people all the time that waltz and polka are dance music. They are just not contemporary, not American in origin, and there are miniscule new recordings of the music. Hip-hop, on the other hand ...

By the way, what term do you prefer?

 

[TonySantiago]

I'll answer it at the end of this post, based on the boldface numbers in the quotes below

1. Scuuuuse me! Just stating a thought. If you're going to come off "holier than thou", let me know at this point.

I can’t determine how you’ll interpret anything write, but let’s just say that my tone is consistent. That said, I wasn’t trying to snap at you, just like you I was making a comment: I don’t need to seek advice or schooling from BrooklynDan whom I don’t even know or have never heard from. But speaking of “holier than thou”:

2. So there's your history and reality on that.

That can be read different ways also, so let’s not nitpick.

3. I also have grown up with various forms of music being a youth of the 70's as well.

I know that. You mentioned you were 43 earlier. I’d never suggested my age here so I provided a reference FAO.

4. BTW, I've studied musical theory and history too and even though I lean towards dance

Good. If you have studied music theory and history then you and I should be able to have a more substantial discussion than usual. Let’s go …

5. Because in the case of trance and yes, electro, they both are based in terms of the speed of the beats (generally around 118 BPM and above). Which also qualifies hip-house (since you went there) as a form of dance because the speed of the house beats determine this.

So are all songs above 118 BPM considered dance? If a song is under 118 BPM then it is not dance?

If I speed up a 110 BPM song to 118 does it go from not-dance to dance?

6. Sure, you can dance to hip-hop but it is NOT considered a form of dance music, BASED ON, the definition of beats!

All hip-hop is not the same beat, though. Do you consider all rap/hip-hop over 118 BPM dance music?

7. And based on that, people make the determinations of what is dance or not.

That’s kinda vague. I’m a person and if I say it’s all dance does that end the debate?

8. So...do we continue with a positive proactive discussion?

Definitely 8)

1. Okay I hear ya. Being new to the board, I was trying to "feel you" out just to see where you were coming from. It's cool. No snaps.
2. And no nitpicks
3. I hear ya.
4. And let's have at it
5. It depends on the track. One time I was at a club and I did hear a DJ speed up a hip-hop track for some reason. I don't think a DJ is "legally" supposed do that but the reactions of the crowd were mixed with the hip-hop side wondering "what the...." and those on the floor that were actually dancing faster and loving it.
6. Not all hip-hop has the same beat, true. I DID say something about Miami Bass and even though that is a genre of hip-hop, the faster beats and rhymes for some reason make me consider that to be dance. I know I was loving it driving on the Sawgrass Expressway near Coral Spring listening to Power 96 (DJ Laz)
7. Of course not, you are just one person. So am I. Other people may have their differing views on this as well. As based on these past couple of days with these threads being as active as they have been, the debate will continue forever
8. Cool!

And I'll stop it here since the next question was directed to someone else I enjoy debates like this actually. For me it just keeps me thinking about the direction of things within dance music (house, electro, trance, future genres) and what further steps should be taken down the road. There are also dance genres that are huge elsewhere but not here (drum and bass, dubstep...Now THERE'S an argument about that sound being in the dance "umbrella" since that has a slower pace of beats).

Okay....let's keep up the debate . All good Welcome to the board!

 

[andone]

So are all songs above 118 BPM considered dance? If a song is under 118 BPM then it is not dance?

If I speed up a 110 BPM song to 118 does it go from not-dance to dance?

It depends on the track.

If it depends on the track then the answer to that first question is “no.” Your definition of dance as 118+ BPM would be inconsistent.

For the second question, what is the dependency? That is, if Track A and Track B are 110 BPM, you speed both up to 118 BPM and say A is now dance but B still isn’t, what’s the characteristic that A has that B doesn’t?

6. Sure, you can dance to hip-hop but it is NOT considered a form of dance music,

I DID say something about Miami Bass and even though that is a genre of hip-hop, the faster beats and rhymes for some reason make me consider that to be dance.

So then there is dance music in hip-hop. Therefore you can’t say hip-hop is not a form of dance music. Actually, you can say it but it would be contradicting.

I enjoy debates like this actually. For me it just keeps me thinking about the direction of things within dance music (house, electro, trance, future genres) and what further steps should be taken down the road.

Good. I’ve actually observed (and sometimes participated in) similar discussions since ‘95/’96 when message boards like this first started popping up. It’s shocking to see how much hasn’t changed. Many of the same attitudes exist, and so little progress.

Welcome to the board!

Thanks (technically it should be welcome back. I’ve been here before) 8)

 

[TonySantiago]

I’ve actually observed (and sometimes participated in) similar discussions since ‘95/’96 when message boards like this first started popping up. It’s shocking to see how much hasn’t changed. Many of the same attitudes exist, and so little progress.

I have dealt with you before, based on the "modus operandi" of how your posts are coming off.

Let me ask you this, if you sense "so little progress", then what would you do to make progress occur?

It's a different ballgame now than it was back in 1995. We didn't have iPods, the Internet as an alternative to terrestrial radio whereas some in the 20 something bracket have tuned off to terrestrial radio. So perhaps there are only a few stations that are terrestrial that cater to dance (and just so that we make it clear....the electronic aspect: house, trance, electro) but dance music certainly is not "dead".

If that is not enough for your standards, then what do you think to be done that perhaps hasn't been tried already? How do we go over that proverbial "hump"?

 

[andone]

I have dealt with you before, based on the "modus operandi" of how your posts are coming off.

Ha! So I have an MO. Don’t we all? 8)

It's a different ballgame now than it was back in 1995. We didn't have iPods, the Internet as an alternative to terrestrial radio whereas some in the 20 something bracket have tuned off to terrestrial radio.
So perhaps there are only a few stations that are terrestrial that cater to dance (and just so that we make it clear....the electronic aspect: house, trance, electro) but dance music certainly is not "dead".

True. But people in the “dance” music community seem quite a bit concerned about how many “dance” tracks are on CHR and how many radio stations are “dance”-formatted.

If that is not enough for your standards,

It’s not about “my standards” but about what the apparent expectations of “dance” fans are. If iPods, Internet, and club play are sufficient for dance fans, then why does this Dance board have the most topics on a site dealing primarily with terrestrial radio, yet arguably the fewest number of radio stations than all the other formats here?

Because I’m a music fan, I pop in and out of the conversation when I am interested. But there are others, including perhaps you, who have been consistently fighting or advocating for “something” for several years. What are you/they fighting for?

then what do you think to be done that perhaps hasn't been tried already? How do we go over that proverbial "hump"?

The entirety of that can’t be addressed in a few sentences or paragraphs. I’d say a very good first step is for people to understand the history of contemporary music. Understand it and analyze it with an intelligent objective eye, not with biases that cause a selective or revisionist read of history. That means rising above a lot of the thinking that record label executives and radio consultants have propogated over the years. And that’s regardless of whether that thinking appears to benefit the music you like or not.

Starting with that, you can learn how and why certain music forms were born, grew or did not grow, became successful or not, evolved and persisted, or faded to niche status, etc. And again, it’s not just because record label execs and radio PDs are pulling the strings of the entire nation (though I’m sure they’d like to think they have that power). It helps to have a decent, non-superficial understanding of sociology, political and economic history, and general business practices.

The average fan doesn’t want to get all that deep; they just want to hear music the like. But if you personally are concerned about the commercial success or reach of certain kinds of music, then it’s best that you go deep.

Another thing. It might help to effectively define the music. And if it must be labeled, come up with a sensible one. I personally cannot stand “electronic” or “electronica”. Electricity is an energy source. It is not an art, emotion, place, culture, behavior, musical instrument, a musical structure, or any other thing that gives most other genre labels an artistic and humanistic quality. Besides, as I keep pointing out, practically all contemporary music is created electronically. The “dance” label used to mean something, until some thought the music needed to be re-designated and rebranded in the early/mid 90s.

After any label is determined (if necessary) regardless of the label’s source, the genre needs to be able to be defined musically. I’m talking about a specific, music-based definition that would uphold in academia. That’s often accomplished by citing historical roots and music theory.

That’s a starting point, and as this conversation continues (assuming it does) we can expound more.

 

[TonySantiago]

I've been trying to fix the quote aspect so I'll boldface my parts if I can't get this in before the modifications end....

TONY: I have dealt with you before, based on the "modus operandi" of how your posts are coming off.

ANDONE: Ha! So I have an MO. Don’t we all? 8)

Yes we do, and I hope it's about the good of the music because that's what I selflessly strive for.

TONYIt's a different ballgame now than it was back in 1995. We didn't have iPods, the Internet as an alternative to terrestrial radio whereas some in the 20 something bracket have tuned off to terrestrial radio.
So perhaps there are only a few stations that are terrestrial that cater to dance (and just so that we make it clear....the electronic aspect: house, trance, electro) but dance music certainly is not "dead".

ANDONE True. But people in the “dance” music community seem quite a bit concerned about how many “dance” tracks are on CHR and how many radio stations are “dance”-formatted.

Well that's because we like for our music to get more exposure, plain and simple.

TONYIf that is not enough for your standards.

ANDONEIt’s not about “my standards” but about what the apparent expectations of “dance” fans are. If iPods, Internet, and club play are sufficient for dance fans, then why does this Dance board have the most topics on a site dealing primarily with terrestrial radio, yet arguably the fewest number of radio stations than all the other formats here?

Because I’m a music fan, I pop in and out of the conversation when I am interested. But there are others, including perhaps you, who have been consistently fighting or advocating for “something” for several years. What are you/they fighting for?

We are pushing (not fighting, that spurs negative connotations) for more of our music to get exposed. Yes, we have the Internet, we have iPods, but perhaps by the end of the decade, when streaming wi-fi stereos become "standard" in automobiles along with 5G (or possibly) 6G technology present, there still is something to be said about terrestrial radio. It may not have as strong of an impact as it did back in 1995 but nevertheless it still matters for the sake of giving artists/DJ's that exposure and $$$$$. Because bottom line, the latter is what it is all about for radio, to make those bucks not to please me, you, or anyone else here.

And for the sake of history the late Doug Fleming, who founded this board, was a big dance music fan who wrote articles in Dance Music Authority magazine (DMA) back in the 90's, so you have those influences based on his beliefs.

TONY: then what do you think to be done that perhaps hasn't been tried already? How do we go over that proverbial "hump"?

ANDONEThe entirety of that can’t be addressed in a few sentences or paragraphs. I’d say a very good first step is for people to understand the history of contemporary music. Understand it and analyze it with an intelligent objective eye, not with biases that cause a selective or revisionist read of history. That means rising above a lot of the thinking that record label executives and radio consultants have propogated over the years. And that’s regardless of whether that thinking appears to benefit the music you like or not.

Starting with that, you can learn how and why certain music forms were born, grew or did not grow, became successful or not, evolved and persisted, or faded to niche status, etc. And again, it’s not just because record label execs and radio PDs are pulling the strings of the entire nation (though I’m sure they’d like to think they have that power). It helps to have a decent, non-superficial understanding of sociology, political and economic history, and general business practices.

The average fan doesn’t want to get all that deep; they just want to hear music the like. But if you personally are concerned about the commercial success or reach of certain kinds of music, then it’s best that you go deep.

Another thing. It might help to effectively define the music. And if it must be labeled, come up with a sensible one. I personally cannot stand “electronic” or “electronica”. Electricity is an energy source. It is not an art, emotion, place, culture, behavior, musical instrument, a musical structure, or any other thing that gives most other genre labels an artistic and humanistic quality. Besides, as I keep pointing out, practically all contemporary music is created electronically. The “dance” label used to mean something, until some thought the music needed to be re-designated and rebranded in the early/mid 90s.

After any label is determined (if necessary) regardless of the label’s source, the genre needs to be able to be defined musically. I’m talking about a specific, music-based definition that would uphold in academia. That’s often accomplished by citing historical roots and music theory.

That’s a starting point, and as this conversation continues (assuming it does) we can expound more.

Well, call the latter about the rebranding as "marketing". If anything that's what killed "dance" in terms of the radio at that time because hip-hop was becoming stronger in terms of "marketing" and it was something that radio execs couldn't ignore. Most stations that were dance (Hot 97/NY, Power 106/LA, Power 96/Miami, Kix106/Providence, RI) went the hip-hop route, or in the case of Q102/Philadelphia and Kiss 108/Boston, CHR.

We can look at the roots of the history of the music and for the sake of the exploration, is rather fascinating. However, the bottom line again (and you tapped it)...economics. And that has been the hardest part of what I'm trying to do....how do we convince those advertisers that dance music is a good buy, especially if.

1) They are aware of the product but aren't too familiar with it since there are no strong "brand names" to it, unlike hip-hop (i.e.: You can "sell" a Jay-Z, Ludacris, Drake, Enimem, etc because they, the execs, KNOW of them. But very few know of Kim Sozzi or Kaskade with perhaps the only two strong names being David Guetta (who DJ's and doesn't sing on his tracks; most people think Chris Willis, the vocalist, IS "Guetta", and Cascada.)

2) The negative stereotypes and misunderstandings still exist ("techno", club kids tripping on "e", dance is only for gays - meaning something negative, and lately though we've known about it here for years, the "fist pumping Guidos/Guidettes" that flock Jersey.)

That's the hardest part of what I've been trying to do. We do have the support of our community...it's grown SIGNIFICANTLY since the early days of the MNYDRC. Can it get stronger? Certainly. I'm certainly not going to let anyone down....too much is at stake here and I still do this for no money.

Personally, the music should be what it is.....DANCE MUSIC. Because regardless of the term in itself being "relative" to different things (because yes you CAN dance to polka, hip-hop, klezmer, country, rock) the brand came out marketed that way once "disco" as a term faded. Don't blame me for that, blame the marketers.

Let's look at it this way, there have been MANY genres of rock music over the years (Southern, Psychedelic, Punk, New Wave, Alternative, Grunge) yet that never affected rock music as a whole because throughout whatever evolutions occurred, the rock sound as a whole remained strong (although some question the "strength" of it now) and no one bickered about which genre was better than the other, at least not publicly. That's where I believe dance music "sabotaged" things with the inner "wars" about the genres within (house, trance, freestyle, electro, etc.) and where this bickering has to STOP from within. I think once that happens, progress can be further made with getting more of the music out there. That's why I've been telling the fans to start accepting the "hybrid" dance/R&B/hip-hop sounds that are seemingly expanding as of late if that is going to get more of the other genres out there for acceptance. Even you stated that the "dance" label once meant something. It still can.

NOTE: I may not be on this board everyday since a LOT of things have been going on with the coalition in terms of getting out to clubs, industry events, doing my online show and helping others with their shows, as well talking to the public about our music. So if I don't answer immediately, understand that things have been VERY busy here. But I will do my best to address your thoughts. And if I don't then perhaps others here have addressed the issues and I tend to agree with them. So why repeat it?

Thanks Al

 

[andone]

We are pushing (not fighting, that spurs negative connotations) for more of our music to get exposed.

How is that achieved, or how has that been done before?

What I find is that “dance” fans want to recreate some “romantic” era that existed perhaps in 1976-1979 and perhaps again in 1988-1991. Times have changed. Where exactly do you want this exposure to occur and how do you measure whether the exposure is satisfactory?

Most stations that were dance (Hot 97/NY, Power 106/LA, Power 96/Miami, Kix106/Providence, RI) went the hip-hop route, or in the case of Q102/Philadelphia and Kiss 108/Boston, CHR.

That also happened with radio around 1980, remember? (Replace hip-hop with urban, in that instance). I’ll talk about cycles in another post.

If anything that's what killed "dance" in terms of the radio at that time because hip-hop was becoming stronger in terms of "marketing"

Hip-hop “became stronger” because people were actually buying the music. When Billboard introduced SoundScan and BDS data for tabulating its charts in 1992, it finally got accurate, more comprehensive sales and airplay information. Immediately it was found that genres like rap/hip-hop and country had been underreported while “pop” (which at that time was heavily dance-pop) had been overreported. So if anything, that shows that “marketing” had been benefiting pop and “dance” until SoundScan and BDS made some practices less influential. Since those early 90s “dance” fans have still been trying to find some marketing scheme to make music popular. The “electronica” label being the #1 example.

Hip-hop was not hand-held in its development. It found much resistance in radio and TV – including urban outlets. Its grassroots growth was strong, it connected to youth and eventually even to older demos. It eventually found its way to radio – crossover and urban and then pop. It adapted and evolved and grew – but with constant resistance.

They are aware of the product but aren't too familiar with it since there are no strong "brand names" to it, unlike hip-hop (i.e.: You can "sell" a Jay-Z, Ludacris, Drake, Enimem, etc because they, the execs, KNOW of them.

They (execs) know of them (rappers) now because they are popular after having sold tons of records and getting major airplay. These guys were essentially nobodies in the music world at some point. How did they get to where they are now? No cart before the horse.

Plus let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that execs prefer or even like hip-hop. They are just chasing dollar signs.

The negative stereotypes and misunderstandings still exist

Yep, and they have for rap/hip-hop since its beginning on through now. You know of any hip-hop stereotypes?

Stereotypes are an obstacle but not a brick wall.

Let's look at it this way, there have been MANY genres of rock music over the years

True. And if I asked someone to name me ten rock artists and major rock radio stations from the 60s, ten from the 70s, and from the 80s, and from the 90s, and the 00s; then I showed that list to other rock fans there would probably be little disagreement that the list is accurate. They might prefer some sounds, styles, artists, time periods more than others but they know what rock is. Same with country.

Try the same with “dance”. And see if there’s even an actual list to agree or disagree on.

It’s a difference between continuity/longevity versus fad/flavor-of-the-year.

And yes you can try the same with hip-hop, which would actually bolster the point I’m getting at.

That's where I believe dance music "sabotaged" things with the inner "wars" about the genres within (house, trance, freestyle, electro, etc.)

Perhaps. But there has also been constant consternation within the hip-hop community about what’s “good” or “real” especially based on regional sounds, time period, samples, and/or lyrical content. Hip-hop has still thrived.

Personally, the music should be what it is.....DANCE MUSIC

I agree with that term – or a better one IMO is rhythmic. Beyond that we might disagree on some things but I’ll save that discussion for later.

That's why I've been telling the fans to start accepting the "hybrid" dance/R&B/hip-hop sounds that are seemingly expanding as of late if that is going to get more of the other genres out there for acceptance.

Well as a teaser to that later discussion, I’ll say I truly don’t see how some “dance” fans feel the dance/R&B/hip-hop sound is hybrid while whatever current music they like is pure. Where did all this music come from?

It’s good if you’re trying to expand some minds, though.

Also you’d think that after all the complaints about 90s gangsta rap, and 00s crunk that folks would be thrilled that hip-hop appears to be returning to its 80s so-called electro or even disco roots. Yet some “dance” fans seem irritated. Don’t get me started on people saying “our sound” or “our music.” Whose music?

Lastly (for now) …

1) Who in the U.S. – who isn’t doing so already – is going to be consuming this “dance” sound that dance fans want to be more successful?

2) Do you think dance music and/or culture can naturally grow an audience or does it have to be pushed and marketed via corporate means? (Which goes back to “to whom” whether it’s being grown or marketed)

3) Is “dance” music’s success dependent mainly on its image or its musical quality?

 

[andone]

But I will do my best to address your thoughts.

BTW Don’t feel the need to answer every question I raise because some of it’s rhetorical anyway. I already have a perspective on this, but here’s more food-for-thought.

But very few know of Kim Sozzi or Kaskade with perhaps the only two strong names being David Guetta (who DJ's and doesn't sing on his tracks; most people think Chris Willis, the vocalist, IS "Guetta", and Cascada.)

As you know, this has been an ongoing problem for dance music since the early 90s.

Nobody would know who the heck DJ Jazzy Jeff is/was if Will Smith never put Jeff on his TV show. Jazzy Jeff is a DJ. Though they started off as DJ Jazzy Jeff & The Fresh Prince, the latter of that duo – the “performer” – became the star. It’s Will Smith with the ongoing career, regardless of how great a DJ/producer Jazzy Jeff is/was. Will Smith (Fresh Prince) is/was the star.

I saw a reality show episode in which DJ Spinderella was still smarting (after all these years) about how she felt she never got the proper shine or respect as part of the group Salt ‘n’ Pepa. She was neither “Salt” nor “Pepa” so what does she expect? They rapped. Spin was just the DJ. And I hate to say “just” but that’s the reality.

Lisa Lisa & Cult Jam with Full Force (how’s that for a name) released many hits in the 80s. Most people probably couldn’t point out Cult Jam or Full Force (though FF had a number of decent hits on Urban radio). Lisa Lisa was the star. Full Force might have plucked her from out of Hell’s Kitchen and produced some fab hits, but to the average consumer it was all about Lisa Lisa and her appeal.

(Side note: The 3 acts above were often referred to as dance or under the dance umbrella in the 80s; there was lots of dance, whether R&B, house, synthpop, rap/hip-hop, etc)

All this to say, current “dance” music lacks long-term performers – singers, rappers, whatever. Performers with star quality and/or vocal/lyrical ability. People are still expecting the whole “DJ as the next big pop star” thing to happen when there is no precedent for that. I’m not saying anything new; it’s been repeated 1,000,000 times. We live in an “American Idol” society. People want to see vocal performers. And if the performer is not strong vocally – like Janet Jackson – that has to be made up for somehow (dancing ability, showmanship, superbly written and produced songs, etc.)

The only DJ-and/or-Producer-as-act “successes” would be C+C Music Factory and Black Box, and even they had set upfront “performers”. But of course when the Martha Wash scandals erupted, those acts fell in popularity. The music didn’t change sound; Cole and Clivelles’ work hadn’t changed. It was the sense that the connection fans had made with the “vocalists” was a fraud.

Pharrell and Timbaland might be examples (as producers) but they perform also. Some might say Daft Punk but in the U.S. they were essentially only minor successes.

So, I don’t see trying to turn Guetta or Kaskade into Drake or Jay-Z –like stars. If Usher, BEP, Lady Gaga, Beyonce, Ne-Yo, Ke$ha continued with the sound of their current or most recent hits then maybe they could become the “face” of the sound but I don’t think they will, including Gaga. Taio Cruz might have difficulty having sustained success in the U.S. Mike Posner possibly, unless he slips into one-hit-wonder territory. Katy Perry is OK, but she’s no Madonna or Janet or even Britney.

Plus frankly – and this of course is just my opinion – Guetta and Kaskasde aren’t that great. Good perhaps, but not great. And there are a lot of established “good” rock, hip-hop, country, R&B, AC, etc. artists ready to fill up the charts at any moment, especially when the winds of musical tastes change. Dance needs to rise above mediocrity to have any continued success. “When Love Takes Over” was a decent song. “Sexy B” was successful mainly because of Akon and the title IMO; the music itself was average. I was hoping Guetta could step it up after that, but “Getting Over You” feels like a jump-the-shark song; we’ll see how it does. His collaborations are keeping him in the game, but I don’t know how much milk that cow has. Casacde is meh. I hadn’t heard her(?) music until very recently. Not memorable – the music or the artist.

I hate to sound negative, but if you multiply my sentiment by the tens of millions, you can understand the difficulty in dance getting a solid footing among U.S. music fans and consumers. And I like dance music and give it a chance; many people are just turned off by the genre and sound and won’t give it a fair chance.

I’d say just keep looking for good songs and artists and try to promote those. And in fact, if you look at the charts now dance sounds are dominating, so that should give a feeling of satisfaction. The key is how to sustain it long enough for some stars to be produced, if that’s your goal. This period now feels a lot like 1990/1991. Again, save for another post.

We can look at the roots of the history of the music and for the sake of the exploration, is rather fascinating.

It’s not just for fascination or nostalgia’s sake. There’s something to learn. What mistakes not to repeat. What success to emulate or repeat. What actual music and sounds were popular – a simple thing people forget. What sold, when, to whom, under what conditions. What are the cyclical trends. What industry or technological developments have been positive or negative (BDS, SoundScan, Internet, file sharing, iPod, ppm, etc.)

For almost two decades “dance” has been flailing in the wind chasing after some unspecified success, acting as if the past is irrelevant, yet with some vague feeling that the past was better. What’s the sense of trying to recapture “the glory days” while thinking it’s best for the details of those days be ignored?

For example, you mentioned how radio stations changed format or focus in the early 90s splitting from “crossover” into pop and hip-hop camps. Why did that occur and what affect did that have? Does what happened back then have no relevance today, especially considering similarities?

What are past examples of successful “dance” radio stations? What music did they play, how were they successful, and how do they relate to or differ from radio stations today? Can past successes be repeated?

Do you think any of the marketing efforts of disco, house, and/or freestyle hurt those sounds?