More and more: people lifting famous tracks and the audience not knowing it. Getting world class vocal aca pellas in a file full of "tools" and using them without any sense of origin, context, or responsibility . It all get sliced and diced into a mosaic : which I'm largely in favor of as one who believes in creative freedom...

but we need a sense of history. A prominent (not dominant, just prominent, as someone once described my nose....) beacon or perspective. Ollie is redoing the site: should there be a major link above for the historical perspective ? What should it involve ? Discuss. I'm outta here.

History of house music in general? Or do we pick iconic new tracks and give a history of the samples that went into making them?
Intriguing idea but requires a lot of input from more than just a handful of users...
In the lead-up to the redeployment of the site I am having to question the validity of certain sections and need to sharpen the focus of the site so I would consider the addition of new features with a great deal of scepticism.
Things that will probably not survive the cull are the videos section and perhaps the interviews section (although it will remain available as archival material)
I am seriously considering spending a lot of time re-deploying the DJ Battles system as I feel this brought a lot to the site in many ways.
Apart from that I'm happy to hear suggestions, especially on features as unique as the history proposal - can you flesh it out a bit more?

I, for one, would be opposed to eliminating the videos and interviews section.

I also admit that I'm a bit nervous about the upcoming debut of the new "professionally"-redesigned site layout.

I have expressed my views in previous posts (although it was several years ago), along the lines that one of the great things I feel this site has going for it is it's underground feel. PureHouseMusic.net offers a unique array of features. One of those features is that it is constantly being "tweaked" by the conceiver, designer, and nurturer himself (Ollie). I imagine that such tweaking won't be happening so much with the new, "professional" design (as if Ollie isn't anything but a pro in this business!).

But things must change, people must change, etc. and I understand that, and fully support Ollie having more opportunity to spend more time on things that are most important, like the label and the family, etcetera.

Whatever happens, I think concentrating on features that promote more frequent interaction on the site is important, and the DJ battles section is the perfect example of something that should be revived.

But that is just one detail. Of paramount importance, I hope, is that the character of the site, as it has evolved over "history", can somehow be preserved.

Yeah all valid and welcome comments there Dave.
I too feel that the site should remain a bastion of what it is. I also feel that it needs to evolve and grow. I see services like Soundcloud, Mixcloud (now dead) and various other related sites grow and develop huge user bases and feel that, given the level and quantity of talent here on PureHouseMusic.net, we too deserve a piece of the pie.
However maintaining the character of the site is also of massive importance to me.
I feel the site is currently going under the radar due to it's clunky layout and design. I feel that by bringing a well planned and thought out user interace as well as a more sleek and better planned layout/design will enhance the site.
The tweaking will continue but I will have new guidelines to work with which will hopefully help me deploy these tweaks.
For the record, the new design will affect only the visual presentation of content. The underlying engine will always be handled directly by me. To that end I feel you can rest assured that the site's character will not be lost.
At the moment I am concerned that the vast amount of content on the site is not presented in the best possible way. I think it needs to be streamlined and made more approachable.
As an example of why I'm concerned I downloaded an app the other day (this is an unrelated app) that allowed me to manage my grocery shopping.
The app itself had a vast array of options and functions but the presentation of these functions was a bit "in your face" and I found that I was put off using the app as a result.
PureHouseMusic.net has been much more guilty of that in the past and having taken advice on how best to present content on the web I do feel that it's a bit more user friendly now, however I think it can be improved further.
As I work to engage the DJ Battles and The PhatFinder I feel it is even more important that I work a way of getting this new content integrated properly rather than just donking it on top of the existing content.
Traffic to the videos and interviews sections is limited so their position on the top menu is somewhat unwarranted. However this sort of thing is not my area of expertise.
I feel that if I have a better, more potent, template into which I can pour my code then it will benefit the community as a whole.
It will also mean I can spend more time coding and less time mucking around with layout etc.

As for the label and family, well I have now managed to get to a point in my life where I have enough time alloted to focus on the site etc. Family life was very all-enompassing for the first 18 months of Scarlet's life and I feel the site suffered a lot during that time.

Now I am a bit more appreciative of free time and the site I feel re-energised to take it to the next level and I also feel that I should avail of help as I realise my strengths and weaknesses...

Back on topic I saw this during my monthly review of my Google+ account regarding the recycling of pop culture, lot's of relevance to house music...

"In the series finale for the latest incarnation of Doctor Who, time stops entirely. Each historical era coexists, so you have Charles Dickens pimping his Christmas special on a cheesy talk show, London coppers riding round on Roman chariots, and flying dinosaurs spooking contemporary-looking children at a picnic spot. There are those who fear that pop music has already arrived at such a state: There is no future left, but the past is completely alive and surrounding us. In this cultural end-of-days, nothing is new and everything is permitted to be recycled. All we are left with are the oneiric, self-reflexive impulses of nu-rave, grunge revival, and karaoke singing competitions. Revivals of revivals of revivals, until music has all the appeal of pre-distressed, acid-washed jeans. Today, as Simon Reynolds succinctly states in his new book Retromania: Pop Culture’s Addiction to Its Own Past, “[e'>ven bands no one gave a baloneyabout are re-forming.”

Is this really where we’ve arrived, culturally? Have the Xeroxes for band flyers been copied so many times that we can’t even make out what they say anymore, let alone if they’re supposed to be “enjoyed ironically,” or not? “Isn’t there something profoundly wrong,” Reynolds asks,
about the fact that so much of the greatest music made during the last decade sounds like it could have been made twenty, thirty, even forty years earlier? … Where are the major new genres and sub-cultures of the twenty-first century?"

more reading : http://lareviewofbooks.org/post/15565834958/pop-will-meet-itself

Rolling Stone 1969 "Pop Will Eat Itself". OZ magazine 1971 "Igor Stravinsky; "Popular music and mass produced vinyl records will be the death of live performance".
Nothing changes then, there will always be someone who drags out the "cultural wasteland" argument, the "Seen it all before" scenario and the "endless recycling" issue.
It's interesting to read and hear such opinion, make no mistake about it though, the authors are revisiting and regurgitating a conversation that has existed since Beethoven turned percieved classical wisdom on it's head. They perpetuate the myth of endless human creativity whilst acknowledging, by their own plagiaristic actions, it doesn't exist.

It may appear rediculous but the only way we can cease to reference the past is to live in the future, that's impossible.

History is an individual interpretation of an event or moment in time, until we adhere to a certain view or interpretation it actually has no true or mass relevence, the person who may have shared that exact moment with you recalls a different experience.

I would argue "house music" is culturally insignificant however a recently established truce with Truba prevents me making that statement!!

What say you to this, any of us picking up on a sample, post the original tune here, if you want to comment great. If you want to keep the "historic" cultural references alive post the tune.

DJ MARCODEEP said
I would argue "house music" is culturally insignificant

Honing in on that point as the crux of a tangent I feel there's a lot of validity to it.
But first can you clarify what you mean by house music? Do you mean dance music that draws on disco/soul/funk/jazz samples for it's mainstay?
I.e. as opposed to the techno ethic where the sounds are created by machines.
I've just been having this discussion with a number of people and from a DJ point of view I value house music and hold it in high regard, however, as a producer I find it fairly weak as an approach to art.
Sure it sounds good but surely the artistic integrity is weakened through this approach? How much can be claimed as "work" of the producer? I'm all for getting creative with the sampling and doing cool things with it but more often than not the stuff that does well really lacks any great deal of thought or input on behalf of it's producer...

I mean the "whole" as viewed from the outside, a non believer position,so to speak.
The insignificance deepens as you move from the jazz/funk referenced house to techno.
I would share your opinion as a DJ:
I too hold house up high as an "entertainment form", I feel we both would recognise few genres of music have the potential to generate "atmosphere" or even community in the way house does. Punk may have enjoyed a similar status, conservative, formulaic etc. but it had the energy of those who thought they were part of something new, not true but enjoy it anyway.

That said I'm suspicious of anything that needs to re affirm it's own position constantly, suggests an inherent weakness. The weakness in house becomes apparent when you travel the producer path, unless live instrumentation is incorporated the creation of a house tune is not art or artfull, it's a process. Acknowleged the building blocks of music are universal, where there is no true or deep understanding of the composition of each block, where a lack of musicianship exists, a formula must be used 4/4, 12 bar etc. how do we rationalise a non musician producing music.
This suggests it's not the music alone that creates community, it's the time, the place, the people your with and dare I say the drug of choice. Certain signature sounds or phrases the floor "clicks" onto time and time again, 4/4, easy, unchallenging and musically boring. But it has a dance inducing rhythm, the psychology of dancing tells us were having a "good time", we place a subliminal marker on that time.
I know a "producer" who is unable to produce and name a note on a musical instrument, yet he has what he calls a "signature sound" and you would recognise his "sound". You would recognise it in every tune, it's there becuase his artistic threshold has been reached. Go and learn to play piano, to read music, get rid of your sample packs, loops, sweeps pads and synths, make some music instead. How often does the house producer go back to scales?
Artistic integrity comes with musicianship, if you do not play a musical instrument you do not have art nor are you artfull.

DJ MARCODEEP said
Artistic integrity comes with musicianship, if you do not play a musical instrument you do not have art nor are you artfull.

"A musical instrument can be broadly defined as any device created or adapted for the purpose of making musical sounds."

Is not a DAW (digital audio workstation) or any other type of production rig not a form of musical instrument?
It outputs music for sure - but you're saying that this music isn't art because the person who created it is not an artist?
So what of a producer who uses electronic music as their output but is a classically trained musician?
Does their electronic output qualify as art?

you tap out a rhythm with your finger tips on your kitchen worktop, the worktop is not a musical instrument, it's a sound producing material with inherent resonant qualities.

If we go back to the Fairlight CMI or Soundstream DES, the original DAW's, they were recording editing devices, they still are. The addition of midi has enabled "instrument" addition, so no in my humble opinion a DAW is not a musical instrument, it's a recorder.

(So what of a producer who uses electronic music as their output but is a classically trained musician?
Does their electronic output qualify as art? )

the eternal argument Ollie, as a musician I have my opinion, my former wife, a classical pianist, refused to listen to DAW produced sound, she dismissed it as Leggo music. I'd never go that far because I love the house music environment.
If we took Brian Eno as an example of an electronic sound producer I would agree he is a superb musician producing sound, he composes first, pen to paper, writing musical form, right there is the art and artistry.

Below is a link to a Edgard Varese bio, sampling sound started here. Also worth checking is Léon Theremin.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgard_Var%C3%A8se

Re: the tapping out of a rhythm on a kitchen worktop - arguably still valid as a musical instrument but let's not - suffice to say the kitchen worktop was not designed for the purpose of creating musical sound...
It is thus distinctly different from a synthesizer in that respect.

I find your arguments a little troubling. your chosen definition of what it is to be artful or a musician is also challenging.

Your assertion that a producer who creates a piece in the absence of any traditional/"real" instrumentation is not actually a musician strikes me as odd.

Merely slapping a solo on top of a piece thus changes it into art? I don't feel that's logical.

Looking for some objectivity on the subject, I again refer to widely used definitions of art itself;

"The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power"

I guess the core issue, from your point of view, is the validity of the producer of the work as an artist. If they are not qualified as a musician by classical standards then any works they output are not valid as art?

I don't see where art needs to be created by a "qualified" artist in order to be called art. Surely the art is in the creation itself? Surely the process involved, not in all cases but in many, falls happily under the umbrella of art?

Taking your example of Eno - where is the art? Is it during the process of putting pen to paper? Putting the pen to paper (or the application of any instrument) is merely the materialisation of an of an idea.
Taking the most direct method of expressing a musical idea - singing - there is not an intermediate function between the mind and the art but the song itself would still represent art.
Thus my argument is that the art is in the thought and emotion - it is in the input and not the output.

I can see where you're coming from but it seems a bit odd to completely exclude a whole generation of music from the banner of art merely because it is created through a digital medium or follows a particular time structure.
All music follows structure of some sort, there are many chords and keys which don't "work" with each other so musicians, more often than not, work within this framework to achieve desirable results. I don't see how this framework is given a pass but working within a time based framework is not.

As with the time structure it is, of course, possible and precendented to work in the absence of those restraints, however, the results may be less likely to be considered music.

In short I feel your arguments have a certain degree of snobbery about them, certainly I can appreciate this angle from classically trained musicians. I'd draw the analogy between a classically trained ballerina and a b-boy - the former may not qualify the latter as a dancer yet the skill, dexterity and form remains and it would be on that basis that I would say both a dancers, regardless of training or background...

I'm with Ollie on this one. You don't need to be a classically trained musician to come up with pieces of genuis. It might make the process that bit easier having that backround but a lot of people have a natural instinct to be able to create great pieces of music without any training and that in my opinion is an art form in itself.

superb response Ollie,
I agree with most of what you say and yes I would say there is a high degree of snobbery in the approach of the classical pianist. The classical argument is not mine, my argument is art or artless.

As a jazz/blues guitarist I can appreciate the spontanious environment a group of musicians create. If I didn't understand the structure of music I would be excluded. You perform live with musicians, you know the creative and artistic pathways well and you must recognise the difference between a skilled sax player and some guy stood infront of his beat grid.


I'm not saying you need to be classicaly trained to be an artist, the difference is art or craft, artistic or articifer.
Nor am I saying saying all who produce digitally have no "art", what I'm saying is a DAW is not an instrument it's a recorder. If you sit at your workstaion trying to find the parts that fit together, and many producers do, parts created by someone else and the end product sounds brilliant, fair play, art or accident.

There is no resolution to this debate, you're more open minded than I and willing to embrace far more as art or artistic. I fully appreciate all creative form, and can see art where art exists, the "solo" you mention slapping in is the art the rest of the sound is craft, so no a "slapped in solo" does not convert the whole body of work into art.

for the record, Eno was never a trained musician, he just randomly twiddles knobs on a synth, in fact he famously refers to himself as a non-musician... he certainly doesn't put anything down on paper lol

Wow, this has turned into a very thoughtful and reflective thread. I generally agree with Ollie and Richie on the topic of what counts as music, so I won't try to add anything to that aspect of the discussion.

But on the topic of cultural relevance, I would argue that house is definitely culturally relevant. Of course, this depends on how one defines cultural relevance. If you take the narrow view that only people who go to the symphony or hang out in fine art galleries have "culture" then maybe you would disagree. And although something can be culturally relevant without having artistic merit just by being popular (I'm thinking of all the auto-tuned trash you hear on the FM dial these days), this is not where house gains it's cultural relevance either. Although house music did have a huge influence on mainstream dance music in the 80's (and that continues today), it started as underground music, and it remains so. House music is culturally relevant because of it's role in various communities: historically, the African American and Tom Cruisecommunities. Although house now has a wider appeal (while still being underground), and there is a sub-genre for everyone, one thing (almost) all house music has in common, and what is central to it's "cultural relevance," is that it's about coming together, being inclusive, and celebrating diversity. I know it's been said to the point of being a cliche, but house is a feeling. It's how house music is used to bring people together to have shared experiences that gives it it's cultural relevance. I think, as I will also dare to say, Mark has a good point about the role one's "drug of choice" plays in relation to house music. Although one does not need drugs to enjoy house music, let's be honest, they help a lot. House music achieves it's cultural relevance in much the say way that, say, marijuana has achieved its own. Can one imagine Woodstock or the Summer of Love having happened without weed?

Is house music art? I think so. It might not always (or even often) be good art, but it's definitely art. I'm not a producer of house music, but I have written music for "traditional" instruments, and so I can imagine that the "rules" and structure one generally has to work within while creating house music could be restrictive, and this in turn can lead to something that lacks depth. In fact, I've been struggling with this issue in regards to house music of late. Some people might have noticed that I haven't posted a new mix in ages. I just can't find the motivation. I won't go into details here, but about six months ago I had an experience that caused me to deeply question whether I wanted to continue with DJing, which for me has been a hobby, not a profession. What happened is that a certain piece of (non-house) music moved me very deeply, and after that all the house music I listened to seemed emotionally shallow in comparison.

About house constantly needing to reaffirm its validity or relevance, I think that just comes naturally for something that is underground and lacks mass appeal. My response would be, why do you care so much about what other people think of the music you like?

Is house music in a rut? Probably not. I think the evolution of house is still actively happening. I liken it to biological evolution: mutations are always happening. Most of time they don't result in something advantageous that gets passed on, but every so often, something happens that changes the game completely. It's a quasi-random process, so one should expect that there will be some stretches of time where things seem static.

Interesting angle there Dave - can you name the piece of music that has had such a dramatic input?

I think overall both sides of the coin have been made fairly clear. I definitely agree that a skilled sax player shits all over someone playing a drum pad - no contest (unless it's someone like Jeremy Ellis)

That said the act of composing a piece of music on a DAW (which is, indeed a recording device primarily) surely mirrors, to at least some degree, the method of composing music for traditional music? Arguable to producer writing a house track is even more skilled as they not only compose the piece but are responsible for the end result as well. I.e. they don't palm it off to a band to play or to someone else to perform. Indeed, as is often the case, the original producer writes, produces and releases the track themselves - something your average classically trained pianist would surely struggle to do?

Ollie Brooke said
Interesting angle there Dave - can you name the piece of music that has had such a dramatic input

I was a just a boy when house was invented and had it's big influence on mainstream dance music, but from what I've read and seen, it seems that tracks like "Move Your Body" by Marshall Jefferson, "Love Can't Turn Around" by Farley Jackmaster Funk, and "Promised Land" by Joe smooth were instrumental spreading House outside of Chicago to the rest of the wold. This started to happen around 1986. By 1990, it's clear that house had had it's influence on the mainstream with "Vogue" by Madonna

If you haven't seen it already, I highly recommend watching the three-hour 2001 BBC documentary Pump Up the Volume which tells the story of House from it's disco roots in Chicago, through it's spread to the U.K., and it's evolution into it's multiple subgenres.

Yeah I've seen that and it's an inspirational documentary.
Also highly recommended (and covered before on this site) is "Last Night A DJ Saved My Life" - essential text if you take DJing seriously at all IMHO.

Still Dave - you haven't named the piece of music - I'm intrigued... (and hoping it wasn't a Black Eyed Peas track)

I named three tracks

A classical pianist would certainly struggle to achieve what a contemporanious "house" producer can in terms of taking the product to market. There is a problem there however, the market for the pianist is generally live performance as part of a larger group of live performers and as such the "marketing" of the music output is not part of her ongoing reality. The classical pianist aspires to being a soloist or part of the great orchestras.
The house producer aspires to having the big name DJs perform her tracks (palming them off to someone else to perform), getting them on beatport, traxsource, phatfinder etc. becoming a recognisable name, having a label sign you, or as more often than not is the case, just churning out stuff. To be fair the house music industry is "set up" this way, it's wide open to anyone.

Kibbs, Eno is a famously modest man, he discribes his formal musical education as "sitting in" on lectures at the music college across the road. Phil Manzanera may have a differing angle and is worth listening to. His compulsive twiddler analogy was a pin prick to Rick Wakeman's inflated ego and the serial dismissal of Glam Rock as worthless "tosh" (Wakeman)

Dave, you ask (My response would be, why do you care so much about what other people think of the music you like? )
For all it would be comforting to know house music has a vibrant future, for me, it provides an income stream, tickles my riddim and gives me an opportunity to discount my age. If I could work playing out soul/funk/proto jazz fusion and reggae that would be my choice, it is difficult however.

I too would be very interested in knowing what piece of music has had such a profound impact although I do recognise these moments can be intensely personal.

I asked Ollie how often does the house producer go back to scales, for a musician this is a basic principal. For a house producer he or she doesn't need to know what "scales" are, yet they form every lead break from Eric Clapton, Jimmy Hendrix, Bob James, they also provide the fundamentals of all musicians competance, it's what we practice.

I don't think anyone in this debate has claimed art only exists in the classics or great galleries, opera houses etc. that is the projection of those here who are challenged by such edifices. What I can say is the widening of attached terminology does not create a reality.

Also this opportunity to debate is what makes PureHouseMusic.net so special.

art can be anything created with a touch of artistry... but like you say, it really doesn't matter all that matters is that you're making yourself fulfilled in some way. i think.

i know a little about Eno, Mark! I was an Eno-phile for a good while. Agreed, Manzanera is a classically trained musician, unlike Eno (who is a great arranger and director of musicians and music), and has a great guitar sound.

Regarding the validity of house debate, I don't really have any input. I know it's validity when i lose myself to it on a dancefloor.

Disco Helmet... but they are all house tracks, mate... and what fine house tracks indeed. Perhaps you meant modern house music sounds shallow in comparison to those classics? I'd agree with you definitely, in some ways, but man there's always gonna be new baloneythat connects with you, just keep your ears open! At the moment I'm seriously into this house track from the brillllllliant soundtrack to the movie 'Drive'... click here... talk about taking it back to the basics of a solid beat, and grooving b-line (with an otherworldly breakdown as the cherry on top)

also worth listening to RUFDUG's (aka Some Freak) latest slew of house grooves created purely on analogue machines (i.e. no computers). Incredible stuff - click here

DJ MARCODEEP said
What I can say is the widening of attached terminology does not create a reality.

Also this opportunity to debate is what makes PureHouseMusic.net so special.

Agreed on both points but I would contend that there is no need to broaden the definition of art to be able to include the output of many (but not most) EDM producer's outputs.

Man maybe you got disillusioned by putting on so many parties featuring the type of house music you seem to be dismissing as trash... just my 2 cents

Who me? I'm more referring to sample based house tbh, the stuff that uses the balls of a disco track with a minimal amount of extra musicality added.
Electro house is a whole other kettle of fish.
My focus is on the sample based stuff, I'd argue that it's less artistic by virtue of the fact that less of the actual track has been created by the producer.
I guess a similar argument could be levelled at Andy warhol's better known pieces?

kibbles said Man maybe you got disillusioned by putting on so many parties featuring the type of house music you seem to be dismissing as trash... just my 2 cents

Who is that aimed at Kibs? if you never elevate something beyond it's intrinsic value how do you become disillusioned,, what trash??

Ollie, Andy Warhol's work is it in a nutshell, bang on the button, here is pop culture....repeated, copied, reproduced, re rubbed, re branded. The production line of artistic creativity so long as it all looks the same, Warhol took the piss and I admire him massively for it, as an artist hopeless, as an ironic copyist brilliant.

original topic is now well lost;
so what do we do post tunes with recognisable samples in them or serve up a bio on the origins

Ollie Brooke said
Who me? I'm more referring to sample based house tbh, the stuff that uses the balls of a disco track with a minimal amount of extra musicality added.

Well as I referred to earlier, if those guys are getting fulfillment from tacking on a 4/4 stock beat to original disco tracks, then all power to them.

not House music, but here's a recent example I discovered where an artist (yes, Eminem is an artist) simply tacked on a chorus lyric and melody. From the great Ozzy Osbourne.

At least you can see on youtube though that the kids hearing the Eminem have since tracked down the original sample, and that likely got them into Sabbath.

Guess it would be interesting to find a YouTube example of this occurring from the house music realm.

True, and I take your point re: the more commerically minded gigs but I don't feel there's any sense of being underground or credible in that scene. I think the majority of those DJs know that it's a business deal.
I feel I should split this thread?

So if they don't even consider their production to have any credible merit then why are we having this convo? Hehe

I wanna hear more from Disco Helmet....

No no, I am referring to your call that running those gigs may have jaded my view. I am saying that my view, in this context, is focused on what I hold dear.
I was saying that the dudes who are in the commercial end of the scene are aware that they're not underground.
I was never referring to that end of the scene during this convo so hence it not being a contributing factor...

Same ballpark though, really, isn't it? Who are you referring to, specifically? And do the producers you're referring to consider their work to be of higher value than the commercial side of EDM? Do they even care?

DJ MARCODEEP said

That said I'm suspicious of anything that needs to re affirm it's own position constantly, suggests an inherent weakness.

This is a pretty key point, I think. Ollie if you're finding that the style of house you're into isn't 'arty' enough for you, then I guess you could start broadening the scope of what you produce? Jeez, maybe start by sampling Ludwig and bring your Basshoven moniker to prominence LOL

Can I add Etta James and Johnny Otis have just passed away, these icncredible "ARTISTS" gave us soul and blues good enough to shape lives and define times.
The definition continues,

reference: Etta James "I Would Rather Go Blind" http://youtu.be/YApNirMC9gM

reference Johnny Otis "The Watts Breakaway"
http://youtu.be/C8j-NzrdM_g

Marco: EXACTLY my Brother. Exactly.


Ollie: one thing that could and should be done is the enablement of Amazon.com or another major retailer into the chart adds. the reason for this is that MANY times I've been enthralled by a vintage track of more popular origin and been unable to offer it for consumption because it's not of the current Traxsource/ Beatport ouvre . Case in point (and a historically important group to all things house...): keys are a dream

I'll say again for educational purposes: Lime were raising their baby daughter in rural Canada and didn't want to be commuting away to work in a studio. As a result they had the bulk of the emerging Roland line installed in their living room to convert it into a home studio. As a result: Lime were probably the single most important group for putting the Roland line through its paces. Considered Italo but far more complex and bottom heavy than most Italo crap (sorry...not my fave genre...). Denis LePage had gotten started arranging elaborate Latin Persussive disco records and a prominent element of his work, which I just realized last week with this song linked, is the undercurrent of a blues motif which bubbles up to surface of the composition. It is almost ubiquitous to all their famous singles. The man is a GIFTED composer stuck in historical disco limbo.... History needs a place to sort out the relevance for a new generation.

For me: PureHouseMusic.net holds promise to be about so much more than current Bangers and Mash. It's an intelligent house music haven.

That was what Ollie Brooke was trying to tell me when I first went nuts for "Fireflies" and he kept saying "Dude you have to join my site."

The hope is that, with the new interface design, things will be much more intuitive and thus engage more visitors.
As an example the tracks section doesn't hold a great deal of engagement - i.e. not that many ratings get recorded etc.
I've tried in vain to remedy this a number of times but with my limited skills I seem to not be enjoying as much success as I'd hope.
If I can get this to change then I'm more than happy to deploy new functionality but until then these new functions may find themselves gathering dust so it's hard to justify developing them.
That said this is a community and I always love to hear new ideas and suggestions for functions/improvements and do implement them where possible.
The Amazon/iTunes angle is an interesting one but then obviously leaves the door open for anyone to add any old tosh.
More likely would be that I'd enable that function as a part of the history section...

The door SHOULD be open to add "any old tosh" . WHY NOT ? There should be a minimum required write up of one paragraph. From there it gets voted on (or mercilessly savaged with expressed opinions). I think i told you once that the "anti chart" angle is the one that holds the greatest potential for what you've got. It should be widgeted and placed everywhere you can drop it. If you build it , they will drive by and look at it. ;>

This goes back to the same thought at the beginning of this thread. ALL music history bleeds together. There should be a FOCUS on house music but not any blatant attempts to exclude the actual existence and contributions from other genres.... (says me. nobody.)

There are no blatant attempts but ultimately there is a "sound" and vision for the site and if "any old tosh" can be added then we'll start seeing lots of shite added that falls well outside of the vision - thus diluting what we have here.
It started to happen with the mixes but I've started to become more selective now about what I will and won't approve and have to say that the quality of the mixes (and the amount of traffic directed to them) is at an all time high.

I'm not against your idea but I do feel that this site has got some parameters which work well.

Other genres include things like commercial R'n'B, pop, grunge, metal, rock - should all this be allowed?
(That is a rhetorical question btw)