Dubstepforum.com

Sonika wrote:I liked the Wikipedia article on dubstep...I know some peoe have a problem with it because it makes some dumb statements, but overall I'd say it was quite informative and in this day and age when all the brosteppers will probably look at the Wikipedia page on dubstep and find all the stuff about its roots, I think it's a great resource.

the problem for brostep is that it hasn't really been written up enough in the press for it to pass wiki standards...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... l_research

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... le_sources

yeah, but I think it's good that it's included on the DUBSTEP page of wikipedia, because it will bring to people's attention the separation between the two.
And that's not super important, but I feel that it's fairly significant.

I would definitely say there is a need for dividing dubstep into two sub genres. Not because "it matters", but to separate the dubstep from the more-and-more non-dubsteppy dubstep. I mean, let's face it, it's not like Skrillex (start the flamewars yeah?) or Datsik are focusing on the sub and/or dub aspects of dubstep, right? But I like heavy filthy stuff I can kill bunny rabbits to as much as I like the super chill weed-smoking anthems of Benga or Loefah or VIVEK. Make sense?

How are you guys going to divide those genre's? You really think the brosteppers going to suddenly call their music 'brostep' instead of 'dubstep'?
Honestly, who gives a fuck.

it seems like it would make sense to just split it into two, brostep and dubstep.

I mean, I think that there's just a completely different philosophy behind the music that the brostep producers make versus the music that the dubstep producers make. And to me, that's what defines genres, above bpm and such.

So yeah, sort of makes sense to me.

Sure, it makes sense.
But how are you guys going to do it? tell all the brosteppers to call their music brostep?
Also what would change if people would call brostep, brostep and dubstep, dubstep?

People would recognize the difference, and not get them mixed up.

That's the same as if you asked what's the point of separating classical music from metal? Okay well not quite that drastic, but you get the point. Genre names exist for a reason.

And as far as the execution of splitting the two, I have no idea. I was just discussing the idea.

Sonika wrote:it seems like it would make sense to just split it into two, brostep and dubstep.

I mean, I think that there's just a completely different philosophy behind the music that the brostep producers make versus the music that the dubstep producers make. And to me, that's what defines genres, above bpm and such.

So yeah, sort of makes sense to me.

I'd still say it's not as much the philosophy behind the music as the fact they are two distinct scenes with their own producers, DJs and fans.

Which, in my opinion, creates a different philosophy and attitude towards the music.

It would seem that Dubstep producers generally set out to make a sub-heavy, percussion-driven tune that is original and posseses a lot of bassweight, therefore being great for dancing AND listening to.

It seems that brostep producers aim at making their tunes dancefloor-specific, with less focus on the subbass, and more focus on the massive wobbles and a hard hitting kick + snare pattern that creates a very "head-banging" feel.

I'd say these are completely different philosophies.

Its already split, nustep and srebme breaks jheeze

I'd say srebme breaks IS the new dubstep. 150 bpm drum n bass? Motherfucking revolutionary!

I think dubstep could rather be descibed as a scene, or a way of making/interpretating music than as a genre. For example, the music that James Blake makes is even further away from the original dubstep than stuff like Rusko, but James is a part of the scene, has that same philosophy and he came up making dubstep(like) music. That's why you will see James Blake on a DMZ lineup but not Rusko. Me and my mate (who isn't into dubstep) have had some discussions about this after I've been playing him loads of dubstep. He has a hard time believing that Burial can be placed in the same genre as Coki, the Bug, Kode9, Loefah, Vex'd etc. So we pretty much came to the conclusion that dubstep could rather be defined as a community, consisting of like-minded producers, dj's and listeners who tend to stick around 140bpm and have a love for subbass and space.

Does it matter if there's a subgenre for it or not? I guess there already are two. Future garage and brostep... and no, I don't feel like getting into a discussion about them, I don't care if they exist or if you care that they exist. Thing is. If it'll happen, it'll happen. If it won't, it won't. It really doesn't matter and being pro- or anti-subgenres is stupid.

You'll never find a genre with an 'appropriate' number of subgenres because people tend to be pretty black and white. Dubstep is a response to drum & bass, where there's a million subgenres and a gazillion names for each subgenre. Everyone was afraid that dubstep would end up being ALL halfstep and that the bpm would go higher and higher back in 2008 and it didn't happen. If anything, there's more 130 bpm non-halfstep stuff now than a few years ago. Similarly, everyone was afraid it would get flooded with subgenres the way drum & bass is and also that just hasn't happened.

If you're about the tunes, listen to the tunes. Subgenres aren't just 'created' in some sort of controlled environment, they're cultural developments that come together from voluntary adoption of them. Just chill out and listen to the music and what happens, happens.

^ WHO CARES JUST LISTEN TO WHAT YOU LIKE QUIT CALLING IT NAMES BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MATTER

Devry[Kaneda] wrote:^ WHO CARES JUST LISTEN TO WHAT YOU LIKE QUIT CALLING IT NAMES BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MATTER

IT DOES

LumiNiscent wrote:I think dubstep could rather be descibed as a scene, or a way of making/interpretating music than as a genre. For example, the music that James Blake makes is even further away from the original dubstep than stuff like Rusko, but James is a part of the scene, has that same philosophy and he came up making dubstep(like) music. That's why you will see James Blake on a DMZ lineup but not Rusko. Me and my mate (who isn't into dubstep) have had some discussions about this after I've been playing him loads of dubstep. He has a hard time believing that Burial can be placed in the same genre as Coki, the Bug, Kode9, Loefah, Vex'd etc. So we pretty much came to the conclusion that dubstep could rather be defined as a community, consisting of like-minded producers, dj's and listeners who tend to stick around 140bpm and have a love for subbass and space.

I'd agree, but you said "like minded producers." wouldn't you say that's basically the same thing as producers with the same philosophy? I mean, I'm separating hairs here, but I'm just curious if you think there's a difference.

Sonika wrote:

LumiNiscent wrote:I think dubstep could rather be descibed as a scene, or a way of making/interpretating music than as a genre. For example, the music that James Blake makes is even further away from the original dubstep than stuff like Rusko, but James is a part of the scene, has that same philosophy and he came up making dubstep(like) music. That's why you will see James Blake on a DMZ lineup but not Rusko. Me and my mate (who isn't into dubstep) have had some discussions about this after I've been playing him loads of dubstep. He has a hard time believing that Burial can be placed in the same genre as Coki, the Bug, Kode9, Loefah, Vex'd etc. So we pretty much came to the conclusion that dubstep could rather be defined as a community, consisting of like-minded producers, dj's and listeners who tend to stick around 140bpm and have a love for subbass and space.

I'd agree, but you said "like minded producers." wouldn't you say that's basically the same thing as producers with the same philosophy? I mean, I'm separating hairs here, but I'm just curious if you think there's a difference.

Looking at DSF dubstep producers are not like minded hahah

If you think subgenres are important, make up your own and hope people will start using 'em. Tough shit if they don't.

Sonika wrote:

LumiNiscent wrote:I think dubstep could rather be descibed as a scene, or a way of making/interpretating music than as a genre. For example, the music that James Blake makes is even further away from the original dubstep than stuff like Rusko, but James is a part of the scene, has that same philosophy and he came up making dubstep(like) music. That's why you will see James Blake on a DMZ lineup but not Rusko. Me and my mate (who isn't into dubstep) have had some discussions about this after I've been playing him loads of dubstep. He has a hard time believing that Burial can be placed in the same genre as Coki, the Bug, Kode9, Loefah, Vex'd etc. So we pretty much came to the conclusion that dubstep could rather be defined as a community, consisting of like-minded producers, dj's and listeners who tend to stick around 140bpm and have a love for subbass and space.

I'd agree, but you said "like minded producers." wouldn't you say that's basically the same thing as producers with the same philosophy? I mean, I'm separating hairs here, but I'm just curious if you think there's a difference.

Nah, I don't think there's a real difference. I agree with what you said

Labels don't matter... Music is music.

HOWEVER having genres and sub-genres does make it easier for those that prefer certain kinds of music over other kinds to find what they like. If I search up dubstep I will get hundreds of random shit I may or may not like. I can't spend hours listening to crap just to find one song I think is good. Thus sub-genres are there to make it easier.

You can't argue against the classification of different sound of music when DSF has a number of thread dedicated to the "dungeon sound". Obviously you need to call different styles different names to identify the sound or else in threads like that you'd have people posting skrillex, datsik, etc.