Sasha's Glastonbury set

I gave this a whirl, and if I was to assign it a genre I’d probably pick something like ‘easy listening’, which I mean in a damning sense.

The only time my ears perked up was when I heard the track at 32 minutes - because I recognised it has nicked its lead line from the much more exciting track below:

hugopal Prehaps he didn’t play your preferred version becuase it’s shit? Do you even like what was known as “prog”? I’ve noticed you seem to have a very narrow view of what music can and can’t be described as “banging/techno” based on how fast it’s played.

Lol. En garde

mono-stereo when in fact it’s all subjective.

It’s not entirely subjective though given that, as we’ve both agreed, different genres have different characteristics.

mono-stereo One man’s heads down tops off ram banger is another man’s honky-tonk soft cock house.

Sure, but considering the term “banger” clearly derives from the notion of something which makes a “bang”, e.g. fireworks, guns, etc., I’d say that the louder, more energetic and more violent a track is, the more legitimate a claim it has to being described as such. In a similar way that a magnum revolver makes more of a “bang” than say a paintball gun.

Also, the term “banger” is partly, but not always entirely, independent of genre. For instance there can be drum & bass, or dubstep tracks where the term “banger” could seem to reasonably be applied, though they’re still drum & bass, or dubstep, as opposed to techno.

But as I’ve alluded to previously, I doubt there’s even anyone on Earth who has ever called stuff like Zero 7 or Boards of Canada “bangers”. Same could also probably be applied to say, Hed Kandi/Kaskade style deep house stuff as well. So clearly there is a line somewhere, or a spectrum with a blurry line, and the further along that spectrum, or away from that line, the more reasonable the claim sounds.

But for the record, most of the stuff you guys post on here is “honky-tonk soft cock house”.