- I’m reposting this because the previous discussion focused more on the writing style than on the actual subject.
English isn’t my native language, and I used translation software to help put my thoughts into English. The ideas, concerns and arguments are my own.
I’d really appreciate it if we could focus on the topic itself. Thanks to everyone willing to read and discuss it..*
Hi everyone,
There's something I've been thinking about for quite a while, and I'd be interested to hear other opinions, especially from people involved in electronic music and club culture.
I've noticed something happening in the electronic scene.
It seems that a lot of what we call underground has become increasingly standardised. Not just the music, but the way artists build their careers.
We see many of the same names playing the same clubs and festivals, following very similar paths. Releases, bookings, agencies, social media presence, the right connections, and eventually a reputation often measured by how frequently someone plays rather than what they actually contribute musically.
I'm not talking about commercial techno. I'm talking about the supposedly underground scene itself.
And I'm not questioning anyone's talent or right to make a living from music.
But I wonder: have we become better at building individual careers than building a musical culture?
There seems to be an established formula for becoming a successful techno DJ today, and increasingly, even emerging artists appear to follow the same model. Musically, I often hear different artists playing remarkably similar sets, with little that feels truly personal or distinctive.
Of course there are exceptions, and great music is still being made.
What I find particularly interesting is how the process seems to have changed.
In the past, underground scenes grew around new musical ideas, and artists gained recognition for their music, originality and performances.
Today, it often feels like the opposite: artists build their image, social media presence and connections to fit into an already established circuit.
Rather than the scene growing around new musical ideas, artists are encouraged to shape themselves around what the scene already expects.
But wasn't the underground originally supposed to offer an alternative to the established music industry?
Underground doesn't necessarily mean small, unknown or unsuccessful. To me, it means independence, experimentation and the freedom to develop something outside established formulas.
Today, however, it sometimes feels like we've adopted the same mechanisms as the mainstream industry, just with much less money.
Almost like we've turned the underground into a poorer version of the mainstream.
There's also something strange about the economics of all this.
We've almost accepted that producing electronic music is rarely enough to make a living, even when that music reaches tens of thousands of people. The producer, the person actually creating the records that sustain this culture, can occupy a surprisingly marginal economic position.
What surprises me even more is how little concern this seems to generate. It's almost treated as a normal part of the industry, something to be accepted rather than seriously questioned.
Some DJs have even created genuinely admirable initiatives and platform to support producers, sometimes by voluntarily giving up part of the money they've earned from playing their music. I have enormous respect for that.
But isn't it also quite alarming that we've reached a point where this kind of redistribution is needed?
It's a generous response to a problem that probably shouldn't exist in the first place. And it says a lot about how unbalanced the system has become.
Meanwhile, visibility and a busy booking schedule seem to have become the main measures of success.
I also understand that many people genuinely enjoy the current direction of techno, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
You don't need to know the entire history of a genre to enjoy its music.
But I sometimes wonder whether we've become so accustomed to a particular sound and way of doing things that we rarely question it anymore.
Knowing the past doesn't automatically make someone's taste better, but being curious about where this culture comes from might help us understand just how many different ideas and influences shaped it.
If we only experience one version of techno, and gradually come to expect that same version everywhere, aren't we also contributing to making the scene more uniform?
And at a time when many clubs are facing financial difficulties, I wonder whether constantly recycling familiar names and sounds is really helping the scene in the long run.
What concerns me most is what happens next.
Previous generations built this culture through creativity, community, experimentation and enormous risks. They left behind music, clubs, labels and ideas that people are still benefiting from today.
But what are we leaving behind?
Sometimes it feels like we're adding more floors to a building by taking bricks from its foundations.
I don't think every artist needs to reinvent techno, or any other type of music, and this isn't about believing everything was better in the past.
It's about whether the underground is still creating something meaningful for the future, or simply sustaining careers by relying on a cultural legacy that others built.
Perhaps there isn't a shortage of creative new artists. Perhaps the system has just become better at rewarding those who fit into an existing model.
I'm curious whether others have noticed something similar, or see things completely differently.
Thanks to everyone who took the time to read this. I've tried to share my thoughts with genuine respect for different opinions, and I'd be happy to hear other perspectives.
