back on topic
have you read this book yet /bleep/? if not, what is your excuse?
it's far from perfect but as far as rave history is concerned the only thing better than that book would probably be you experiencing the whole thing yourself at first hand
In the process of reading it now. I wish it would tone back the glorification of ecstasy and other drugs, etc., but it's by far the most interesting and accurate history I've come across.
I'm sure it is, but literally there is one chapter in which there are pages upon pages of Reynolds rambling on about how great it is. Not about how objectively important it was for rave music in the UK (which he does mention later), but just about how much he likes it. I don't give a shit about that.
i own a a physical copy and have read it twice
imo it's too anglo-centric, and is extremely anti-intellectual/experimentalist - wish it focused less on populist dance music and more on generic innovation, experimentation, etc
this is also essential reading, love how in-depth it goes into disco
he spends more time on fucking gabber than experimental bleeps
he also moans about how bad post-AI warp is
he spends fuck all on post-1st wave techno (one paltry chapter)
i understand discussion of the culture is important but the music, its stylistic innovations and the development of genre should come first
well he doesn't deny that he's a biased ravehead
plus it's a history of rave as a scene and general rave music, not general electronica (or techno or dance music or popular electronic music, whatever you call it)
a history of electronica in general would end up a huge clusterfuck akin to scruffles' history of rock music book
hardcore is good depending on the continent
us hardcore (techno underground but mostly dominated by twing twang), euro hardcore (gabber and whatnot), uk hardcore (breaks and all that)