I'm bored of tracks with generic structure. But the term "dj tool" seems to be a derogatory label.
For me its one of the things that marked techno out from other styles of dance music. A disregard for traditional structure, being bold and brave enough not to bother with the intro breakdown buildup breakdown buildup outro "listener friendly" formats.
For me thats what killed trance and D&B - every ****ing track doing the exact same thing.
And its also what stood techno djs apart from their jukebox colleagues representing the other styles. They did the work. They build up crowds, they knocked them down, just to build them up again. They did the work, not the tracks.
And now... a minimal movement that seems to have fallen into a clicky, fussy rut no sooner than its got started and plenty of techno thats sounding cliched already. Minimal djs with no technical ability and boxes of identical sounding records on a handful of labels. No variety in track selection, formulaic track structure.
More dj tools. Bring it on.
Paying £7 a record I can understand why people might feel the need to be user friendly for the lowerst common denominator. But with digital distribution and £1 a pop do you really need a hackneyed structure to every track? Can we not just have some good ideas please, and leave a bit of room for creativity in the peformance?
To me this is one of the key things that techno great. Experimental convention defying future music. Rob Hood - 'Minus' had two sounds. A synth and a kick drum, and no structure to it. An organic ebb and flow to the track that was mesmerising. Theo parrish "synthetic flemm" follows a similar pattern - structurally the track doesn't do anything. And it absolutely kills.
More boldness, less blandness.
Leave formula to the pop charts and 3 minute radio edits....