quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J No, saying Sasha- Xpander came out in 99 is the fact, saying that is a good thing is the opinion. Saying that the first epic trance track was worse overall for trance is also an opinion, but it also assumes that epic trance is bad, which is also an opinion. So what you're saying is no different: Xpander came out in 99, so 99 was better. Epic trance became common in 99, so 99 was worse.

The second opinion there would be more valid (whether it made trance better or worse), since it's judging a year based on something other than one track or a handful of personal favorite tracks.

You can't judge the state of trance by a few favorite tracks you choose out of the blue. You have to judge trance on trance as a whole.

As for epic trance being bad, well that just seems like simple logic to me.

Trance invented, 1990-1996 = Good. Spacey, arpeggio ridden, trancey, always in the moment, no waiting for huge anthems to kick in after 3 minute breakdowns. Aka Trance.

Trance turned into pop music 1996-present = Bad. Changed entire structure of "Trance"(so why is it even called trance), destroying the less pop culture accessible classic trance, which had nothing wrong and everything right with it.

I guess you'll just come back saying that this is all just my opinion and what-not. But how can two completely structurally different types of music be classed under the same name. The one that came first defined Trance, and it wasn't called epic, it didn't have supersaw anthems, and it didn't have 3 minute breakdowns.

___________________
Robots, machines, mechanical beings
Automatic and synthetic, we have the means
To take control of this planet and the human race
With our electronic rhythms and the Armageddon Bass

Last edited by Radagast on Sep-08-2004 at 20:23

Honestly, i cant say radagast is wrong, as his post:

quote:

And if someone told me that a year was better and proceeded to tick off a bunch of tracks i'd laugh in his or her face. Come up with a real concrete explanation to back up your opinion, not just a bunch of random tracks that you think are good.

From reading his past posts, Rada is not one to just throw opinion out there and claim it as fact. I wouldnt say he has done that here, but rather simply challenged the people who started listing tracks claiming x year was better than Y. I wouldve done the same, but Ive been involved in enough stupid fights over this, especially on TA. You can discuss which year was your favorite, but their is no concrete answer. Maybe the thread title should be more appropriately named.


Anyways, dont get me involved in your petty squabble

EDIT: ok, the original poster asked which year was better for trance. This is not an opinion question. If youre going to answer, youve got a lot of fact (aka number) providing to do. I suggested several examples above.

quote:

Originally posted by tribu You can say, which year had better record sales? You can say how many live events were there each year? You can average out incomes of producers, talk about gate figures for live shows, even discuss figures for online radio and literal radio listeners.

You can say that all of those questions are asking how popular trance is.

___________________
Robots, machines, mechanical beings
Automatic and synthetic, we have the means
To take control of this planet and the human race
With our electronic rhythms and the Armageddon Bass

Does that evolve us to the question, 'Is popularity good for trance'? I think it kind of does, yet I also think popularity is a pretty good measure of how succesful a genre is (here we go with opinion again). If someone could come up with the numbers, I would almost certainly bet that 99 would win. SImply because trance is still relatively young and I assume is still experiencing positive growth (more fans are added anually then are lost). Without the numbers and a credible source, no one can really say though....right?

quote:

Originally posted by tribu Does that evolve us to the question, 'Is popularity good for trance'? I think it kind of does, yet I also think popularity is a pretty good measure of how succesful a genre is (here we go with opinion again). If someone could come up with the numbers, I would almost certainly bet that 99 would win. SImply because trance is still relatively young and I assume is still experiencing positive growth (more fans are added anually then are lost). Without the numbers and a credible source, no one can really say though....right?

Success can indeed be measured by popularity. Quality isn't or shouldn't be though. Not all popular music is good quality music, but some good quality music can be popular.

At this point, I don't think more popularity wouldn't affect trance at all. It's already as accessible to the masses as it's going to get, and it's just waiting for more and more people to latch on to it. The question is, are more people being dumbfounded and brought into epic trance faster than people are going away from it? I think so.

___________________
Robots, machines, mechanical beings
Automatic and synthetic, we have the means
To take control of this planet and the human race
With our electronic rhythms and the Armageddon Bass

quote:

Originally posted by UglyDave mentalbartar that's just what i was looKing for THANK YOU!

If you had actually read the beginning of the thread Radagast, you would have noticed that which tracks came out which year is EXACTLY what the starter of the thread was looking for. Your attempts to highjack this thread into your own personal display of unintelligence concerning fact and opinion are growing quite stale.

No matter how you look at the subject of Trance Music in 98 v 99, it's going to be an opinion.

I think probably 95% of tranceaddicts would define how good a year for trance was by the music that was released that year. Your living in your own little world Radagast. You obviously need alot more "training" to become a "tranceaddict".

Personally, It is my opinion that 1999 was a better year for Trance because of Paul Oakenfol'd Essential Mix World Tour, where he brought his flavor of trance to remote destinations across the globe to places such as China, Cuba, Miami, Ibiza, and of course Home in London

quote:

Originally posted by Master I think probably 95% of tranceaddicts would define how good a year for trance was by the music that was released that year.

That's because 95% of "tranceaddicts" on this forum didn't even start listenting to trance UNTIL that year.

So then the original question should have been "Which year had better tracks" not "Which year was better for trance".

___________________
Robots, machines, mechanical beings
Automatic and synthetic, we have the means
To take control of this planet and the human race
With our electronic rhythms and the Armageddon Bass

97-99 imo were the golden era, everything fell in place just right, and the king spun beautiful sets, (Oakey), I think trance to me will forever be about Oakenfold and the spirit he brought to the table, I think we can define trance based on his style, sets, and character, he is the emphisis of Ibiza.

quote:

Originally posted by Radagast That's because 95% of "tranceaddicts" on this forum didn't even start listenting to trance UNTIL that year. So then the original question should have been "Which year had better tracks" not "Which year was better for trance".

You are probably right that most tranceaddict's didn't start listening to trance until the late 90's, but I don't see how that pretains to this discussion.

I somehow knew you were going to turn this whole thing around and critisize the original question. But remember mate, it was his thread, his question to ask. The answer he was looking for was for him, not for you.

Energy 52-"Café Del Mar '98" (Three 'N One Remix) problably introduced a lot of people into trance music....but the Three 'N One Remix was actually first released in 1997......



1999 was when i started listening to trance so there will always be a place in my heart for that year...

quote:

Originally posted by Master You are probably right that most tranceaddict's didn't start listening to trance until the late 90's, but I don't see how that pretains to this discussion. I somehow knew you were going to turn this whole thing around and critisize the original question. But remember mate, it was his thread, his question to ask. The answer he was looking for was for him, not for you.

It pertains because they think that's when trance was invented. How would they know what the state of trance is now if they don't even try to learn what it was like before.

It's a public thread in a public forum, neither of which are owned by you, I, or him. I didn't criticize just the answer or just the question. I said the answer doesn't belong to the question. In the end you might even say i'm trying to be helpful. I mean if he wanted a list of tracks shouldn't he have asked for one? Wouldn't it have made getting the answer he wanted even easier?

___________________
Robots, machines, mechanical beings
Automatic and synthetic, we have the means
To take control of this planet and the human race
With our electronic rhythms and the Armageddon Bass

Last edited by Radagast on Sep-08-2004 at 22:05

stop bitching.

___________________
the joke's on you, hehe