TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- Trance and Techno Definitions
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

you can think what you want radagast

oh okay smarty pants. what were the big trance tracks of 1987? what were the major trance labels and artists of the late 80's, all-knowing one?

This should be good.

Psychic TV. Temple Records and Wax Trax! were probably the first labels that started releasing trance music in 1987, followed shortly by KLF Communication's Pure Trance series in 1988--though they planned five, only three tracks were released due to poor response. The reason for this was the music itself--unmelodic and utterly unengaging. Alarmingly minimalist, repetitive, and experimental/abstract, which was the intent: to put the listener in a "trance". A lot of times it was dissonant and atonal. Think of acid house, only with more acid and no point to it. Simply an endlessly looping sequence of beeps and warbles.

Psychic TV's "Towards thee Infinite Beat" was the first full-length trance LP, in 1989. Coil's "Love's Secret Domain" was the last trance LP released by an industrial artist (and by Wax Trax! and Temple Records...the whole 'trance' fad had come and gone for them), in 1991 or somewhere thereabouts.

EYE Q was founded in 1990. MFS was founded in 1991. Harthouse was founded in 1992. The rest is history.

quote:

Originally posted by Ishkur unmelodic and utterly unengaging. Alarmingly minimalist, repetitive, and experimental/abstract, which was the intent: to put the listener in a "trance".

i don't quite follow how those adjectives...well, should i call Akufen trance then?

man you guys sure like your pissing contests.

"techno was this and that when trance did this and that"

"no! my dick is larger!"

quote:

Originally posted by Aiwendil well, should i call Akufen trance then?

You can, but I wouldn't recommend it.

It's a logical fallacy, for one.

hmmmm, Techno was actually what first turned me on to electronic music. I belive my first techno cds back in 1992 were Dont Techno for and Answer; Face of the Future; L.A Harcore Vol 1; Mission to Paradise; A Fist Full of Techno, and some others. Now these are pretty hard core OG techno.

quote:

Originally posted by Ishkur You can, but I wouldn't recommend it. It's a logical fallacy, for one.

not much of a logical fallacy to point out that none of the words you used to describe why the klf's "pure trance" series qualifies as trance are exclusive to trance music, therefore you have given no true evidence that would lead me to believe that "what time is love" (for example) is trance and not, say, acid house.

i'm sure you, in your knowledge, are able to describe genres in specific terms such as types of chords, tempo, beat pattern, and other tangible discernable elements of music. therefore i ask, do these tracks from Psychic TV, The KLF, and Icon Of Coil fit within the musical specifications which define trance music after it became an established genre?

I've always loved Tech. & Trance. most of today's trance dj's managed to sneak in a few Tech trax within their sets nowadays... more than in the past. PvD, Tiesto, Corsten,.. to name a few. Alot more Techno tends to get "funky" and have a sexy rhythm...which may be why there's more girls in a Tech room, party than @ a trance one. IMO

Trance didn't always sound epic.
It didn't always sound Generic either.

I went to the recordstore here yesterday and I listen to some melodic techno. So I don't know what the threadstarter is talking about but you are totally wrong. Never definition a style cause it's to huge for giving it a definition.

quote:

Originally posted by Aiwendil not much of a logical fallacy

The logical fallacy is also known as False Conclusion. For example: All white people have blue eyes. Therefore, anyone who has blue eyes is automatically white.

It's wrong because it doesn't take into account people who are not white who have blue eyes.

In the context of what we are talking about, you are calling Akufen trance because he embodies any (or all) of the descriptors I gave for trance, which is wrong because anyone can embody those descriptors and not be considered trance. It's a stupid analogy, and I want you to stop it with that sophomoric line of thinking.

The difference between What Time is Love and typical acid house of the period tended to be bridges, choruses, and vocals. Acid house still had those. Trance did not.

quote:

Originally posted by Aiwendil therefore i ask, do these tracks from Psychic TV, The KLF, and Icon Of Coil fit within the musical specifications which define trance music after it became an established genre?

Yes, given the original definition as given by Mark Reeder of MFS Records in 1991.

Icon of Coil is not trance, and never has been.....I have no idea where you got him from.

^^ OMG it's that dude that created the guide!!!

Ish, you've just won me a very old argument against this guy. Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by Ishkur The logical fallacy is also known as False Conclusion. For example: All white people have blue eyes. Therefore, anyone who has blue eyes is automatically white. It's wrong because it doesn't take into account people who are not white who have blue eyes. In the context of what we are talking about, you are calling Akufen trance because he embodies any (or all) of the descriptors I gave for trance, which is wrong because anyone can embody those descriptors and not be considered trance. It's a stupid analogy, and I want you to stop it with that sophomoric line of thinking.

what the hell are you talking about? my point was not to use your descriptors to prove that akufen is trance, but to point out that all of the descriptors you use to tell us why the klf is trance can easily be used to describe at least one other genre of music/edm, therefore cannot be relied upon to describe trance in a sufficient enough manner. subsequently, we still have no reason to believe that the klf IS trance based on your faulty description of it. which i explained already, and which you chose to ignore. i believe you just committed a logical fallacy, and i believe it's called a RED HERRING.

we never did have any reason to believe that the other artist's lp's you mention are trance, because simply stating that they are trance does not make them so. however, i do believe you have the ability to both describe trance in terms of music theory and tell us why all of the tracks you give us fit that description exactly. i don't believe you wish to take the time or the effort.

quote:

The difference between What Time is Love and typical acid house of the period tended to be bridges, choruses, and vocals. Acid house still had those. Trance did not.

so the definition of trance is that it doesn't have bridges, choruses, or vocals?

quote:

Yes, given the original definition as given by Mark Reeder of MFS Records in 1991.

he didn't give a definition. he just started a trance label. if someone were to describe the common musical properties (that are not common among any other genre) of those trance tracks, they would be giving a definition.

You're doing it again. Genres are not exclusively defined on what they don't have. Many genres share attributes, but lack others. Trance is not all music that doesn't have bridges and choruses, but no music that does have them is trance.

Your argument follows the bias that you don't want The KLF to be trance because it undermines those labels and artists you love so much. You'll only accept a definition of trance that fits in with what you want to hear, and you won't accept anything but.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J You're doing it again. Genres are not exclusively defined on what they don't have. Many genres share attributes, but lack others. Trance is not all music that doesn't have bridges and choruses, but no music that does have them is trance.

double negative, i find it it difficult to understand your poorly written rhetoric.

quote:

Your argument follows the bias that you don't want The KLF to be trance because it undermines those labels and artists you love so much. You'll only accept a definition of trance that fits in with what you want to hear, and you won't accept anything but.

your statement is what is known as an ad hominem, and it follows my theory that you're not too bright in the upchuck

I find that extremely ironic, especially in direct context.

yeah well let me make it very clear to anyone who might need an explanation (system-j). i am asking ishkur why those artists/lp's are trance, and i will accept them as such when he gives an acceptable explanation. i know he can do so, but so far he has not. i'm not trying to debate over what trance is or what trance is not, i'm trying to get him to give us all some kind of valid presentation.

You mean you want him to cart out the complex music theory you don't really understand, because you're pedantic and require pin-point definitions as to why something is what it is before you'll concede a point?

I could go further, but it would be wasted on you and you aren't going to listen to me anyway, because you've made that lovely (and overty hypocritical) assumption that because I disagree with you and don't percieve reality in that isolated way you do, I'm an idiot.

quote:

Originally posted by Aiwendil why those artists/lp's are trance

Because they entrance you.

Now run along now and go play with your ball somewhere else, sonny.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J You mean you want him to cart out the complex music theory you don't really understand, because you're pedantic and require pin-point definitions as to why something is what it is before you'll concede a point?

well, yes. excuse me if i don't accept that those artists's lp's are trance simply because ishkur says they are. as you may or may not remember, i tried to get someone else to tell me what prog-psy is and everyone listed me some artists and told me "that is what prog-psy is". if i refused to accept that then why would i accept ishkur's equally vague information?

as for describing what trance sounds like in musical terms, it wouldn't end up being very complex at all. while i admit i have no formal training in musicology, i'm sure i would be able to understand an adequate amount. i do know some things, like what a drum pattern is, what a synthesizer is, what rhythim is, what a measure is, what a chord is, and so on.

quote:

I could go further, but it would be wasted on you and you aren't going to listen to me anyway, because you've made that lovely (and overty hypocritical) assumption that because I disagree with you and don't percieve reality in that isolated way you do, I'm an idiot.

huh. i think you're an idiot because of your inferior intelligence.

quote:

Because they entrance you. Now run along now and go play with your ball somewhere else, sonny.

i play with my balls every day...

Inferior to who? Is everyone inferior to you an idiot? Am I inferior to you? You're arguments that I'm an idiot have so far been "you don't judge music the same way I do, therefore you're lacking intelligence" and "you're guilty of something I'm guilty of with every other post I make, so you must be an idiot, unlike my godly combination of aloof Internet presence that mingles with weak attempts to entertain sarcasm."

Frankly, you don't know me, and you've no idea how intelligent I am. And your displays of apparent cognative superiority just look ridiculous when put up against the majority of your posts.

as a person you are probably much better than i. as an intellect, i don't really know, i just like to watch you get all angry and/or defensive. i mean, have you not yet told me at least twice that you placed me on your ignore list? i'm like candy to a baby to you. maybe it's my hot ass. is it my hot ass? you know you want some.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.