TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- Trance now vs. Trance then (pre 1995)
Pages (6): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 »

quote:

Originally posted by isoterra imagine it.. "do you listen to trance?" "nah mate, i prefer euphoria, although i'm getting into progressive euphoria at the moment"

even thou they didnt call the genre euphoria, there were millions of compilations out with the name 'euphoria'

quote:

Originally posted by Minhaj even thou they didnt call the genre euphoria, there were millions of compilations out with the name 'euphoria'

yep.. i remember the first one, mixed by pf project. epic trance was already pretty mainstream by the time that came about though.. it needed to be ~4 years earlier

I gotta say i prefer trance now( i like some old school stuff like robert miles,cosmic baby and such) but really i think trance is much better now and has a more sophisticated sound(then again i was born in 1991,i didnt even know what trance was till around 2004-2005)

quote:

Originally posted by SMC Why do you always say this, what exactly is the point you're trying to make?

To put it simply, some people like to follow new tracks, new stuff. People like myself got into trance in the late 90s, because we liked the sound, it was exciting and fresh. You don't have to have gone to clubs to like the music, but seriously..when the music was "Fresh" and "New" most people on here I assume were too young to have experienced it at say a festival or a club, or weren't even into or have heard of EDM at such a young age. So to focus so much on this old sound when most people haven't even heard of it..just doesn't make sense to me. Can't always be an "oldie but goodie" especially when that goodie was never a goodie.

I got into trance in the early 2000s (around 2000) and liked stuff that was a few years older, but it's nice looking back and saying "I remember when I first heard that track". How many compilations, mixed CDs, DJ sets whatever..contained these tunes that many of us found on file-sharing sites or heard on net-radio? Not many of them. I am sure many people first found this music through the net when were young, not through going to clubs or festivals considering those are for older people, not 8 or 9 year olds. I have seriously not heard many of the tracks in that list, and I have listened to trance for a long time..I am sure others have as well.

spirit i think you might be surprised how early some people start clubbing. personally i never did until i was able to get in legally. but i have friends that have been in and out of raves since they were 13-14 because they got in with older siblings / cousins that had hookups or involved in throwing the parties...

that's really the only difference. some people are exposed to it earlier than others...

quote:

Originally posted by Floorfiller spirit i think you might be surprised how early some people start clubbing. personally i never did until i was able to get in legally. but i have friends that have been in and out of raves since they were 13-14 because they got in with older siblings / cousins that had hookups or involved in throwing the parties... that's really the only difference. some people are exposed to it earlier than others...

That is a possibility, but wouldn't you think their parent's would be a bit worried that their child was going to a "rave" and at 13 or 14? I know if I was a parent, I wouldn't let my child go to one of those. Sure you should be able to trust your child, and not all raves are "bad" but it's pretty well established that they are and have been..drug havens. Would you really want your child to be in a place filled with drugs, booze..whatever else? And besides that, unless their is no age limit in other countries for going to clubs, I still think it's in the minority for people age 9 or 10 to be going to clubs or raves, even in other countries other than the US. I don't think I'm in the minority who are 22 years old, was much too young to really "experience" the music at a young age, and got into trance was a teen, not a kid.

where can i get a copy of that film?

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 That is a possibility, but wouldn't you think their parent's would be a bit worried that their child was going to a "rave" and at 13 or 14? I know if I was a parent, I wouldn't let my child go to one of those. Sure you should be able to trust your child, and not all raves are "bad" but it's pretty well established that they are and have been..drug havens. Would you really want your child to be in a place filled with drugs, booze..whatever else? And besides that, unless their is no age limit in other countries for going to clubs, I still think it's in the minority for people age 9 or 10 to be going to clubs or raves, even in other countries other than the US. I don't think I'm in the minority who are 22 years old, was much too young to really "experience" the music at a young age, and got into trance was a teen, not a kid.

definitely not places for kids that age, but i garauntee parents didn't know what was up.

i never meant you were in the minority...i'm just saying everyone's path is a little different.

also keep in mind that the media attention to raves and clubs 10+ years ago wasn't the same as we would expect today. parents didn't know the word rave or exstacy. i remember telling my parents i was going to "techno concerts" lol.

i havent heard much pre-95 but I love oakenfold's goa mix and voyage into trance cd

quote:

Originally posted by Aristronica in either case everyone should save themselves about 5-7 years and just move on to house.

you sir, are a fucking moron

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 To put it simply, some people like to follow new tracks, new stuff. People like myself got into trance in the late 90s, because we liked the sound, it was exciting and fresh. You don't have to have gone to clubs to like the music, but seriously..when the music was "Fresh" and "New" most people on here I assume were too young to have experienced it at say a festival or a club, or weren't even into or have heard of EDM at such a young age. So to focus so much on this old sound when most people haven't even heard of it..just doesn't make sense to me. Can't always be an "oldie but goodie" especially when that goodie was never a goodie. I got into trance in the early 2000s (around 2000) and liked stuff that was a few years older, but it's nice looking back and saying "I remember when I first heard that track". How many compilations, mixed CDs, DJ sets whatever..contained these tunes that many of us found on file-sharing sites or heard on net-radio? Not many of them. I am sure many people first found this music through the net when were young, not through going to clubs or festivals considering those are for older people, not 8 or 9 year olds. I have seriously not heard many of the tracks in that list, and I have listened to trance for a long time..I am sure others have as well.

You're just rephrasing what you said earlier.

So once again: Why do you always say this, what exactly is the point you're trying to make?

spirit, you need to stop trying too hard to defend your music taste to others on here...


my 'good old days' are mostly 2003-2005 which is after most people on here say trance went to shit, but they're the years i got into clubbing & first met loads of mates into the same kind of music, so they're the ones with the most memories for me. this era will naturally be different for everyone and that can't be helped, but that's no reason to fob off everything from before and say "oh well i wasn't around for it so therefore i can't enjoy it"..


nonetheless, if you wish to.. then that shouldn't matter either. hell i find it nigh-on-impossible to form an attachment with anything before ~1997 trancewise for the very reasons you state, but at the same time i understand how others can. imagine this; you hear two new pieces of music for the first time and instantly fall in love with both of them, then find out one of them is from 2007, and the other from 1994.. would you end up liking the 1994 one less just because it's predates your interest in trance?

Re: Trance now vs. Trance then (pre 1995)

quote:

Originally posted by Minhaj How would you feel? What if you paid to go see Paul van Dyk tonight and his set looked like this:

I'd rather hear him play that tracklist than drop anthem four times during his set

Re: Trance now vs. Trance then (pre 1995)

quote:

Originally posted by Minhaj 01. Alien Nation - Intro 02. Gemini 6 - Skysoaring 03. True Love - Breath Of Stars 04. Effective Force - Diamond Bullet 05. Cosmic Baby - Cosmikk Trigger I 06. Cosmic Baby - Oh Supergirl 07. Microglobe - High On Hope 08. Voov - Strobe Light 09. Futurhythm - Transmanic 10. Cosmic Baby - The Space Track 11. Humate - Love Stimulation 12. Cosmic Baby - Heaven's Tears 13. Visions Of Shiva, The - How Much Can You Take? 14. Cosmic Baby - Sweet Dreams For Kaa 15. Loopzone - Natural High 16. Visions Of Shiva, The - Perfect Night

best. trance. cd. ever.

if he played that live, the crowd would probably be really annoyed because of "da dj be playing old shite yo, why dont he put some minimal", and i would fucking love it.

quote:

Originally posted by SMC You're just rephrasing what you said earlier. So once again: Why do you always say this, what exactly is the point you're trying to make?

That to be so focused on this early stuff as if you've lived back then is silly. 1995 (and prior) was over ten years ago, surely trance is not dead. Trance is great to listen to, but there comes a point where to truly "feel" the music, you have to experience it in a festival or club. Because of this, and the idea that some people feel this old stuff is so much better (yet were too young to even know what it was or truly is about) and the scene being better. Your just basing it off of what others say it was like but do you truly know just by watching, reading, surmising.

Like I said, I doubt many of us were even old enough in 1993 to even have liked or knew what this music was, or even had the taste for it. Ishkur and a few others on here act like this early times was it glory days (and it probably was) but are we going to base this off of Ishkur, or our true experience? If someone said "yeah those were the days" like in the 1960s, and you were born and raised in the 1990s, do you truly know (unless you lived it) how it was? That's what I am saying.

People act on here like they are much older than they actually are in terms of this older stuff being so much better than anything released after when you could actually find compilations, vinyl with your favorite tracks...some of these old tracks are not easy to find unless you use BitTorrent or something. Accessibility maybe? How accessible (in terms of finding) this music? Basically, it's not what I got into, thus it doesn't hold as much value as if it was..what I got into and lived it..back in the early 1990s, but I (like I think others on here) got first into the epic, melodic trance back in the late 1990s when trance was actually a style you could find on the internet, on CDs (from well known and some lesser known DJs) and file-sharing. But it's almost like people are acting like they first got into these earlier stuff, but did you really? It would be interesting to have a poll to find out what year people first got into this type of music.

So that's what I am trying to say the best to my ability without implying that my opinion is the only opinion. People can like this old stuff as much as they want, and I have discovered some of it and it is good, but it doesn't hold the memories, the "nostalgia" if you wish, like the later 90s does. Then you could find these tracks and be like "wow, I remember when I first heard this tune, it was amazing!". It's just people on here act the same with these old tracks, and who knows if they actually heard these tracks when they first came out.

not everyone bases personal preference on nostalgia. i don't see what's 'silly' about that

quote:

Originally posted by isoterra not everyone bases personal preference on nostalgia. i don't see what's 'silly' about that

Not they probably don't, but I just think it's silly that we act like "these were the days" when trance was at it's best as if it is nostalgia. It's just what I observe. It may not be true, but that seems to be the sentiment. "yeah I remember those days" uh..you do...you were 9, 10, 11 years old? The internet wasn't even that prevalent in most households back then...and most clubs wouldn't let someone that young in...and silly to see a 9 year old at a rave or some big festival. Ishkur forces you to see that these times were the best AS IF YOU were there and should know that it was so much better. Uh well I doubt many of us were there in the early 1990s to know. But we act like it don't we? It's okay to like old music, and have gotten into stuff from earlier, but not act like this is what got us into the music. I'm sure alot of us got into like I said..the later 90s stuff and then later found out about these older tracks, not vice versa.

I'm NOT arguing which time was better or not for trance. Just the focus of more and more threads about this early trance. It's all good music, I like both. Just not what got most people I've talked to got into. How do you know about something without being exposed to it? Without truly know if somehow things were different, better...you don't know that the 1960s were different (they really weren't) to today, just because the music was better (in your opinion)...

It's true that people rate early 90s trance to get clout with the "cool" crowd, or for that matter, rate any music where the general consensus among those who are considered "in the know" is that it's good. With that comes nostalgia and "back in the day..."-anecdotes. It's how scenes work.

This doesn't change that trance in the early 90s hadn't been afflicted with commercialism and the formulaic nature that goes comes with it. This way, it's that much more refreshing to hear a trance tune from back in the day when DJs didn't employ 3 minute breakdowns, big supersaws and/or "tech trancey" percussion for every other tune, and that much easier to fall in love with, regardless of having been there or not.

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper It's true that people rate early 90s trance to get clout with the "cool" crowd, or for that matter, rate any music where the general consensus among those who are considered "in the know" is that it's good. With that comes nostalgia and "back in the day..."-anecdotes. It's how scenes work. This doesn't change that trance in the early 90s hadn't been afflicted with commercialism and the formulaic nature that goes comes with it. This way, it's that much more refreshing to hear a trance tune from back in the day when DJs didn't employ 3 minute breakdowns, big supersaws and/or "tech trancey" percussion for every other tune.

Yeah but wouldn't if the tracks sounded just like the early 90s, people would complain as well? That the music truly hasn't evolved..grown, just stayed the same? Trance has evolved into tech trance, hard trance, progressive trance, epic trance, and a mix of epic and progressive trance (slower epic tunes..McProg..whatever), and tracks that are almost more minimal or ambient as well. "this track isn't interesting..it sounds just like the last track" someone could argue.."it needs something more...".

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 Yeah but wouldn't if the tracks sounded just like the early 90s, people would complain as well?

I don't think anyone said that they wanted trance to remain static in the state it was in during the early 90s. If they did, I disagree with them.

The point is that people want producers to have the same mentality towards the music that they had back then, when trance was just something the few freaks in the corner cared about, and not all the people who saw Tiesto in Madame Tussaud.

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper I don't think anyone said that they wanted trance to remain static in the state it was in during the early 90s. If they did, I disagree with them. The point is that people want producers to have the same mentality towards the music that they had back then, when trance was just something the few freaks in the corner cared about, and not all the people who saw Tiesto in Madame Tussaud.

So it should remain underground for only a select few to enjoy? I don't understand this attitude. Can't everyone be able to enjoy it? What's wrong with music being shared, being somewhat mainstream? I think having underground and mainstream stuff is good, it's like that in rock music and other forms of music as well...you have the big names, big bands and singers..and lesser known ones who tend to be local or more experimental ones that wouldn't be as accepted in the mainstream. Why can't trance be both mainstream and underground? sort of like it is now.

I wouldn't say "trance" is that mainstream really, the vocal stuff is but that's not really even trance. I think that mentality is NOT GOOD, because it limits itself to a "scene" like some kid who only talks to people who like the same types of music and wears the same type of clothes (like Skaters only hanging with Skaters, Preps only with Preps etc). I've always thought of trance and the trance festivals and such as being welcoming places where people of all types go to...to enjoy the music and the experience, not a "select few in the scene".

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 So it should remain underground for only a select few to enjoy? I don't understand this attitude. Can't everyone be able to enjoy it? What's wrong with music being shared, being somewhat mainstream?

Because, and this was the whole point of my previous post, music going mainstream almost always entails the sacrifice of creativity and innovation.

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper Because, and this was the whole point of my previous post, music going mainstream almost always entails the sacrifice of creativity and innovation.

ALWAYS? so all rock, pop (which implies mainstream), alternative, jazz whatever..that is "popular" or well known is uncreative? Innovation is great, but once something is innovative, more and more people try to duplicate it or change it. Something can't keep reinventing itself. I thought people liked what trance was like back in the early 90s? It changed. So if it shouldn't sound just like it did back then and it was better back then, then how should it have changed other than either 1. Go more Mainstream, or 2. Stay underground thus only a few would know about it or be able to find records. Should it have gotten darker? (it did with much of the progressive house and tech-trance stuff) should it have gotten more melodic (it did, with melodic/epic trance), should it have gotten harder and edgier or more "extreme" (it did, with hard trance). It splintered, but there's still progressive trance that has kept the flowing, mild to no breakdown formula...

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper Because, and this was the whole point of my previous post, music going mainstream almost always entails the sacrifice of creativity and innovation.

I know you specifically included the 'almost always' bit, so this may be an example of one of those anomalies, but...

Rock music in the late 60s was probably some of the most popular stuff ever recorded, AND has often been regarded as some of the most innovative material as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 ALWAYS? so all rock, pop (which implies mainstream), alternative, jazz whatever..that is "popular" or well known is uncreative?

Your ability to miss the point is extraordinary indeed.

There are always exceptions to a norm (which is why I said ALMOST always. Underworld comes to mind in this regard), but once something goes mainstream, it usually has the consequence that creativity and innovation is marginalized due to the pressure from the other factors of the industry. People don't want to hear a trance record that's really out there and radically different. They want to hear anthems they can hum and put their hands in the air to on the dancefloor.

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