TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- to this day, I still don't know all the official subgenres of trance
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by Bierheld I don't see why it wouldn't just be "trance". Basing a subgenre on it's rythmic/melodic ratio is far too arbitrary. Exactly How rhythmic does a track have to be for it to be considered tech-trance? Pretty much all genres of electronic music are a mix of both elements, with the possible exceptions of tribal, which is technically pure rhythmic music, and a few far reaches of ambient that can be considered purely melodic. The only other divisions you can make on this front are EDM, which has rythm as it's main focus (makes it danceable) and electronica, which has melody as it's main focus. This a sensible way to put it I think, and it means that all trance is primarily rythmic music and it shouldn't make a difference if a track is bit more or less melodic. In fact, trance in itself can be considered a subgenre, in the more melodic regions of techno. And yes, it has grown it's own sound over time, but that still makes adding a techno prefix redundant in my opinion.

that's why I was thinking. why not call certain tracks just trance. But shouldn't every track have an official adjective that the community would approve of?

quote:

Who should be the official in this case?

any artist who was making those hands-in-the-air trance tracks in the late 90's

quote:

Originally posted by Salegon Out of curiousity, which psy-genre is the following track from?

Who fucking cares? It's all nonsense.

Really, I think we should ditch sub-genres and genres entirely when it comes to EDM. Labels are good to get a rough idea over what you're looking for, but the system we're using now is splitting the community too much.

How about instead using description tags? The possible system I'm thinking of is one where you give a track a primary, a secondary and a triary tag that the author best thinks describes the track. Here's a list of examples:

• Funky
  
• Atmospheric
  
• Hypnotic
  
• Straight-forward
  
• Rhythmic
  
• Melancholic
  
• Energetic
  
• Cosmic
  
• Futuristic
  
• and so on...
  

While ever you people continue to use words like "official" and "system" you'll still be getting it just as wrong and still encouraging the same stupidity.

whenever i don't know the name of a genre i call the music "whack", no matter how good it is.

"some excellent whack tunery they are playing at this party."

quote:

Originally posted by pointPi Really, I think we should ditch sub-genres and genres entirely when it comes to EDM. Labels are good to get a rough idea over what you're looking for, but the system we're using now is splitting the community too much. How about instead using description tags? The possible system I'm thinking of is one where you give a track a primary, a secondary and a triary tag that the author best thinks describes the track. Here's a list of examples: Funky Atmospheric Hypnotic Straight-forward Rhythmic Melancholic Energetic Cosmic Futuristic and so on... So, yay or nay?

That's how I always do it. Tags will replace categories as the primary mode or organization for the future I think.

Many genres began as tags but when they become popular and codified, those tags cease to become tags and become themselves categorical/definitive/generic.

You can't really control that process - once something becomes popular enough, people copy it and it attempt to make it definable.

'deep' house, 'progressive' rock, 'black' metal, etc.

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