TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- Trance is simple
Pages (5): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by Cobalt Whoa, whoa, whoa. If you had a heartbeat of 138 we'd be bringing you into the emergency room. Try about 70.

yeah sure, try dancing with your heart at 70 bpm doesnt make sence!!! you'd have to be like 1/4 your size to be jumping and dacing and have you heart at 70 bpm.

its dance, DANCE MUSIC

your heart connects with trance music when you dance, like in the ancient tribes, thay use to dance to the beat of the drums to get into trance, and 140 bpm is just perfect

Re: Trance is simple

quote:

Originally posted by branmuffin My point to this is that trance, despite what you elitists think, is a very simplistic and very reptitive form of music. The emotion you all love so much is simply due to repeated themes that are so forceful that you can't help but pick up on them. Its beautiful, emotional, but really nothign ground breaking. If you want real emotion, try listening to classical music. Its so complex it would blow most of your brains.

(i'm responding to your post in bits, i know, but i'm too impatient)

well, NOW we see true intentions! seems like we have a trance hater here.

"the emotion you all love so much is simply due to repeated themes that are so forceful that you can't help but pick up on them."

wrong. the emotion is due to music that stimulates the soul. IF you want to talk this way, then we can EASILY say (and with even more authority) that the "emotion" in CLASSICAL is simply due to repeated themes that are so forceful that you can't help but pick up on them. and OH are they repeated! if i had a nickel for every piece that had an unbalanced sound spectrum (i.e., overused, screeching violins galore!), then i'd be richer than oakenfold.

"it's so complex it would blow most of your brains" pfff... Vivaldi's the Four Seasons is the only thing that stands close to trance in terms of emotive depth. of course, complexity is not a good thing. i would say complexity is bad. just because something is complex, doesn't mean it's beautiful, or laden with emotion (in the case of music). in fact, it's often the opposite. oftentimes, classical gets so complex, with a zillion different instruments, played by a gigantic mega-orchestra, that it makes my brain turn to mush. where is the beauty there?

on the other hand, Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata is IMMENSELY SIMPLE. in fact, it's just ONE instrument. and yet it's so beautiful, filled with so much emotion, that it "blows my brains away" (or rather, my heart). if you haven't listened to it, please do (and a quality recording, at that). THEN you'll see REAL "blowing your brains away" quality.

i think you're in a trance-hating phase, and you've just gotten into classical, and think it's oh so much better than trance.

after listening to classical for as much as you've listened to trance, you'll see that it's the same as trance, believe me.

1. like trance, not all of classical is great.
2. like trance, a lot of classical is "repetitive"
3. like trance, you have good songs and you have bad songs.

take any classical piece with "emotion." it may be good, but chances are it doesn't hold a candle against something like Matanka - Lost in a Dream (push mix). (unless you're talking about vivaldi. but he doesn't count, he's a god.)

ok, now that i've cooled down, i want to say i don't hate you. but i just can't understand why you would dislike trance SO much, and yet have 70 gigs of it. or maybe you don't. in any case, it doesn't matter.

by the way, what kind of classical do you like? i want to get an idea with what you're comparing trance to.

WHOA!

I sense some rampant ignorance here. Let me quote two things said that I think are at the heart of this argument:

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen we don't enjoy music because of its intelligence or complexity, we enjoy it because it makes us feel a certain way.

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen Well after years and years trying to figure out what talent is needed to make a good song I found out that the real talent and complexity in composing a song is in the emotions generated by the song, not the complexity of the melody or the complexity of the rhythm.

My three favorite genres happen to be Classical, Jazz, and Electronica, specifically trance. I consider the first two technically superior to the latter, so I'm not speaking from what you call an 'elitist' attitude. However, Trance and its ilk are miles ahead of the other genres you cite.

Your definition of 'intelligent' music seems to be music that takes extreme effort on the part of the artist and utilizes various techniques. Why were these techniques you deem indicators of 'intelligence' developed in the first place? Were they implemented so that after hearing a given piece the listener muses on how technically innovative and intelligent the artist must have been? Do you listen to a piece of music and merely enjoy it by dissecting the parts? That's only one half of the whole, and you're reducing the 'intelligence' of music perversely to its constituent elements.

Part of how masterful or 'intelligent' music is also how it makes us feel, what mood it imparts, and the harmony of its instruments it creates. Trance focuses far more on this equally important aspect on music than on the technical, what you call 'intelligent' techniques that went into creating it. Furthermore, a great deal of artistry in electronic music goes into creating the sounds used. By the same token I could criticize classical because "it always sticks to those same instruments. How lacking innovation, how unintelligent that no one attempts to create new ones." But I don't because the intelligence of classical is in its composition, not its instruments. Trance is intelligent in different ways than what you deem as 'intelligent.' You're ignoring whole branches of artistry.

What's also important is that trance holds considerable intelligence and artistry in the hands of a DJ. You can criticize individual tracks all you want, but you're ignoring the art of the progression, the art of crafting a journey for the listener from multiple tracks. Trance has an entire extra layer of complexity in liveset form that most every other genre lacks. Only classical and jazz capture this extra layer of 'intelligence' that trance holds but others forms of music do not. Take a look at GU 013: Ibiza. Would you like to rant on the lack of 'intelligence' in the tracks? How about understanding that the whole is not just the sum of its parts. Sasha's opus is as much a masterpiece as many classical pieces I know.

Why does progressive have such appeal? Why do fans of it call it 'intelligent?' Because it is, just in a different way than you describe, and in a valid way that you are ignoring. Progression, mood, and atmosphere of a set all require intelligence and skill.

So in conclusion, I understand the point you are trying to make, but with all due respect, you are ignoring different forms of talent and 'intelligence' in music.

quote:

Originally posted by dyson yeah sure, try dancing with your heart at 70 bpm doesnt make sence!!! you'd have to be like 1/4 your size to be jumping and dacing and have you heart at 70 bpm. its dance, DANCE MUSIC your heart connects with trance music when you dance, like in the ancient tribes, thay use to dance to the beat of the drums to get into trance, and 140 bpm is just perfect

well, after some quick "googling" :

first column corresponds to age. second column corresponds to target heart rate zone (50-75%). third column corresponds to average maximum heart rate (100%).


20 years? 100-150 beats per minute 200 beats per minute
25 years? 98-146 beats per minute? 195 beats per minute
30 years 95-142 beats per minute 190 beats per minute
35 years 93-138 beats per minute? 185 beats per minute
40 years 90-135 beats per minute 180 beats per minute
45 years 88-131 beats per minute? 175 beats per minute
50 years? 85-127 beats per minute? 170 beats per minute
55 years 83-123 beats per minute 165 beats per minute
60 years 80-120 beats per minute 160 beats per minute
65 years? 78-116 beats per minute? 155 beats per minute
70 years? 75-113 beats per minute 150 beats per minute


so 140 looks reasonable, surprisingly. actually, i'm kind of shocked. didn't know my heart beat so fast!

must be from listening to all that "repetitive trance music"

you try making trance masterpieces like...

Urban Train
Nothing but You
L'esperanza
Columbia
Animacion

Try creating anything relatively close to the Duck, and i promise you will find it "complex".

I go eat dinner and come back with 10 replies, so i'm just going to summarize instead of going point by point.

dyson... I wasn't specifically saying you think that, but the thing that sparked this post was that today along i've seen at least 5 threads where someone said trance was eithier "complex" or "intelligent". And as for folk music, keep in mind that for the most part all these people have as instruments are thier voices, and maybe a fiddle, or drum. Its really hard to create that complex a song with that little rsources. Also, keep in mind that they also remember and pass thier songs down from generation to generation simply by hearing. Do you think that you could teach your child to remember a 100 piece symphony simply by hearing it repeatedly? no.

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen Well after years and years trying to figure out what talent is needed to make a good song I found out that the real talent and complexity in composing a song is in the emotions generated by the song, not the complexity of the melody or the complexity of the rhythem. So in that sense I think that Trance is one of the most complex types of music out there.

The emotions generated from trance are from teh repetition. IF you repeat anything enough, it will start affecting you, in some way or another. Other emotional music, such as jazz, classical, blues, hell even metal, has its emotion in the melody, and usually can create a mood without the use of serious repetition. (And yes, blues, metal, etc.. can be VERY emotional, it may not be positive emotions like trance, but that does not make it any less emotional.

quote:

for your information, trance is not meant to be listened to individually, song-by-song. why do you think there are repetitive intros and outros? so that whiners like you can have a case against trance? NO! it's because it's DESIGNED for the DJ. this is how dj's can make long, seamless mixes, and produce such wonderful feelings of euphoria and joy to all listeners - and dancers - alike! maybe you should go out and hit a trance party for once, and see how trance is MEANT to be experienced. NOT by sitting at home listening to individual mp3's.

i've been to over 60 parties over the last three years, two thirds of my trance mp3's are livesets. I understand this. However, it does not make it any more complex, or my argument any less valid.

And as far as the Beats matching up with your heartbeat, this is something I always found quite cool, but its also not unique to trance. Certain classical songs are actually designed to not only go with your body's patterns, but some of them even change them. Granted its not genrea wide, but its still present.

quote:

Originally posted by branmuffin The emotions generated from trance are from teh repetition. IF you repeat anything enough, it will start affecting you, in some way or another. Other emotional music, such as jazz, classical, blues, hell even metal, has its emotion in the melody, and usually can create a mood without the use of serious repetition. (And yes, blues, metal, etc.. can be VERY emotional, it may not be positive emotions like trance, but that does not make it any less emotional.

hmm.. you might actually have a point here. i can't say for sure, though, i have to think this through some more.

i think you're right, because oftentimes, i see my friends listening to some music they like, for example rock or punk, and they love it so much, as much as i love trance!

now, is it possible that they're just stupid? no, i don't think so - perhaps they're just used to it, and they've heard it so much that it's become filled with emotion to them. the same might be true for people who love trance.

quote:

Originally posted by branmuffin The emotions generated from trance are from teh repetition. IF you repeat anything enough, it will start affecting you, in some way or another. Other emotional music, such as jazz, classical, blues, hell even metal, has its emotion in the melody, and usually can create a mood without the use of serious repetition. (And yes, blues, metal, etc.. can be VERY emotional, it may not be positive emotions like trance, but that does not make it any less emotional.

I disagree. Trance imparts more emotion to me than listening to these other forms of music. Are you the one to deem that my reaction is wrong and somehow does not reflect the 'intelligence' of the music? Do you seriously think that trance artists do not attempt to create emotion through progression? That emotion from trance is merely a friendly side effect? No, it flows from the talent, the intelligence of crafting the music that way.

quote:

Originally posted by branmuffin i've been to over 60 parties over the last three years, two thirds of my trance mp3's are livesets. I understand this. However, it does not make it any more complex, or my argument any less valid.

It certainly does make it more complex, and it certainly does make your argument less valid. The overall progression of trance is an added element of intelligence in the music, and a substantial one when it comes to trance.

quote:

Originally posted by branmuffin And as far as the Beats matching up with your heartbeat, this is something I always found quite cool, but its also not unique to trance. Certain classical songs are actually designed to not only go with your body's patterns, but some of them even change them. Granted its not genrea wide, but its still present.

So why don't you count trance next to classical on this standard? There are many criteria by which music can be judged to have skill or intelligence. You seem to be the authority on which are valid and which are not.

quote:

Originally posted by branmuffin Do you think that you could teach your child to remember a 100 piece symphony simply by hearing it repeatedly? no.

It was just an example.
maybe they should have, its their culture, thru hearing is the way the lost it, at least a big part

also I dont think music should be judge by intelligence, THAT is just plain stupid....

it's weird... i rarely get the same emotion with any other kind of music as i do with trance. [some] classical notwithstanding.

is my brain just primed to enjoy trance?

i wonder...

quote:

Originally posted by Alccode well, after some quick "googling" : first column corresponds to age. second column corresponds to target heart rate zone (50-75%). third column corresponds to average maximum heart rate (100%). 20 years? 100-150 beats per minute 200 beats per minute 25 years? 98-146 beats per minute? 195 beats per minute 30 years 95-142 beats per minute 190 beats per minute 35 years 93-138 beats per minute? 185 beats per minute 40 years 90-135 beats per minute 180 beats per minute 45 years 88-131 beats per minute? 175 beats per minute 50 years? 85-127 beats per minute? 170 beats per minute 55 years 83-123 beats per minute 165 beats per minute 60 years 80-120 beats per minute 160 beats per minute 65 years? 78-116 beats per minute? 155 beats per minute 70 years? 75-113 beats per minute 150 beats per minute so 140 looks reasonable, surprisingly. actually, i'm kind of shocked. didn't know my heart beat so fast!

This looks incorrect to me because I know what typical hearbeats are. I have an unusually high resting heartbeat at about 80-something, but that chart says that's below normal. Most of my friends have heartrates around and below 70. I've taken them myself.

The maximum cannot seriously be around 200 for a 20-year-old. They would probably fall into cardiac arrest before that pace. Those could be actual maximums, but the 'target zone' seems very wrong to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Cobalt I disagree. Trance imparts more emotion to me than listening to these other forms of music. Are you the one to deem that my reaction is wrong and somehow does not reflect the 'intelligence' of the music? Do you seriously think that trance artists do not attempt to create emotion through progression? That emotion from trance is merely a friendly side effect? No, it flows from the talent, the intelligence of crafting the music that way.

perhaps so, but you'd be surprised to find out how much of who you are and what you are, is determined by your brain "chemistry."

in fact, all of you.

i wouldn't find it surprising if the mind is just primed to enjoy a certain type of music, from constant exposure.

it's a well known phemonenon. why do you like sleeping in your own bed, rather than in a hotel (for example)? it's because you're primed to your bed, you're used to it. it's not because your bed is "better".

(i never imagined i would be defending branmuffin, even in part)

quote:

Originally posted by Alccode perhaps so, but you'd be surprised to find out how much of who you are and what you are, is determined by your brain "chemistry." in fact, all of you. i wouldn't find it surprising if the mind is just primed to enjoy a certain type of music, from constant exposure.

This still only relegates his argument to saying "all music is equal" because it would mean that what we think is intelligent is based on what we are used to. It does not defend his claim.

Anyhow, we do have indicators about what music takes more skill and intelligence, and some music is clearly preferred over others because of the effect on the listener and the complexity of creating such an effect.

quote:

Originally posted by Cobalt This looks incorrect to me because I know what typical hearbeats are. I have an unusually high resting heartbeat at about 80-something, but that chart says that's below normal. Most of my friends have heartrates around and below 70. I've taken them myself. The maximum cannot seriously be around 200 for a 20-year-old. They would probably fall into cardiac arrest before that pace. Those could be actual maximums, but the 'target zone' seems very wrong to me.

wait, you're right. it seems way wrong. i just measured my heartbeat (in a crude way - counted how many beats in 15 seconds, the multiplied by 4), and it's around 70. and i'm 19, so based on that chart, i'm WAY below what i "should" be.

hehe it's not like i can ever find that page again. i just did a quick google search . lol

quote:

Originally posted by Cobalt This still only relegates his argument to saying "all music is equal," and does not defend his claim.

hmmm...i see what you mean, but i kindly disagree. music is relativistic, just like anything else. what one person likes may be another person's bane. (often true - for example i personally detest hiphop)

i wonder, are objective arguments like "X type of music is better than Y type of music because of such and such reasons" even valid? can music be ranked objectively? perhaps not. perhaps it's all subjective, relative to the observer (err.."listener").

i'll chime in with my 2cents here
I grew up listen to classical music
hated everything else (i know kinda weird)
I got into trance less than a year ago and i love it
both can get you very relaxed and make you feel good
listening to trance i can hum and sort of predict what is coming next even on the first listen
i can say the same for classical music
If you listen to a lot of it, there are formulas and simple phrases that repeat.
I can't really specifically name what that is because i'm no musical genious but if you listen to any music, there are formulas that make things seem very simple.
Well, if you're still not convinced, you try making a tune like Xpander

quote:

Originally posted by Cobalt This looks incorrect to me because I know what typical hearbeats are. I have an unusually high resting heartbeat at about 80-something, but that chart says that's below normal. Most of my friends have heartrates around and below 70. I've taken them myself. The maximum cannot seriously be around 200 for a 20-year-old. They would probably fall into cardiac arrest before that pace. Those could be actual maximums, but the 'target zone' seems very wrong to me.

Target zone is 50% to 75% of your max as he mentioned (actually its more like 70-80%, depending on if you want to work cardiac muscles or burn fat). My resting heartrate is about 60 bpm, when I run on my treadmill with the hearbeat sensor it is usually around 120, give or take a few beats.

You were comparing resting heart rate to a stimulated heart beat, that is why your heart beat fell well under the range. I think you just mistook Target Heart Rate zone for your resting heart rate, it refers to your heart rate when physically active.

quote:

Originally posted by puckhead hated everything else (i know kinda weird)

i'm with you! other than classical and trance, i pretty much dislike everything else, though i can stand most of it.

quote:

Originally posted by DoctorLW You were comparing resting heart rate to a stimulated heart beat, that is why your heart beat fell well under the range. I think you just mistook Target Heart Rate zone for your resting heart rate, it refers to your heart rate when physically active.

Oh, I see. But do our heartrates when dancing really fall continuously into that region? Perhaps.

Still, I think it has much more to do with how fast we feel comfortable moving than with our heartrate. I can enjoy trance while sitting and tapping my foot as much as when dancing, but my heartrate in the former case is still around resting.

(referring back to the original post)

Try making trance, or any other electronic music (except d'n'b) and then say that. See if what you make comes out sounding anything like professional. The structures may seem simple to you but in fact are very complicated. It's not about "here comes the hi-hats, here comes the bassline,...." It's also getting the right sounds and making them work together. Making the music flow and sound good and quite importantly, danceable.

Why "except drum'n'bass"? It's not easier to produce than any other genre...

I can't be arsed to read the all thread now, I'll soon come up with something more intelligent

Every genre is different, trance being the most different. The style of trance is to be repetitive and to repeat melodies. You cant compare the complexity of other music genres to trance because they are all different styles, and therefore its impossible to justly draw a comparison. It would be possible, however, to compare the complexity of 2 tracks within a genre. That said, all this fuss is based on opinion, since no one can truly compare the complexity between 2 different genres. Therefore each side of this argument (10+ vs 1) makes valid points but nobody will ever win

This is what happens when the whole world is connected and everyone gets an equal say in matters.

Cute raccoon rakoon. I've got two of those TY stuffed ones. ^.^

Wow, this thread is almost funny.

First of all I agree with the original post, the structure of most trance tracks are relativly simple. but most genres are just as simple on the musical theory level.

I agree with what branmuffin and everyone else said, the complexity of the music doesn't mean a damn thing, its the feeling you get from it, and how its attained doesnt matter either.

Classical music, is also very simple in many ways, so is hip-hop, so is rock, so is trance. None of that matters though, because thats not why people listen to music. Really who gives a shit where the emotion comes from, its not what counts.

Lastly, I'm getting so fucking sick and tired of every thread turning into a thread that either bashes other genres, or bashes some big dj, so can we all just cut that shit completly?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Nuclear Cute raccoon rakoon. I've got two of those TY stuffed ones. ^.^

Hehe, yeah I think theres only 2 different raccoons from Ty. Raccoons are a rather underrated animal me thinks

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