Trance: The Way It's Supposed To Be

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- Trance: The Way It's Supposed To Be
Pages (11): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »

Posted by GoSpeedGo! on Jun-20-2006 18:28:

quote:
Originally posted by Psy-T
eric prydz - call on me
pierres pfantasy club - dream girl

sorry, these aren�t.

they both share the same tempo, they both have some vocals, similar beat... so they can�t be completely different.

Posted by david.michael on Jun-20-2006 18:29:

Posted by Psy-T on Jun-20-2006 18:34:

quote:
Originally posted by paulandrews
sorry, these aren�t.

they both share the same tempo, they both have some vocals, similar beat... so they can�t be completely different.

and this is why i put the word 'completely' in quotes.

do you have any idea how many tracks fit the bill of sharing that tempo, having some vocals, and a 'similiar beat'?

let's take it a step further and just say all music is the same because it contains sound.

Posted by GoSpeedGo! on Jun-20-2006 18:36:

quote:
Originally posted by david.michael
Sounds like you're defining EDM as a whole then... not trance. ::shrug::

they�re house. and house is EDM, so I see no reason why I shouldn�t compare these two tracks on some general EDM factors.

if people were so strict as you, then Schulz and PvD would be a different genre

Posted by david.michael on Jun-20-2006 18:47:

quote:
Originally posted by paulandrews
they�re house. and house is EDM, so I see no reason why I shouldn�t compare these two tracks on some general EDM factors.

if people were so strict as you, then Schulz and PvD would be a different genre

How do you have any idea how strict I am?

I replied to this:

quote:
same tempo, they both have some vocals, similar beat...

which is a damn high majority of EDM. Some rock songs share the same "beats" as some breakbeat songs. There is more to it than that. That's all I'm saying.

Posted by GoSpeedGo! on Jun-20-2006 19:00:

quote:
Originally posted by Psy-T
and this is why i put the word 'completely' in quotes.

do you have any idea how many tracks fit the bill of sharing that tempo, having some vocals, and a 'similiar beat'?

let's take it a step further and just say all music is the same because it contains sound.

well, now tell me why these two shouldn�t share the same genre name.

you see, how hard is to find out why the two tracks are included in the same music genre? it�s because the music evolves, there is a constant progress, there are tracks that influnced the scene and pushed it further.. And the longer history of the genre is, the bigger differences between some tracks are.

Posted by Ishkur on Jun-20-2006 19:16:

quote:
Originally posted by paulandrews
Oh my, you really have to realize trance isn�t made exactly just for you (and has not ever been) and stop making a clown of yourself.

I don't want trance to be made for me.

I just want it to sound like fucking trance.

Posted by GoSpeedGo! on Jun-20-2006 19:27:

the fresh wind came from canada after all these philosophical debates..

Posted by Psy-T on Jun-20-2006 19:52:

quote:
Originally posted by paulandrews
well, now tell me why these two shouldn�t share the same genre name.

i already did:
the genre house was named after the warehouse club and it was used to describe the kind of music that was played there. so being strict to the original defintion, there are no new house records and there haven't been any in years.

more reasons to diffrentiate? trust me, a person looking for 'call on me' would be hugely dissapointed to find 'dream girl' instead, and the same goes for the opposite; their sound is worlds apart; their groove is worlds apart; their context is worlds apart; et cetera ad infinitum.

quote:
Originally posted by paulandrews
you see, how hard is to find out why the two tracks are included in the same music genre? it�s because the music evolves, there is a constant progress, there are tracks that influnced the scene and pushed it further.. And the longer history of the genre is, the bigger differences between some tracks are.

so despite you acknowledging it a hard and/or futile excecise, you'd rather keep the archaic system in place, and call trance from 1993 the same genre as trance from 2003. making a whole lot of sense in the process.

Posted by GoSpeedGo! on Jun-20-2006 20:05:

quote:
Originally posted by Psy-T
i already did:
the genre house was named after the warehouse club and it was used to describe the kind of music that was played there. so being strict to the original defintion, there are no new house records and there haven't been any in years.

But it�s NOT like that, the genre name and it�s origine is completely irrelevant there and that�s what are we talking about! It�s impossible to say that everything what�s played out of Warehouse is not house. What genre are the "new" house records then?

So, according to this theory, which says, that the genre name is irrelevant and does not have any effect on the actual sound of the tracks (which are included in the genre), trance does not need to have any signs of the dictionary definition of the word "trance" and still can be labeled as trance.

Huh?

Posted by Psy-T on Jun-20-2006 20:18:

quote:
Originally posted by paulandrews
But it�s NOT like that, the genre name and it�s origine is completely irrelevant there and that�s what are we talking about! It�s impossible to say that everything what�s played out of Warehouse is not house. What genre are the "new" house records then?

So, according to this theory, which says, that the genre name is irrelevant and does not have any effect on the actual sound of the tracks (which are included in the genre), trance does not need to have any signs of the dictionary definition of the word "trance" and still can be labeled as trance.

Huh?

"huh" indeed, your statements do not follow one another and make for an incoherent post.

if the origin of a genre classification is completely irrelavant to it's sound there's no reason not to call a britney spears tune progressive tribal trance, and there's no reason not to call a 2pac tune acid techno, and there's no reason not to call a paul van dyk tune country music.... and there's no reason to use genre names whatsoever. if this is what you strive for you have no business on this thread or on this board (as far as music is concerned).

Posted by GoSpeedGo! on Jun-20-2006 20:24:

You did NOT get it!!!

WTF!

trance does not need to have any signs of the dictionary definition of the word "trance" and still can be labeled as trance.

Posted by Psy-T on Jun-20-2006 20:27:

Posted by RebeL9 on Jun-20-2006 21:44:

quote:
Originally posted by paulandrews
You did NOT get it!!!

WTF!

trance does not need to have any signs of the dictionary definition of the word "trance" and still can be labeled as trance.

well if trance music isn't hypnotic, enchanting, rhythmic then it more or less totally lost its meaning and therefor shouldn't have much to do with trance music.

Posted by Spacey Orange on Jun-20-2006 22:03:

[[ LINK REMOVED ]]
is, in my opinion, real trance.

Posted by Ishkur on Jun-20-2006 22:20:

^^^ absolutely beautiful.

Sounds like early Dance 2 Trance.

Posted by SYSTEM-J on Jun-20-2006 22:31:

Posted by isoterra on Jun-20-2006 22:34:

so 'epic trance' doesn't deserve the 'trance' name.. holy newsflash. unfortunately it gets it whether people like it or not, arguing against it is frankly futile

x-cabs - sierra, is trance... recent & pretty true to form. click

Posted by isoterra on Jun-20-2006 22:38:

quote:
Originally posted by Psy-T
if the origin of a genre classification is completely irrelavant to it's sound there's no reason not to call a britney spears tune progressive tribal trance, and there's no reason not to call a 2pac tune acid techno, and there's no reason not to call a paul van dyk tune country music.... and there's no reason to use genre names whatsoever. if this is what you strive for you have no business on this thread or on this board (as far as music is concerned).

there is a reason. the reason is that thousands of prior tunes akin to britney spears have not been labelled as progressive tribal trance. 2pac, nor other music in his style, has never been classified as acid techno, and country fans would not cite paul van dyk as one of their preferred producers, nor any other producer similar to him.

Posted by SYSTEM-J on Jun-20-2006 22:56:

quote:
Originally posted by isoterra
there is a reason. the reason is that thousands of prior tunes akin to britney spears have not been labelled as progressive tribal trance. 2pac, nor other music in his style, has never been classified as acid techno, and country fans would not cite paul van dyk as one of their preferred producers, nor any other producer similar to him.

Exactly. The mistake is to assume that genre-labelling is an exact science, when many major genres have been named and defined by opportunistic journalists or DJs on a whim. It still baffles people trying to connect progressive house with progressive trance, and presumably prog rock in turn. None share any defining musical feature which makes them "progressive", the word just means forward-thinking. A change. A new type of house, a new type of trance.

You either call epic trance trance, you call it euro or you call it something new entirely. It didn't come out of euro- it came out of a process of making trance more melody-centric, more hooky and more dramatic. It resembles Euro in sound, but not in roots. And epic trance is really far too small and far too limited a style to deserve its own genre. It's simply an extension of the trance sound into a new area. It doesn't sound like the initial "trance" definition, but that's where it came from and that's enough to classify it.

Compared to how diverse "house" has been stretched to become, there's really no issue.

Posted by Zombie0915 on Jun-21-2006 00:26:

This thread makes me happy, it descended into a philosophical semantic thing without me ever posting. I just got back from a crazy weekend. At that party they played both kinds. I don't remember who most of them were, but I'll see them again. I had so much fun, I dont care what that music was called, what it evolved out of, who made it or whether it sticks to the original intentions, fuck all of that.

Trance is supposed to be enjoyable repititions. There is compromise between repitition and engagement, trance requires both. Nobody is debating whether someting is repetitive or not (but there are some confusing patterns...). Enjoyable causes all the drama cuz ppl enjoy different stuff. Life wouldnt be interesting if we all enjoyed the same way. Repititions CAN'T entrance victims if they aren't engaged by them (but forced exposure to something for a long enough time will get engage people eventually, call it "trance abuse"). Like it or not people are engaged by epic sound, and that music does indeed contain some repititions. People get all upset because they dont think epic has enough, that's fine there are plenty of alternatives. Epic isn't unqualified for the term (IMO) because it is engaging and has some repitition.

There is just no way to quantify repetition or engagement. With no measure people are left to argue, I don't see the point (yet I am still here typing out this reply that nobody will bother reading, maybe enjoy this site too much). How repetitive must trance be? How engaging? Should trance break repetitions for more engaging qualities or is it interesting enough already? These are the questions raised in this thread, it all depends the most subjective thing in the world, engagement.

I enjoy friendly crowds, loud music, open minds, all the noises we make, all the different feelings they cause. How can something so simple as an air shaking machine (with the occasional chemical suppliment) make so many different reactions? It is a fun thing to think about and experience in the company of friends, trance should be that, and it is, and it still happens, I overendulged myself on it this past saturday!

Posted by DJ Shibby on Jun-21-2006 00:41:

Trance: The Way It Is Supposed To Be?

Played LOUD.

Posted by Haak on Jun-21-2006 00:43:

quote:
Originally posted by Spacey Orange
[[ LINK REMOVED ]]
is, in my opinion, real trance.

great

Posted by Psy-T on Jun-21-2006 05:23:

Posted by Psy-T on Jun-21-2006 06:03:

quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Exactly. The mistake is to assume that genre-labelling is an exact science, when many major genres have been named and defined by opportunistic journalists or DJs on a whim. It still baffles people trying to connect progressive house with progressive trance, and presumably prog rock in turn. None share any defining musical feature which makes them "progressive", the word just means forward-thinking. A change. A new type of house, a new type of trance.

You either call epic trance trance, you call it euro or you call it something new entirely. It didn't come out of euro- it came out of a process of making trance more melody-centric, more hooky and more dramatic. It resembles Euro in sound, but not in roots. And epic trance is really far too small and far too limited a style to deserve its own genre. It's simply an extension of the trance sound into a new area. It doesn't sound like the initial "trance" definition, but that's where it came from and that's enough to classify it.

Compared to how diverse "house" has been stretched to become, there's really no issue.

just because the original definitions are supposedly imperfect is not reason enough to not perfect the definitions and create new ones.

quote:
Originally posted by Psy-T
so despite you acknowledging it a hard and/or futile excecise, you'd rather keep the archaic system in place, and call trance from 1993 the same genre as trance from 2003. making a whole lot of sense in the process.

Pages (11): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »