TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- EDM clichés - c'mon ppl, start being original!
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »

Hey man your rant would be very cool if it was reality. The truth is most of these people are producing just so they can say hey I have a song on Beatport. Most of them dont care about being original and they are just looking for the fastest and easiest way to produce/DJ. You see it all the time people asking how do you make minimal drums? How do you make that trance sound? etc... I could keep going on but im at work now and must go.

quote:

Originally posted by mysticalninja 3. Pitch bendy Psy Leads. yawn. Get something new.

Pitch bend is often quite psychedelic. So I can see the use.

quote:

4. Distorted guitars. Didn't we move on to electronic music to get away from this crap?

Agreed.

quote:

4. Random eastern instruments and vocals. Cmon ppl. Yawn.

Personally I like the feel they give.

quote:

Originally posted by mysticalninja I've got some to add. 1. Squelchy Psy Kicks. These are just lame. They were kind of cool 10 years ago, but ever since Fruity Loops came with a sample of one it has been over used by every psy producer and his granma. 2. That Psy Saw Bass. Everyone knows the bass im talking about. The rolling bass, KxXx KxXx KxXx KxXx. Jesus christ lame. Who thought to make a genre out of stealing this classic trance bass pattern and adding a squelchy kick? 3. Pitch bendy Psy Leads. yawn. Get something new. 4. Distorted guitars. Didn't we move on to electronic music to get away from this crap? 4. Random eastern instruments and vocals. Cmon ppl. Yawn.

Dont even try to bash psytrance haha. Get on some hallucinogenics then listen to some psytrance. Takes you to another dimension entirely cuz it hypnotizes the shit out of you (hence psy-trance). And that is what it is made for, to be listened to on drugs. After you have a nice psychedelic experience you will have a new profound interest in psy/goa-trance.

goa/psy-trance + hallucinogenics = <3

quote:

Originally posted by Nightshift Dont even try to bash psytrance haha. Get on some hallucinogenics then listen to some psytrance. Takes you to another dimension entirely cuz it hypnotizes the shit out of you (hence psy-trance). And that is what it is made for, to be listened to on drugs. After you have a nice psychedelic experience you will have a new profound interest in psy/goa-trance.

Agreed Bitch pend has a quite psychedelic effect when used well. Of course you can't really apprecciate psychedelic "feels" if you haven't experienced them yourself. As well as you can't appreciate any music style unless it has a feeling ground in you.

I liked psy-trance even before I had listened to it on psychedelics.

Have to say that listening to some psy on acid was quite fun, though.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Nacht Hey man your rant would be very cool if it was reality. The truth is most of these people are producing just so they can say hey I have a song on Beatport. Most of them dont care about being original and they are just looking for the fastest and easiest way to produce/DJ. You see it all the time people asking how do you make minimal drums? How do you make that trance sound? etc... I could keep going on but im at work now and must go.

Fair enough to say, I respect that opinion, but this phenomena has occured in all music styles at all times, it just means you have to spend some time weeding out the rubbish from the wannabes.
I also think that people who are asking how to make minimal drums are just as likely to be looking for a way to reinterpret that particular sound and make it original as they are looking to rip it off verbatim and reuse it for profit.

Got to admit that one thing that kind of annoys me with the majority of trance produced is the same old intro routine. Start off with the kick, add some percussion, add some bass etc before you actually get to anything.

I know I know people are going to say it's so it can be mixed in a set, but there isnt much trance that you can actually just stick on and get straight into the tune, there is always about a 2 minute intro and 2 minute outro with the song itself stuck in the middle, I know there will be exceptions to the rule and some producers can really work the intro into an exciting climax for the main tune, but I feel the majority of tracks are just filler for the first 2 (ish) minutes.

I usually find myself just fast forwarding the first couple of minutes to get to the actual song itself, and cant help but think this is kind of what makes trance music a little bit "samey" and "just another trance track".

rant over

Because trance isn't designed to be listened to as a single in the same way as rock/pop. Its designed to be listened to as a journey through different tracks, which is the reason for the long intros, your listening to stuff that only DJs deal with. That's one of the things I like about trance, you never touch the skip button, you have to listen to all the tracks on the record for it to make sense. unlike rock where the first three tracks of the album are the singles and the rest are just boring filler most of the time.

I knew someone would come back with an answer along those lines, and although I do agree with what your saying, if you really like a song that you hear out in the club and want to go and buy it, you dont really want the long intro / outro unless it has been done well, you just want to listen to the "song".

I kind of see trance as a producers kind of music, in as much as I feel a lot of the people who like / listen to trance actually produce it and maybe loose touch a little with actually making a "song", more something that will just "fit in".

I just feel sometimes that there is a real lack of innovation and / or complete saturation of tracks and it's a real job sorting the good from the bad, it's almost as though there is more producers than there is listeners, almost to the point where people are just making music for themselves, which I suppose is no bad thing, but the quality suffers I think.

Maybe its just me getting old, I just dont hear much stuff that excites me these days, its pretty much the same old / same old. My favourite times where 99 / 00 when there seemed to be a lot of fresh stuff about and some good producers, also some of the tracks from the early / mid 90's (cygnus x etc..., eye q & harthouse label stuff)

Anyway its late and im starting to waffle! lol

quote:

Originally posted by Jimb0b I knew someone would come back with an answer along those lines, and although I do agree with what your saying, if you really like a song that you hear out in the club and want to go and buy it, you dont really want the long intro / outro unless it has been done well, you just want to listen to the "song". I kind of see trance as a producers kind of music, in as much as I feel a lot of the people who like / listen to trance actually produce it and maybe loose touch a little with actually making a "song", more something that will just "fit in". I just feel sometimes that there is a real lack of innovation and / or complete saturation of tracks and it's a real job sorting the good from the bad, it's almost as though there is more producers than there is listeners, almost to the point where people are just making music for themselves, which I suppose is no bad thing, but the quality suffers I think. Maybe its just me getting old, I just dont hear much stuff that excites me these days, its pretty much the same old / same old. My favourite times where 99 / 00 when there seemed to be a lot of fresh stuff about and some good producers, also some of the tracks from the early / mid 90's (cygnus x etc..., eye q & harthouse label stuff) Anyway its late and im starting to waffle! lol

Yeah, I agree with you in that sense, people shouldn't be concerned with how a track will act in a DJs mix when they're making it.
I also agree that people should be able to grab a song that they heard the night before off the Internet and listen to it without being bored. But I don't think that selling versions of the song without the intro and outro is preferable, it would be better to grab the whole set off beatport or whatever and then listen to that, because I suspect that if you just had the single song, even without the intros and outros, it wouldn't make sense.
Contrary to what some people think, trance is very much live music to be played in a live context, it doesn't suit being dipped into just for a minute in my opinion like the radio soundbites that they call "songs" in the mainstream do. A DJ set is (or should be) a live performance where each track becomes an instrument to be played by the DJ, not just a track to be mixed into another.
I started off in trance listening to live sets and radio shows, then I went for a few whole albums and almost lost intrest, now I've come back to the live stuff, I understand that the sterility of a compilation just kills the atmosphere and power of tracks.
Also, there probably are as many producers as there are listener, that was another thing I always liked about the scene, because the people who listened also created, they knew good tracks when they heard them and rubbish when they heard it, this improved the quality. Also, it kept the scene tighter, because DJs wouldn't be separated from the fans by a metaphorical barrier like rock stars are - essentially, the DJs and the listeners were the same thing, one of them just happened to be playing the tunes right then, but the others might later that night, because they could.

A song isn't complete until it's in a mix. That's what this music is all about.

quote:

Originally posted by kitphillips Contrary to what some people think, trance is very much live music to be played in a live context, it doesn't suit being dipped into just for a minute in my opinion like the radio soundbites that they call "songs" in the mainstream do. A DJ set is (or should be) a live performance where each track becomes an instrument to be played by the DJ, not just a track to be mixed into another. I started off in trance listening to live sets and radio shows, then I went for a few whole albums and almost lost intrest, now I've come back to the live stuff, I understand that the sterility of a compilation just kills the atmosphere and power of tracks. Also, there probably are as many producers as there are listener, that was another thing I always liked about the scene, because the people who listened also created, they knew good tracks when they heard them and rubbish when they heard it, this improved the quality. Also, it kept the scene tighter, because DJs wouldn't be separated from the fans by a metaphorical barrier like rock stars are - essentially, the DJs and the listeners were the same thing, one of them just happened to be playing the tunes right then, but the others might later that night, because they could.

Right on -- again.

quote:

Originally posted by mysticalninja A song isn't complete until it's in a mix. That's what this music is all about.

Agreed

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Right on -- again.

Heh, thanks, I keep expecting to get shot down by everyone for being an opinionated bitch, I'm glad Other's think similarly

quote:

Originally posted by kitphillips Yeah, I agree with you in that sense, people shouldn't be concerned with how a track will act in a DJs mix when they're making it. I also agree that people should be able to grab a song that they heard the night before off the Internet and listen to it without being bored. But I don't think that selling versions of the song without the intro and outro is preferable, it would be better to grab the whole set off beatport or whatever and then listen to that, because I suspect that if you just had the single song, even without the intros and outros, it wouldn't make sense. Contrary to what some people think, trance is very much live music to be played in a live context, it doesn't suit being dipped into just for a minute in my opinion like the radio soundbites that they call "songs" in the mainstream do. A DJ set is (or should be) a live performance where each track becomes an instrument to be played by the DJ, not just a track to be mixed into another. I started off in trance listening to live sets and radio shows, then I went for a few whole albums and almost lost intrest, now I've come back to the live stuff, I understand that the sterility of a compilation just kills the atmosphere and power of tracks. Also, there probably are as many producers as there are listener, that was another thing I always liked about the scene, because the people who listened also created, they knew good tracks when they heard them and rubbish when they heard it, this improved the quality. Also, it kept the scene tighter, because DJs wouldn't be separated from the fans by a metaphorical barrier like rock stars are - essentially, the DJs and the listeners were the same thing, one of them just happened to be playing the tunes right then, but the others might later that night, because they could.

interesting observation. I agree on quite a few points. Esp. about long intro/outro. Just got a hold of "Not the end" - I'm in love with that tune but I have to fast forward the first 3 minutes of it and then only 3.5 short minutes later it is over, with about 2.5 mins worth of filler left. So, out of almost 9minute track, there's only abut 3.5 of listenable material. And this is what is often known as "radio edit" -e.g. get rid of the fluff, get to the point edition.

quote:

Originally posted by kitphillips A DJ set is (or should be) a live performance where each track becomes an instrument to be played by the DJ, not just a track to be mixed into another.

ummm... to an extent, maybe. I personally love "old" feel of sets - e.g. letting some tracks breathe. The stuff you're talking about reeks of PvD and I've long abandoned the PvD Fanboiii club, lost my membership card, and stopped bothering with attending every gig he played in the area. He lost me because of exactly that - using Live too much and being all over the place, playing predictable styles in the cities he plays (e.g. NYC gets more "hard" stuff, other places get different, more melodic version).

quote:

Originally posted by emc^2 interesting observation. I agree on quite a few points. Esp. about long intro/outro. Just got a hold of "Not the end" - I'm in love with that tune but I have to fast forward the first 3 minutes of it and then only 3.5 short minutes later it is over, with about 2.5 mins worth of filler left. So, out of almost 9minute track, there's only abut 3.5 of listenable material. And this is what is often known as "radio edit" -e.g. get rid of the fluff, get to the point edition.

I'm of two minds about the radio edits. On one hand they get rid of the fluff, but like Mystical ninja said, a track isn't complete until its in a mix.
We had a DJ called Jimmy Z here a few years ago, and although he played mainstream house which I didn't particularly like, he did small miniturised mixes where he'd have between 2 and four songs mixed together as in a DJ set. Maybe that's the best way to prepare trance for radio, that way you preserve the context, remove the fluff and still get to listen to something which will not take up more than one car trip
Personally I'll stick to my live sets, but I understand why they might not work for some people due to length etc.

The intro/outro is generally what I find the most interesting in trance tracks these days.

quote:

Originally posted by kitphillips I'm of two minds about the radio edits. On one hand they get rid of the fluff, but like Mystical ninja said, a track isn't complete until its in a mix. We had a DJ called Jimmy Z here a few years ago, and although he played mainstream house which I didn't particularly like, he did small miniturised mixes where he'd have between 2 and four songs mixed together as in a DJ set. Maybe that's the best way to prepare trance for radio, that way you preserve the context, remove the fluff and still get to listen to something which will not take up more than one car trip Personally I'll stick to my live sets, but I understand why they might not work for some people due to length etc.

hehe ur sig should be a reply to this post dude

I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't always felt real good about EDM being played in any other context except a mix. Radio edits just dont do it for me personally. I just like the concept of a "mix", where the entire set builds and creates a sort of "journey".

Having said that, a good "mix" between two songs is one where both songs compliment each other, so I've always been a fan of the "Sasha"-style 3-4 minute mix and even the "stacks of tracks" style if it is done correctly. I always mixed that way when DJing.

quote:

Originally posted by Eric J I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't always felt real good about EDM being played in any other context except a mix. Radio edits just dont do it for me personally. I just like the concept of a "mix", where the entire set builds and creates a sort of "journey". Having said that, a good "mix" between two songs is one where both songs compliment each other, so I've always been a fan of the "Sasha"-style 3-4 minute mix and even the "stacks of tracks" style if it is done correctly. I always mixed that way when DJing.

+1

in fact that period of time where tracks meet to make new tracks has been my favorite in the mixes that got me into EDM (digweed spundae anyone)

quote:

Originally posted by Sean Walsh The intro/outro is generally what I find the most interesting in trance tracks these days.

Ha! I kind of agree, because I find that big breakdowns get tedious, especially if they happen a few songs in a row. I wish more trance producers would make tracks that kept up the beat from start to finish. That's what I'm trying to do, anyway.

well then you have dj's nagging "I like your track but the intro's too short to mix into"

quote:

Originally posted by Pjotr G well then you have dj's nagging "I like your track but the intro's too short to mix into"

Yeah, but that's their problem. It's the talentless ones who do most of the nagging.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Ha! I kind of agree, because I find that big breakdowns get tedious, especially if they happen a few songs in a row. I wish more trance producers would make tracks that kept up the beat from start to finish. That's what I'm trying to do, anyway.

If a breakdown goes too long I get bored. I try to keep mine short. Yep, keep the beat going. You can't ever forget that it's dance music you're making.

I've been thinking about this post and laughing to myself at how silly it is. It's obviously a joke/flamebait. It's OK to consider tampering with the EDM formula, until you realize that DJs have to mix tracks into a set. I was thinking about how a DJ would spin a track that was 3/4 or 7/8 time. OK, if the track started and ended in 4/4 time, then switched to another time signature in the middle of the song, that might work. The problem is, people don't like to dance to anything but 4/4. People at a dance club don't want to start waltzing in 3/4 time.

I listen to a lot of music that switches time signatures, like progressive rock and underground metal, but I don't think it would go over well in EDM. If might be funny to try it sometime though. I recently figured out how to change time signatures in FL Studio.

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