TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- Trance "2.0"
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]

quote:

Originally posted by Titanium Give me some examples of what you think is good electro.

I *think* this can be enjoyable



It's not a masterpiece but it's certainly better than that Knife Party shit.

quote:

Originally posted by frostdude1 It's only been coined and made popular by the formerly good artists like Armin, Above and Beyond, Gareth and all those artists with popular shows that need to keep their shows going and appeal to larger masses while still holding on to the name of trance because they don't want to just call it commercial club music or whatever.

So Tiesto wasn't one of them?

quote:

Originally posted by fredjan I *think* this can be enjoyable It's not a masterpiece but it's certainly better than that Knife Party shit.

I do like the sounds of the 303's but the lead is not for me. Yeah I guess its better than knife party or afrojack I guess electro just isn't for me.

What happened to my beloved Trance?

This is an interesting topic for me and what has lead me to finally joining this forum. I�ve been away from trance for a few years due to school and more interested in industrial/electronic music. I�ve had a crazy desire to get back into it, expecting great things and running into many disappointments. So here�s my opinion.

No other genre of music has as many labels and sub-genres then Electronic music. Hell, I�ve been trying to figure out what �trap� is. (Not really�.I actually don�t care from what I know of it). It�s human nature to try and classify & stereotype things to simplify their understanding or to separate themselves from the mainstream. �Dude metal sucks, that�s why I�m into post deathmetal punk polka. My music is much more cutting edge and relevant than yours�.

From a superficial perspective it does seem silly to quivel over a name.

Yes, there are elitists in every genre who won�t accept change and listen to the same 20 records for 40 years. However, that said, I think there is justification in bashing on some of this new crossover stuff that is being labeled as �Trance� when it�s really something else.

It�s frustrating when you have certain expectations and then it falls completely short.

There is also more to Trance than just a name.

From an academic and music theory perspective there are legitimate pscho-accoustic phenomonens that occur when some of these "rules" are properly employed, to produce a trance like state. There are academic papers and thesis� written on the topic you can Google. Now, I don�t quantify my love of Trance music by this, but my point is that there is some stuff happening �under the hood� here that is missing in much of this �new� Trance I�ve come across.

But beyond that, a lot of what I�ve been hearing feels cheap and corporate and soul less.
IMHO the biggest appeal to Trance, is the musicality and emotion driven by the track. It seems like the artistry has taken a back seat to production. People are more concerned about synths and sounds than they are the music. Just because you have NI�s Massive - does not a musician make you.

One other observation - I have nothing against vocal trance, but I remember �Trance albums� that had one or two tracks containing vocals, but were very well done. Now it seems like vocals are on nearly every track and are used to bridge the gap into pop music to sell to a broader audience.

Armin Van Burren is like the 80�s hair band equivalent now...Trance needs a "Kurt Cobain" equivalent to come along and knock him on his pompous corporate ass. Ok, I said my peace. Back to the real world now.

Re: What happened to my beloved Trance?

quote:

Originally posted by w0nderl@nd No other genre of music has as many labels and sub-genres then Electronic music.

Not true. Black/Death/Doom metal seems to focus on sub genres in a fairly similar way. Also, the whole focus on sub genres seems to be a mostly internet thing. Sure at events people might distinguish between "trance" and "trance/prog" but it's unlikely to go that much further than that.

As for my thoughts on the subject: I think the way it currently works is fine really. At events people will know what kind've music it is based on what major genre it is, and if you want to know more details you either need to have gone before or maybe you can ask a dj who's playing beforehand. On the internet there's a bigger focus on subgenres and that tends to be good for describing styles without having to name artists. If there's a big divide between what's popular in a style (like trance) and another style (that might be darker, longer and more complex or similarly different) then that's exactly what sub genres are for. I'm sure if you asked people whether music was epic trance or trance 2.0/electro trance then they'd vaguely know which one it was.

I think abandoning a name fully is silly. Names for genres evolve dynamically and are very slow to propogate/take hold. If suddenly a label decided to throw parties that were previously called trance/prog trance and they now call them progolog people would just get confused which is why they doesn't happen very often. With the use of sub genres instead it can easily point to the fact that it's similar to the original style.

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