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

quote:

Originally posted by Sykonee Prydz is more Anthem House, something of a European invention (UK? Italy? Belgium? Why not all??), which has little to do with OG Chicago House beyond both using the classic four-to-the-floor rhythm. A lot of Eurotrance ended up adopting Anthem House's liberal use of, um, anthems (the big snare rolls and crescendo hooks), hence why they've sometimes been interchangeable throughout the years (and called Progressive House by lazy online marketers).

Isn't Chicago House crafting new music from existing records? Either laying drum tracks over classic soul tunes or mixing two on top of each other? Today's House music is not made this way, as far as I understand it.

What exactly do you mean by "today's house music"?

quote:

Originally posted by rattymouse Isn't Chicago House crafting new music from existing records? Either laying drum tracks over classic soul tunes or mixing two on top of each other? Today's House music is not made this way, as far as I understand it.

No, Chicago House was mostly created from existing hardware - Roland drum machines (especially the 909, not to mention the little silver box that gave birth to Acid House), Rhodes keyboards, a dude giving a monologue, and the like. DJs may have mashed a Chicago House record with a soul record during a set, but that's about the extent of it.

However, as the genre caught on, the gear became more prevalent, and people all over the globe tried their hand at making the Chicago sound, they often raided acappellas of soul and disco songs for sampling (they *loved* Loleatta Holloway acappellas). Once this caught on, American house producers did it as well. The classic 'jack-jack-jackin' Chicago sound was pretty much dead by '92, its sound coming off dated compared to the advances in music production, a relic of a scene in its primordial state.

Naturally, it came back in the mid-'00s, thanks to the power of retro.

Frankie Knuckles did germinate the idea of house by playing a drum machine under disco records and then making/playing tougher edits when new disco releases dried up at the start of the 80s. The first proper house records were more or less made from scratch though, using cheap gear that allowed kids in their bedrooms to make polyphonic dance records without getting ten session musicians into a studio, as disco required.

quote:

Originally posted by wotyzoid What exactly do you mean by "today's house music"?

House music produced today.

You would be wrong in that assertion, house music today is made all kinds of different ways. Sample based, Purely made through gear or computer, infused with real instruments, vocal, instrumental, take your pick.

quote:

Originally posted by rattymouse Isn't Chicago House crafting new music from existing records?

Sweeping generalizations like this will not help your understanding. Much like sampling had a heavy influence in hip-hop, sampling is not what defines it. The associations of continuity between house and say disco, soul and funk are more of a spiritual, esoteric nature and not based on methodology. "Chicago house was new music influenced by existing records" is more accurate and digestible.

Maybe it's better to just not get into trance music after all.

quote:

Originally posted by wotyzoid You would be wrong in that assertion, house music today is made all kinds of different ways. Sample based, Purely made through gear or computer, infused with real instruments, vocal, instrumental, take your pick. Sweeping generalizations like this will not help your understanding. Much like sampling had a heavy influence in hip-hop, sampling is not what defines it. The associations of continuity between house and say disco, soul and funk are more of a spiritual, esoteric nature and not based on methodology. "Chicago house was new music influenced by existing records" is more accurate and digestible.

It was a QUESTION. See the question mark in my text? What I wrote was not a generalization. I asked the question because virtually every song I see from Frankie Knuckles is some old soul song with a drum track laid over it.

I answered your question, asshole.

quote:

Originally posted by wotyzoid I answered your question, asshole.

You are a very kind person. You treat everyone new to this forum this way? Reported.

quote:

Originally posted by rattymouse You are a very kind person. You treat everyone new to this forum this way? Reported.

If you don't want to see a user's posts, you can go into their profile by clicking on the little button below each post and then selecting "Add this user to your Ignore list" at the bottom of their profile. In the case of wotyzoid, I can assure you it can be quite blissful. Except when people keep quoting what he's written, natch.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J If you don't want to see a user's posts, you can go into their profile by clicking on the little button below each post and then selecting "Add this user to your Ignore" list at the bottom of their profile. In the case of wotyzoid, I can assure you it can be quite blissful. Except when people keep quoting what he's written, natch.

Thank you very very much. Done.

So cute

Another beginner question from me. I dont want to start a new thread so will just continue on with this one.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I have a looong history with music before I found Trance/EDM. I've been to easily 150-200 rock concerts over my 50 years on the planet and enjoy live music tremendously. The performance of music is easily the most enjoyable part to me.

I've never been to a Trance show, but have seen many on youtube. I don't get the performance part of Trance. It seems virtually 100% canned/playback. This is NOT a criticism from me. I am not trying to slag off anyone. It may sound like I am but please trust me. I am trying to learn here.

All the shows I see online show a crowd that is MASSIVELY into the performance. That is undeniable. Yet from my listening, tracks seem 99.9% identical to studio versions. The DJ's twiddle knobs, but I cannot for the life of me tell what input they are providing. It does not seem like much of a performance, from a musical perspective. Even the vocals are canned.

Still, I would dearly love to hear this music live one day. I live in the Detroit area so I think there's a reasonably good chance it will happen. But until then, I want to learn about what it is these DJ's are actually doing, if anything.

Edit: For reference sake, this is the type of live performance I'm talking about.

Regarding rock and dance, do you remember these two from the 90's?



Any love left for trance with guitars?

I think this would be nice to hear live, Armin's brother Eller, most other shows IMO are more for the show and fun than real DJ performance, but that's just my personal feel. I always preferred clubs although my going out days are over and most clubs are closed for years:

No, you pretty much nailed it. Trance concerts - at least with the superstar acts like Armin, A&B, etc. - are all about spectacle than any actual musical performance. Remember that most of this music is made in-studio, with dudes sitting at computers, editing and arranging tracks with a mouse. They'll play a hook or melody in a synth keyboard or drum machine, but the process of creating trance like theirs is actually rather boring to watch. It's always been a scene centered around DJs rinsing out the tracks in clubs and raves.

Then Paul Oakenfold took things to a ludicrous level when he got to be the opening DJ for U2, realizing he could adequately play trance records to stadium sized crowds and have them cheer endlessly for doing such minimal work. Soon after dudes like Tiesto, Armin, and a lot of guys getting lots of votes in online popularity polls followed suite, upping the ante in the spectacle of such concerts while never actually having to do much more than put on a new record every 5-7 minutes and hop around, doing Jesus poses during breakdowns.

Which hey, for fans of this stuff, that's fine. Apparently all most trance fans (Eurotrance fans, specifically) want is to go to a big light show, see their favourite producers behind a wall of lights, and hear their favourite ch00nz exactly as they hear them on the CDs, radio streams, and YouTube channel. If that's all they want, then as the Fatboy Slim compilation asked, "why try harder?"

Isn�t the obvious answer that they�re DJing, not performing �live�? DJs play the recorded versions. For a normal club crowd, the excitement of seeing a DJ play is because:

A) You don�t know what they�re going to play. A DJ set is an improvised performance and so there�s no guarantee of what well-known hits you�ll get. Much of the music will be unknown to the audience, and some of won�t even be released yet. So the performance aspect comes not in watching a visual spectacle and a tweaked rendition of something you already know, but the flow and energy of the DJ�s set and their manipulation of the crowd�s mood.
B) Dance records are engineered specifically to play on huge club sound systems, and until you�ve heard a track in a club you�ve never really heard its full frequency range and its visceral power. So even the exact same track you already know is going to sound far more powerful.
C) Drugs.

Of course, trance crowds are different in that they put more stock in the big flashy visuals, the stage design and the silly prancing and posing of the DJ behind the decks. I can�t really answer why that part is so popular, because I hate all that shit.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Isn�t the obvious answer that they�re DJing, not performing �live�? DJs play the recorded versions. For a normal club crowd, the excitement of seeing a DJ play is because: A) You don�t know what they�re going to play. A DJ set is an improvised performance and so there�s no guarantee of what well-known hits you�ll get. Much of the music will be unknown to the audience, and some of won�t even be released yet. So the performance aspect comes not in watching a visual spectacle and a tweaked rendition of something you already know, but the flow and energy of the DJ�s set and their manipulation of the crowd�s mood. B) Dance records are engineered specifically to play on huge club sound systems, and until you�ve heard a track in a club you�ve never really heard its full frequency range and its visceral power. So even the exact same track you already know is going to sound far more powerful. C) Drugs. Of course, trance crowds are different in that they put more stock in the big flashy visuals, the stage design and the silly prancing and posing of the DJ behind the decks. I can�t really answer why that part is so popular, because I hate all that shit.

I can certainly understand point B above. That's why I hope one day to hear this type of music live. Regarding point C, I can also relate somewhat in that back in the day, I used to enjoy a bit of pot while listening to Pink Floyd or other music. I dont think I'll ever step into whatever it is that EDM people indulge in.

Thanks for your feedback!

quote:

Originally posted by Sykonee No, you pretty much nailed it. Trance concerts - at least with the superstar acts like Armin, A&B, etc. - are all about spectacle than any actual musical performance. Remember that most of this music is made in-studio, with dudes sitting at computers, editing and arranging tracks with a mouse. They'll play a hook or melody in a synth keyboard or drum machine, but the process of creating trance like theirs is actually rather boring to watch. It's always been a scene centered around DJs rinsing out the tracks in clubs and raves. Then Paul Oakenfold took things to a ludicrous level when he got to be the opening DJ for U2, realizing he could adequately play trance records to stadium sized crowds and have them cheer endlessly for doing such minimal work. Soon after dudes like Tiesto, Armin, and a lot of guys getting lots of votes in online popularity polls followed suite, upping the ante in the spectacle of such concerts while never actually having to do much more than put on a new record every 5-7 minutes and hop around, doing Jesus poses during breakdowns. Which hey, for fans of this stuff, that's fine. Apparently all most trance fans (Eurotrance fans, specifically) want is to go to a big light show, see their favourite producers behind a wall of lights, and hear their favourite ch00nz exactly as they hear them on the CDs, radio streams, and YouTube channel. If that's all they want, then as the Fatboy Slim compilation asked, "why try harder?"

Jesus poses! Hilarious! I'm just taken aback a bit but what I see in these music videos. The people REALLY seem totally blown away by the experience. Good for them. I'm not trying to dump on them or anything. Even if this music isn't considered all that great as far as trance music, it still is (at least to me), pretty underground type music. I dont see this stuff on the radio or in the greater culture. I dont know how people find out about this music but they do and in large numbers. I have no problems with people enjoying their music.

I wonder how many more mid-life crisis victims we are gonna get strolling in after this. This guy is interested in spectacle, not music.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Frankie Knuckles did germinate the idea of house by playing a drum machine under disco records and then making/playing tougher edits when new disco releases dried up at the start of the 80s. The first proper house records were more or less made from scratch though, using cheap gear that allowed kids in their bedrooms to make polyphonic dance records without getting ten session musicians into a studio, as disco required.

Building a home studio in the 80s was actually pretty expensive, I recently read an article about how Marshall Jefferson had to take out a ten thousand dollar loan (over twenty grand adjusted for inflation) to build a basic studio with a couple of synths and a 707. The 303 was the only piece of gear that was actually cheap at the time. Obviously, it's still much more attainable than hiring a bunch of session musicians but I think the "cheap gear" myth has been a bit exaggerated by dance music history. A lot of the early Chicago records were made with shared or borrowed gear because it wasn't actually affordable for kids. Likewise, I recently heard in an interview that a 909 was already around 2000-3000 DM (roughly equivalent to the Euro when adjusted for inflation) around '93 in Germany.

Yeah, but have you compared those prices to 70s studio gear? They're extremely expensive by modern "torrent cracked copy of Logic" standards, you're right, but didn't Marshall Jefferson famously get talked into buying the whole shop by the salesman, much to the mirth of his friends? And he bought brand new, I believe.

Here�s the story. I�ve heard it told in slightly different ways down the years:

quote:

I hated dance music. I thought it was wimpy! laughs Jefferson (hes still a big fan of Yes and Genesis). Inspired by Saunders, he went into the local music store to buy himself some audio production gear. We went to a music store, me and a friend of mine, who played guitar. This guy at the music store showed us a sequencer. He said, With this thing you can play keyboards like a real keyboard player. And my friend said, Thats bullshit, you gotta take lessons. I was like, No, man, I believe him. Im gonna buy it. The only reason I bought it was I thought that must be what Jesse Saunders is using. I didnt know he had a keyboard player playing all his shit. He said, Wait a minute, you dont want this sequencer and not have a keyboard to play, do you? Oh yeah, youre right. So I bought the keyboard too. Then he said, Hey, you dont want to have this sequencer and this keyboard and not have a drum machine to play with them? This went on until Jefferson left the store $9,000 poorer. That night, his friends came over and had a good old laugh at Marshalls spending spree. Stupid motherfucker bought all this shit and dont even know how to play nothin. What a stupid motherfucker

https://www.theransomnote.com/music...otes-parts-1-3/

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Yeah, but have you compared those prices to 70s studio gear? They're extremely expensive by modern "torrent cracked copy of Logic" standards, you're right, but didn't Marshall Jefferson famously get talked into buying the whole shop by the salesman, much to the mirth of his friends? And he bought brand new, I believe.

Yeah, but most of the gear he bought was still new in the 80s and wasn't just thrown into pawnshops like the 303. What I was saying is that there's this myth that in the 80s you could pick up an entire top of the line analog studio for nothing which just isn't true for the most part.

But you are right, in the 70s it was pretty much impossible to build a home studio unless you were someone like Jarre or Kraftwerk.

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