Originally posted by enydo
I was just saying because you seem to really look down upon people who like that stuff.
I like the way that older stuff sounds, the energy it has and the way many of the tracks develop. I mostly enjoy the darker dirtier stuff, think Digweed's old GU comps. I can't listen to modern prog/trance at all really, but I still love the older stuff, and in my case it can't possibly be nostalgia. I'm young though I suppose, so maybe it's just my tastes being very underdeveloped.
whatever
I'm sorry if I offended you - what I wrote was in no way intended to be personal to you or to anyone. I'm just talking about the music itself.
People like the same thing for many different reasons.
Anyways I think it's pretty undeniable that the subject matter of many of these tracks is exactly what I described. Like I said, you might like how they sound regardless of that layer of thematic content. Music operates on several different levels like this.
That being said, if you're not interested in that content then doesn't it seem superfluous?
My liveset at barton hall for instance was designed to be like a trance set minus all of that junk. (except for stella which is a guilty pleasure of mine ) i'm not afraid to say I can be terribly nostaglic.
Posted by MrJiveBoJingles on Jan-07-2009 05:01:
I love me some mid-90s prog cheese.
Posted by PETRAN on Jan-07-2009 05:04:
quote:
Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
I disagree. There are a number of differences.
For one, almost the whole entire sound of the progressive trance from 1995-2000 is basically unheard of today. A lot of this has to do with, at least I think, the technology used to produce the music.
Music up to 2000 was mostly hardware generated, rack synths, effects racks, midi sequencers, hardware mixers. Yea there was computers but most of it was for arrangement and not instrumentation.
I think this has a huge aesthetic difference to the music.
First of all i think that producers were used right from the mid-90s. Even in the case of using hardware, the production-quality can be different (and it was, for f*cks sake it was almost 10-15 years ago!) but the structure and overall ideas and aesthetic were...exactly the same! I mean developing arpeggios, diva-vocals at times, epic melodic lines and pads giving you impressions of unicorns etc (just kidding with the unicorns i personally like them).
I'm not saying that the mid-90s trance wasn't different, it was but just not that hugely different, and to tell you the truth the approach and concept was identical! It was the production-techniques of the era and the absence of previous similar music that (naturally) resulted in the (small IMO) difference. Now i'm not even saying about the end-of-90s trance. That was almost exactly similar.
The only reason that people view today's epic and progressive trance as of lower quality in comparison to 90s epic and progressive trance is simply because the sound is relatively similar and hence they are naturally bored of it (same concepts, ideas etc.)accusing the sound itself for their boredom. Truth is that this is how music is. A lot of music not just trance, at least the music that has been here for a while, can stay similar (with similar concepts, ideas) for quite some time. The ideas and concepts behind modern mainstream-rock stuff are NOT that different from the ideas and concepts of some 90s mainstream-rock stuff. The same goes e.g. for modern deep-house and many other genres. Peoples preferences usually change faster than the music itself. This doesn't mean that the sound doesn't have quality for a "new-comer" to the genre. Its quality is comparable/similar to the older epic and progressive sound.
Posted by Chimney on Jan-07-2009 05:07:
quote:
Originally posted by nefardec
People like the same thing for many different reasons.
This might be one of the factors which makes people swap from a style of music to another when they find themselves identified to people they do not like and try to reach for a more elitist sound.
At a point you fall into that jaundiced zone (as montana called it) and you are ripped between love, memory and elitism. If you fall for the latter and change your listening habbits - after a few years one becomes an "elitist" on every genre. What happends when one feels one has conquered all electronic sounds?
(do I make any sense?)
Posted by MrJiveBoJingles on Jan-07-2009 05:10:
quote:
Originally posted by Chimney
What happends when one feels one has conquered all electronic sounds?
Then you forsake music entirely and retreat to a temple and meditate.
Or maybe you go back to all-acoustic live folk rock. Or classical.
Or maybe you start listening to noise to cleanse your brain of all those cheesy melodies you ingested over the years?
Posted by enydo on Jan-07-2009 05:11:
quote:
Originally posted by nefardec
That being said, if you're not interested in that content then doesn't it seem superfluous?
I suppose I am interested in content like that, to an extent. Every once in a while I just get a huge urge to throw on something upbeat and raucous. Then, maybe a couple hours later, I'd be more inclined to put something on like one of your sets for instance. My tastes are quite varied inside and outside the world of edm, but I'm always astounded by the huge schisms that exist within edm. It comes with the territory I guess seeing as most of the sub-genres are so vastly different while sharing similar aspects.
And don't sweat it, I wasn't offended just curious. I also agree entirely with what you said earlier about trance etc.
Different strokes for different folks I suppose, I just find myself liking lots of different things inside the world of edm. Who knows though, I'm only on the verge of turning 21, maybe in a few years time I'll move on.
Posted by PETRAN on Jan-07-2009 05:12:
quote:
Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
I love me some mid-90s prog cheese.
I love it too! I will take mid-90s "cheese" (and cheese is a dirty word...lol) anyday in comparison to any modern hipster-techno stuff.
And its bloody stupid to call anything which has some kind of emotional-provoking melody as "cheese", capable of releasing "unicorns", but i guess that those melodies are no cool in our modern cynical technocratic society lol.
Posted by Chimney on Jan-07-2009 05:13:
quote:
Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Then you forsake music entirely and retreat to a temple and meditate.
Or maybe you go back to all-acoustic live folk rock. Or classical.
Or maybe you start listening to noise to cleanse your brain of all those cheesy melodies you ingested over the years?
What's your current position?
Posted by MrJiveBoJingles on Jan-07-2009 05:19:
quote:
Originally posted by Chimney
What's your current position?
I have actually tried all three of those (well, I didn't actually go to a temple), but never for very long.
I don't think I really believe in "conquering" new forms of music like that anymore, though. It seems like kind of a silly attitude, like when I was in my early teens and tore up all the journals I had written as a little kid. Too "cool" to acknowledge my old self, right?
Congratulating yourself too much is always a danger...
Posted by Chimney on Jan-07-2009 05:24:
quote:
Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
I have actually tried all three of those (well, I didn't actually go to a temple), but never for very long.
I don't think I really believe in "conquering" new forms of music like that anymore, though. It seems like kind of a silly attitude, like when I was in my early teens and tore up all the journals I had written as a little kid. Too "cool" to acknowledge my old self, right?
Congratulating yourself too much is always a danger...
Was refering to "conquere" in an abstract way. One of the magic sides of EDM is that you never know which style will cross your path.
Posted by PETRAN on Jan-07-2009 05:24:
quote:
Originally posted by enydo
I suppose I am interested in content like that, to an extent. Every once in a while I just get a huge urge to throw on something upbeat and raucous. Then, maybe a couple hours later, I'd be more inclined to put something on like one of your sets for instance. My tastes are quite varied inside and outside the world of edm, but I'm always astounded by the huge schisms that exist within edm. It comes with the territory I guess seeing as most of the sub-genres are so vastly different while sharing similar aspects.
And don't sweat it, I wasn't offended just curious. I also agree entirely with what you said earlier about trance etc.
Different strokes for different folks I suppose, I just find myself liking lots of different things inside the world of edm. Who knows though, I'm only on the verge of turning 21, maybe in a few years time I'll move on.
You don't have to think in "black and white" about anything, thinking in extremes is only bad (not only about music, but about everything). Thinking about what the media say its "quality" and "hip" is also bad, because the media are not good indexes of actual quality. Creating rigid self-concepts about one's preferences is also bad. I mean some people listen and adore a genre of music like it is some kind of god or something, taking everything too personal (you don't want to criticise their preferences). You don't have to strictly follow a genre/scene. You just listen to anything you like. I rarely listen to EDM these days, but i don't have a problem for some deep-house, detroit and dub-techno, prog or epic-trance-be it 90s or modern Anjuna! (lol). I personally get similar impressions nowadays. When i was younger i would value a genre for an "X" reason (e.g. only older trance stuff because it is the "true" trance)and i would tend to really like it more! When i dropped these "mental-filters" i realised that the music is actually similar and it doesn't make a big difference if its old or young, or of different genres. If i like one specific tune i'll listen to it, be it from 1995 or 2009, techno or trance.
Posted by creon444 on Jan-07-2009 05:28:
quote:
Originally posted by PETRAN
I'm not saying that the mid-90s trance wasn't different, it was but just not that hugely different, and to tell you the truth the approach and concept was identical! It was the production-techniques of the era and the absence of previous similar music that (naturally) resulted in the (small IMO) difference. Now i'm not even saying about the end-of-90s trance. That was almost exactly similar.
But how can you insist that the concept and approach were identical? The approach of the early era = avoid unnecessary complexity, make extensive use of structurual repetitions to induce a trance like state, no breakdowns. The approach now = cram as much shit as you can into your track, add lots of echo effects, add another layer on top, run the whole thing through a filter, add another layer on top, run the whole thing through a phaser, add another layer on top, and finally add another layer on top.
This is nothing short of a radical change right there.
Posted by PETRAN on Jan-07-2009 05:32:
quote:
Originally posted by creon444
But how can you insist that the concept and approach were identical? The approach of the early era = avoid unnecessary complexity, make extensive use of structurual repetitions to induce a trance like state, no breakdowns. The approach now = cram as much shit as you can into your track, add lots of echo effects, add another layer on top, run the whole thing through a filter, add another layer on top, run the whole thing through a phaser, add another layer on top, and finally add another layer on top.
This is nothing short of a radical change right there.
Mate, did you listen to the tracks i posted? The thing you describe is only true about the very early trance thats what i'm saying all the time! Even early-90s Eye-Q stuff like Cygnus-X "Superstring" and "Positron", are more "proggy" and "epic". The majority of trance is not about what you say. And what are you trying to prove with all that? A change in direction= Not a change in quality anyway.
Posted by Renzo on Jan-07-2009 05:35:
It's very simple. Trance doesn't make me wanna dance.
Posted by Neo95gt on Jan-07-2009 05:35:
quote:
Originally posted by creon444
But how can you insist that the concept and approach were identical? The approach of the early era = avoid unnecessary complexity, make extensive use of structurual repetitions to induce a trance like state, no breakdowns. The approach now = cram as much shit as you can into your track, add lots of echo effects, add another layer on top, run the whole thing through a filter, add another layer on top, run the whole thing through a phaser, add another layer on top, and finally add another layer on top.
This is nothing short of a radical change right there.
90s trance def had breakdowns, layers and effects bro.
Posted by creon444 on Jan-07-2009 05:37:
quote:
Originally posted by PETRAN
Mate, did you listen to the tracks i posted? The thing you describe is only true about the very early trance thats what i'm saying all the time! Even early-90s Eye-Q stuff like Cygnus-X "Superstring" and "Positron", are more "proggy" and "epic". The majority of trance is not about what you say. And what are you trying to prove with all that? A change in direction= Not a change in quality anyway.
I'm trying to show that there are at least two definitions of "trance music" nowadays that are not interchangeable and in fact mutually exclusive.
And you're videos didn't show up, but it's probably my computer...
Posted by PETRAN on Jan-07-2009 05:38:
quote:
Originally posted by Renzo
It's very simple. Trance doesn't make me wanna dance.
Try some italo-disco. I always dance to that shit bro
Posted by Chimney on Jan-07-2009 05:43:
quote:
Originally posted by creon444
The approach of the early era = avoid unnecessary complexity, make extensive use of structurual repetitions to induce a trance like state, no breakdowns. The approach now = cram as much shit as you can into your track, add lots of echo effects, add another layer on top, run the whole thing through a filter, add another layer on top, run the whole thing through a phaser, add another layer on top, and finally add another layer on top.
This is nothing short of a radical change right there.
At least cramin' back in those days was innovational.
Posted by PETRAN on Jan-07-2009 05:47:
quote:
Originally posted by creon444
I'm trying to show that there are at least two definitions of "trance music" nowadays that are not interchangeable and in fact mutually exclusive.
And you're videos didn't show up, but it's probably my computer...
Yeah what definitions? That trance is the "hypnotic/layered/acid" sound and that it is different from the "melodic" sound? Trance was only "hypnotic" and "repeatetive" for something like...two years man! In 1991 and 1992 (maybe a bit of '93 as well lol) when trance was actually still techno. After that we started getting the "unicorn-melodies" and the rainbows and this is what actually characterised trance. There are degrees to epicness though and all evolved gradually. If one likes a mid-90s track which had a decreased number of unicorns (but still had) its his/her taste. But this its not THAT different.
Comparing a modern cheesy trance tune with a 90s prog-trance says nothing. I posted you two early and mid-90s cheesy trance tunes (Jam and Spoon-Angel and Ayla-Ayla 2) and one modern progressive trance tune (Jaytech-Solero from Anjunadeep) to saw you that the opposite can happen as well.
Posted by Chimney on Jan-07-2009 05:58:
quote:
Originally posted by PETRAN
Yeah what definitions? That trance is the "hypnotic/layered/acid" sound and that it is different from the "melodic" sound? Trance was only "hypnotic" and "repeatetive" for something like...two years man! In 1991 and 1992 (maybe a bit of '93 as well lol) when trance was actually still techno. After that we started getting the "unicorn-melodies" and the rainbows and this is what actually characterised trance. There are degrees to epicness though and all evolved gradually. If one likes a mid-90s track which had a decreased number of unicorns (but still had) its his/her taste. But this its not THAT different.
Comparing a modern cheesy trance tune with a 90s prog-trance says nothing. I posted you two early and mid-90s cheesy trance tunes (Jam and Spoon-Angel and Ayla-Ayla 2) and one modern progressive trance tune (Jaytech-Solero from Anjunadeep) to saw you that the opposite can happen as well.
What you're actually saying is that the early hypnotic sounds were actually a various form of techno, and that by default, even including the mid 90s, trance was melodic cheese and what it is today it's actually an evolution of those unicorns?
Posted by creon444 on Jan-07-2009 06:05:
quote:
Originally posted by PETRAN
Yeah what definitions? That trance is the "hypnotic/layered/acid" sound and that it is different from the "melodic" sound?
Yes.
One:
quote:
Trance was only "hypnotic" and "repeatetive" for something like...two years man! In 1991 and 1992 (maybe a bit of '93 as well lol) when trance was actually still techno.
Two:
quote:
After that we started getting the "unicorn-melodies" and the rainbows
...
quote:
and this is what actually characterised trance
This I disagree with. Who is to say that is what characterizes trance? People who started listening to it after the unicorns flew in?
Posted by nefardec on Jan-07-2009 06:08:
i think the thing that bores me most about trance is that the tracks are usually mixed so flatly. there's no volume, no space in the mix, no dynamic change. the tracks are produced to be stiff and shiny.
anyone who has heard my mixes knows what i like
this is probably what bores me about a lot of music other than trance too. I can't stand the new microtech house and pseudo deep house that is mixed like this either.
Posted by winston on Jan-07-2009 06:16:
quote:
Originally posted by nefardec
anyone who has heard my mixes knows what i like
Posted by Noisician on Jan-07-2009 06:51:
this thread sucks.
quote:
Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Melodic noise! *goes to pioneer that genre*
