Which is my way of totally ignoring the fact that, yes, I do fail completely at logical fallacies
Posted by SYSTEM-J on Jan-12-2010 00:42:
Fair enough. The point is that a trance label most people on this forum jizz all over signed it, pressed it as a single and used it on their compilations. Before it became a multi-platinum major hit, this track was accepted by most of the trance community.
To be perfectly honest, the only reason Children is seen as the desecrator of all that is trance is because it was so popular. There were trance records with catchy hooks before Children, and there were even tracks which had what Children didn't: monstrous breakdowns and huge build-ups. Children is really just a softer and more emotional Italian replica of what German trance had been playing around with for years. I don't see why, say Kid Paul's version of Caf� Del Mar is any more hypnotic, any less tuneful or any less "accessible" than Children.
Children may or may not be crap. That's a seperate issue to whether it's "real trance" and whether it deserves the scapegoating it gets.
Posted by RebeL9 on Jan-12-2010 00:58:
I never felt Children being a bad track. It's a decent track. It sure as hell doesn't deserve all the bashing it gets.
Posted by Lews on Jan-12-2010 01:23:
Hey, I'm not saying I like it. I'm not saying I don't like Gouryella either. I just wouldn't put it into the same category as Octopus or Red Herring, other tracks on Vol. 2.
I don't know, I get all of these various genres confused, myself
Listening to Children and now Kid Paul's mix, however, and Caf� Del Mar sounds a lot less accessible (to me). It's a lot harder and has those synthesizers. I suck at describing songs, bleh.
Posted by identity7 on Jan-12-2010 09:05:
quote:
Originally posted by PETRAN
Now what you are saying about "real trance" dying has been said countless times before in this forum and it is to a certain extend true. "Classic Trance" is surely dead, meaning that the style of those tracks is not made nowadays. But genres are not steady and rigid entities but abstract concepts and memes that dynamically change. Trance has changed from the "classic" german sound to "epic", "melodic", "euphoric", "uplifting"-call it what you want- in the same way that rock'n'roll and elvis has changed to rolling stones, to pink floyd, to joy division,to nirvana, to my bloody valentine, to sigur ros to countless completely different things which come under the "rock" umbrella, some completely different and contrasting to what "real" rock'n'roll was all about. In trance, some guys were paying more attention to the melodic/arpeggio aspect. Further "euroish" and "brit-prog" influences were progressively making the sound more melodic, leading to the sound that we call "epic" or "uplifting" trance today. The end-result is very different from the "classic german stuff", but it is still a type of trance music since it partly developed from that early genre. No one would say that the dramatic and slow shoegaze rock (in which music is made through heavy wall-of-sound type distortions) is in any way related (musically ad conceptually) to early rhythmical "feel-good" rock'n'roll. But no one would also argue that shoegaze-rock is not "true" rock". It is not the classic rock'' roll-sure- but it is a type of rock music since the general consensus has agreed on that as the rock influences were evolving through-out the years. So i wouldn't say that modern "epic" stuff is not "real" trance, it is just not "classic trance". Its s different sub-genre that evolved form that early now-dead genre. Like Miles Davis "cool jazz" which is not very similar to early "swing-jazz" and countless other examples. It happens in music all the time.
Your post would make sense if you didn't forget about Euro-pop/Euro-dance which "developed" from stuff like Modern Talking, Captain Jack, Sequential One, Mr. President, Two Unlimited before trance even became known and a common word to describe the undeground genre.
Now tell me which of those three have the most in common?
Just because they have 4/4 beat and are electronic doesn't make them the same.
So your post makes no sense. And what does rock which was always mainstream and followed formulas for crowds have to do with anything?
Posted by identity7 on Jan-12-2010 09:52:
quote:
Originally posted by Trance-MB
That he hated Miles again doesn't make it not trance at all.
Of course. Children having nothing in common with trance is what makes it not trance. I remember when it came out noone was calling it trance, even the beacon of commercialization - MTV - was calling it "dream house". I'm pretty sure the term sounds familiar.
You asked which of trance artists of that time didn't consider it trance - you got your answer. Whether it was trance or not wasn't the point in that very part of reply.
quote:
Trance wasn't even that popular when Tiesto and Ferry started. Marketing as we now know it IMO again came later.
Marketing was always there. Oh and trance was popular enough, it just wasn't mainstream. Tiesto and Ferry weren't pioneers of commercial stuff as it already was there, they were just talented businessmen that started the whole "trance"-pop-star trend by spinning only the most popular stuff. But at first Tiesto at least (Ferry wasn't that much of a DJ) did spin trance so the name stuck to him. What Tiesto spins now can't be called trance at all no matter which excuses one may find - yet people still call it trance.
quote:
No, there is more then just sound. PC's could steer synthesizers in a way which was very difficult to do manually.
PCs could steer synthesizers in the very beginning of '90s just fine. That's nothing new.
quote:
Then also the number of simultaneous tracks increased to a level there wasn't demand for more.
The number of simultaneous tracks was never limited. You just plug in 10 VSTs now instead of plugging in 10 synths. Which explains the large number of synths in studios at the time and in a way it was a very good thing for music because equipment of that time all had unique sound due to different hardware elements starting with transistors and ending with DSPs which all had different architecture and this of course affected sound very hard.
Of course it was expensive - but again it was a plus because it was a great filter for "bedroom musicians" who turned electronic music into a repetitive garbage it is now.
quote:
I meant "blow me away" like that's one of the best ever or e.g. top200. Has nothing to do with hands in the air.
No what I mean is that if anyone's preferences are more with pop stuff like what Armin/Tiesto/A&B/Ferry/etc spin trance shouldn't blow away because it's very different.
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Begging the question fallacy. Sorry man, but you're really bad at this. Besides, Children was originally signed to Platipus which should give it back what old-school cred Lieb took away.
So just because it was released by Platypus makes in Trance?
Even Eye-Q released a -rap- album in its time.
@Rebel9:
Children is a good tune, in fact I like quite a number of stuff of Miles. But it just isn't trance.
Posted by RebeL9 on Jan-12-2010 09:53:
The fact is also that alot of the so called trance of today got more in common with pop music than it's original trance. So using the term "pop trance" is perfectly legitimate.
Originally posted by RebeL9
The fact is also that alot of the so called trance of today got more in common with pop music than it's original trance. So using the term "pop trance" is perfectly legitimate.
Heh, I really fail to see how anyone can draw a paralel between this and trance like it can be done with Mick Jagger and his 30 years old stuff and stuff like Franz Ferdinand if we are to talk about rock.
Posted by klappa on Jan-12-2010 10:01:
quote:
Originally posted by RebeL9
The fact is also that alot of the so called trance of today got more in common with pop music than it's original trance. So using the term "pop trance" is perfectly legitimate.
But that latino girl in the Going Wrong video was hella hot! A sure way to get innocent boys like me forcing me to listen to such crap Posted by evo8 on Jan-12-2010 10:45:
I wonder when Armin finally hangs up the headphones will he ever look back at some of that stuff and think "What in the fuck was I doing back then"
That "going wrong" - call it trance, pop-trance, pop music, dance or whatever, its just so bad
Posted by infiniteJEST on Jan-12-2010 12:35:
quote:
Originally posted by evo8
I wonder when Armin finally hangs up the headphones will he ever look back at some of that stuff and think "What in the fuck was I doing back then"
That "going wrong" - call it trance, pop-trance, pop music, dance or whatever, its just so bad
He admits to making/playing music for his fans. His personal preference is darker, moodier trance without the overdone buildup/breakdown formula. Think Blue Fear.
Posted by PETRAN on Jan-12-2010 13:56:
quote:
Originally posted by identity7
Your post would make sense if you didn't forget about Euro-pop/Euro-dance which "developed" from stuff like Modern Talking, Captain Jack, Sequential One, Mr. President, Two Unlimited before trance even became known and a common word to describe the undeground genre.
Now tell me which of those three have the most in common?
Just because they have 4/4 beat and are electronic doesn't make them the same.
So your post makes no sense. And what does rock which was always mainstream and followed formulas for crowds have to do with anything?
Yes, thats what im saying in my post, look carefully, that "euroish" stuff and "brit-prog" influenced the development of uplifting trance. What the f*ck don't you agree with? Thats what happens in music all the time, there can substantial inter- (and intra-) genre influences and cross-fertilizations. I mentioned rock music-a subject which you are clearly ignorant and don't have a clue about (and it is my humble opinion that if you are clearly ignorant in one subject then it is good to NOT be as opiniated because the only thing you show is your massive stupidity)-because it is now a huge genre with lots of sub-genres just to show that things like that happen all the time in music IN GENERAL not just trance. People invent names for genres but genres are not rigid, they change all he time. They are not objective descriptions of truth. There is no
objective "trance-meter" that demonstrates the amount of objective "tranceness" in a tune, trance is only what people say to be and so uplifting trance happens to be a sub-genre of trance. "Trance" is just a "name" invented in germany for a german type of techno and even back then there were substantial variations under that name. Personally i never felt "entranced" by that music since even back then it wasn't very repeatetive e.g. the stuff by Resistance D, Cosmic Baby etc,. were linear with developing melodies, arpeggios and sounds.
As i said before "trance" (like any other genre of music) is just an attempt to describe a certain category, its a label, it is not the essence of the thing. I personally never felt "blue" by listening to blues (or modern...r n b...), "metal" does not involve some kind of "metallic instrument", "black metal" is not "black" and "power metal" doesn't have "power", house is not just the music played in the warehouse, or any house, techno is not technological music-no more technological than house, drum n bass, trance or even some forms of modern rock music, IDM is not the most "intelligent" music ever, (music doesn't have intelligence in the first place) and there are no IQ tests to measure the I in IDM.
Genre-names are not ontologically identical with the categories of sounds they try to describe. They are just helfull labels that try to organize the vast chaotic world of music. Epic or uplifting trance happened to derive from that early trance genre, which yes shared some of the same elements (arpeggios and pianos anyone? Dance 2 Trance? Cosmic Baby? Jam & Spoon?). Thats all there is to it.
Posted by SYSTEM-J on Jan-12-2010 14:25:
quote:
Originally posted by identity7
So just because it was released by Platypus makes in Trance?
Even Eye-Q released a -rap- album in its time.
No, just as Lieb hating it doesn't preclude it from being trance. Trance-MB, for all his stupidity, didn't ask you which producers publicly hated the track, so this Lieb business is a fairly weak attempt at indirect inference of your point, as is going on what that bastion of knowledge MTV labels a track. Which is why I deliberately brought in similar weak inference such as it being signed to Platipus to show you can prove and disprove anything in that way. And again, "It's not trance because it doesn't sound like trance" is just glaring circular logic.
It's not even that I disagree with you about the idea that most modern trance is basically Euro-dance without the rapping. I've just become thoroughly sick of this meta-narrative of the genre that says "real trance" died in 1996, Children killed it and everything before that date was brilliant and flawless and everything after that date was shit and fake. It's like a bedtime story read to children.
Posted by identity7 on Jan-12-2010 15:53:
@Petran:
Music can change, I wasn't denying that. However would it be rock music if rockers dropped guitars and replaced them with synths?
And now remember how it was in 2004-2006 with "trance" when pop with electro-guitars was labeled like one (and continues to this day with f.e. Dogzilla)
See my point in the previous post - there is 30 years difference between Jagger's music and Ferdinand's music however it still has the same style of how it's done and is full on similar elements.
So that was my point.
quote:
Personally i never felt "entranced" by that music since even back then it wasn't very repeatetive e.g. the stuff by Resistance D, Cosmic Baby etc,. were linear with developing melodies, arpeggios and sounds.
Repetitiveness is more of the defining element of techno, not trance.
Trance always had melodies and was pretty much about them - I think people say "entrancing" for the lack of a better word to describe a general mood - like if you'll take the stuff of artists you've mentioned you'll notice that it has relaxing, meditative melodies which at the same time remain good for dancefloor due to elements built around them - yeah music is the thing that's hard to describe with words - but you can notice that that was the central point of trance sound (how it came to be known) coming from Harthouse/EyeQ labels and their artists - something modern "trance" doesn't have at all.
Here is a good example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nCusX2UIWA&fmt=18
As for genres - some did get names because of their "essence". Metal does sound "metallic", like sawing a metal. And drum'n'bass is very self explanatory. Obviously not all genres are named randomly you know.
And genres are used to describe similar stuff right? Power metal/black metal/etc do sound like all other metal. Stuff that Armin, Above&Beyond, Ferry churn out doesn't sound like trance at all, has no elements in common (up to having acousting instruments replacing everything) but is being labeled like one. See the difference?
@System-J:
He asked which trance artists wasn't happy with how things were going for trance at the time, this was just an example.
quote:
"It's not trance because it doesn't sound like trance" is just glaring circular logic.
Or is it? You wouldn't call Madonna - heavy metal. Why? Because she doesn't sound like one?
quote:
I've just become thoroughly sick of this meta-narrative of the genre that says "real trance" died in 1996, Children killed it and everything before that date was brilliant and flawless and everything after that date was shit and fake. It's like a bedtime story read to children.
You are completely missing the point. There were poor trance records of course but they were trance records and there is a solid, nicely produced new stuff but it just isn't trance. That's all to it really.
The problem is only in that trance label is being put on everything today and much stuff is not only totally unrelated but not of a high quality either.
Posted by evo8 on Jan-12-2010 16:56:
quote:
Originally posted by couch-potato
He admits to making/playing music for his fans. His personal preference is darker, moodier trance without the overdone buildup/breakdown formula. Think Blue Fear.
Even so, i still wonder how he will feel about doing that when he looks back at his career.
Posted by rubez on Jan-12-2010 18:19:
Chelonis R. Jones - Pompadour (Dimitri Andreas Remix)
really classy track. dark with a minimalist edge, still has a nice violin melody, whispered vox/vocals.
another amazing tune not on youtube sadly is Mauro Picotto - Shark. fucking addictive brain food. the master.
Posted by PETRAN on Jan-12-2010 18:23:
quote:
Originally posted by identity7
@Petran:
Music can change, I wasn't denying that. However would it be rock music if rockers dropped guitars and replaced them with synths?
And now remember how it was in 2004-2006 with "trance" when pop with electro-guitars was labeled like one (and continues to this day with f.e. Dogzilla)
See my point in the previous post - there is 30 years difference between Jagger's music and Ferdinand's music however it still has the same style of how it's done and is full on similar elements.
So that was my point.
Repetitiveness is more of the defining element of techno, not trance.
Trance always had melodies and was pretty much about them - I think people say "entrancing" for the lack of a better word to describe a general mood - like if you'll take the stuff of artists you've mentioned you'll notice that it has relaxing, meditative melodies which at the same time remain good for dancefloor due to elements built around them - yeah music is the thing that's hard to describe with words - but you can notice that that was the central point of trance sound (how it came to be known) coming from Harthouse/EyeQ labels and their artists - something modern "trance" doesn't have at all.
Here is a good example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nCusX2UIWA&fmt=18
As for genres - some did get names because of their "essence". Metal does sound "metallic", like sawing a metal. And drum'n'bass is very self explanatory. Obviously not all genres are named randomly you know.
And genres are used to describe similar stuff right? Power metal/black metal/etc do sound like all other metal. Stuff that Armin, Above&Beyond, Ferry churn out doesn't sound like trance at all, has no elements in common (up to having acousting instruments replacing everything) but is being labeled like one. See the difference?
@System-J:
He asked which trance artists wasn't happy with how things were going for trance at the time, this was just an example.
Or is it? You wouldn't call Madonna - heavy metal. Why? Because she doesn't sound like one?
You are completely missing the point. There were poor trance records of course but they were trance records and there is a solid, nicely produced new stuff but it just isn't trance. That's all to it really.
The problem is only in that trance label is being put on everything today and much stuff is not only totally unrelated but not of a high quality either.
and by saying that black and power metal sound similar to "other metal" you obviously don't have a clue... i will provide you with two examples of two other metal "sub-genres" and even within closer time limits...(e.g. 20 years)which makes it more comparable to "trance"...
I can provide you with countless other examples to show you how vastly different things can get despite the fact that they come under the same "genre-name". Because "genres" are just labels not some kind of platonic objective truth. IMO, uplifting trance is much closer to classic trance if you compare it with the examples i posted. So you think that the early Cygnus-X/Brainchild records are not related to modern uplifting trance? Or Cosmic Baby's?
Uplifting trance IMO is much more related to that stuff (e.g. Humate etc.) than the poppy euro-dance stuff you mentioned or to any other house or techno. Do you think that Robert Nickson's "Spiral" is more related to the euro-dance stuff than the Eye-Q stuff? Give me a break...
and yes there were more cheesier "euro-er" records called "trance" even from back then..."trance" was never too homogeneous as a genre anyway...
I can't see how the modern Anjuna vocal-trance stuff is not related to the above stuff. In a matter of fact the modern Anjuna vocal trance stuff sound less cheesy than this tune.
As you said, "trance" was never too "trancey" (and when it was it was usually more "techno", you couldn't distinquish between them during those times). Trance was always about the arpeggios, the oh-so-emotional(-i-wanna-cry-and-kiss-the-random-person-who-is-dancing near-by) "xtc"-type" (usually) harmonic saw melodies and the pianos. Like the track you posted. There were degrees to those elements and uplifting trance is just the selective maximization of those elements (in a very similar "darwinian" evolution way)its more of a matter of quantity rather than quality. Thats all there is to it. Deal with (and get over) it if you are some kind of hardcore teenage fanboy who stucks to labels and genres. I used to do it when i was younger (even here) and it is crap.
And i don't care about trance (old or new) at all, i don't listen to EDM these days rofl (except for IDM but i don't strictly consider it to be EDM although it partly developed from it he). Some cool and sexy deep house or tech-housey stuff as well. Its always good for your health he.
Posted by rubez on Jan-12-2010 19:14:
REAL TRANCE!!! (dont be fooled by the sexy bitch on front)
Posted by enydo on Jan-12-2010 20:29:
I think the things I love most about trance music are all the inane pictures people use to post the stuff to youtube. I could entertain myself for hours just browsing through them.
Posted by Trance-M on Jan-12-2010 20:44:
quote:
Originally posted by identity7
Trance always had melodies and was pretty much about them
I think modern trance still has a lot of melodies. Just think away the vocals and what's left still is pure trance IMO.
quote:
You are completely missing the point. There were poor trance records of course but they were trance records and there is a solid, nicely produced new stuff but it just isn't trance. That's all to it really.
The problem is only in that trance label is being put on everything today and much stuff is not only totally unrelated but not of a high quality either.
I don't think SYSTEM-J is missing the point at all and there were huge amounts of crap trance, maybe even more then nowadays. The trance label is put on todays tracks because I think in basic most still are trance. That they sound like hundred others and have vocals doesn't change that.
But you say if it's solid and nice then it's not trance any more?
About Childeren: it got the dreamhouse label first, not trance. I guess it's one of these multilabel tracks. Loved it.
Many well know tracks started underground. E.g. I ordered the BBE - Seven days and one Week more than a year before it submerged. I heard it in a Belgium club (who always were ahead of things). Commercial success often came later.
Same happened with 2 Fabiola - Play this song. Sometimes the line between genres become vague. Jam&Spoon and The Mackenzie show this too.
Think many of todays tracks still have a lot in common with this IMO 1000% trance track of 1996. But if you then compare it to Corderoy - Kyree and listen very good I guess it's clear that one is much more complicated regarding number of layers or tracks.
Posted by Chimney on Jan-12-2010 23:04:
quote:
Originally posted by Trance-MB
I think modern trance still has a lot of melodies. Just think away the vocals and what's left still is pure trance IMO.
For being an "old-schooler" in trance you really have plenty of misconceptions.
Posted by floyd741 on Jan-12-2010 23:07:
Posted by RebeL9 on Jan-12-2010 23:13:
quote:
Originally posted by Trance-MB
I think modern trance still has a lot of melodies. Just think away the vocals and what's left still is pure trance IMO.
You also have to think away the 3 minute breakdowns. And the overuse of supersaws. Hmm anything else I've left out?
Posted by Woony on Jan-12-2010 23:23:
quote:
Originally posted by RebeL9
You also have to think away the 3 minute breakdowns. And the overuse of supersaws. Hmm anything else I've left out?
The offchain basslines and the overused vocal chops
But its not like every track made today does fit these stereotypes.
Posted by SYSTEM-J on Jan-13-2010 02:23:
quote:
Originally posted by identity7
@System-J:
He asked which trance artists wasn't happy with how things were going for trance at the time, this was just an example.
No he didn't. Let me quote back to you what he actually said, because you seemed to have forgotten:
"If you had a time machine you could go and check that. I can't remember anyone telling that wasn't trance back then really. Easy to say that many years later it's was closer to something else. But then many Bonzai track were closer to Happy Hardcore I guess..."
quote:
Or is it? You wouldn't call Madonna - heavy metal. Why? Because she doesn't sound like one?
Of course it is. Your example does nothing to change that. You can't say Madonna isn't heavy metal without first defining in undisputed terms what "heavy metal" is and then by showing that Madonna doesn't fulfil the criteria. Saying "she isn't because she isn't" is illogical bullshit.
Simple fact is that there have been a great many records that some people have called trance and others have called progressive house, or techno or breaks, or acid house. "Trance" has never been a neat and tidy term with a neat and tidy definition. If you want to claim any record isn't trance you have to first figure out what exactly makes a record trance. You haven't done that, and until you do your debate with Trance-MB will be never-ending, tedious and fucking stupid.
quote:
You are completely missing the point. There were poor trance records of course but they were trance records and there is a solid, nicely produced new stuff but it just isn't trance. That's all to it really.
No I'm not. You are missing my point. I'm not talking about fluff trance, however good it is. There are still trance records being released that fulfil the necessary criteria for being "real trance", whether it's new Union Jack material or modern prog-psy. There were hundreds of "real trance" records released in 1999, the apparent nadir of trance's pop debasement. Even Ishkur has admitted as much to me personally, and he's the reason 95% of you clowns are repeating these party lines in the first place.
Pages (24): «12345 [6] 789101112131415161718192021222324»
