
TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- Classics that "everybody" likes, except you.
Pages (10): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 »
Posted by isoterra on Oct-13-2004 08:03:
| quote: |
Originally posted by Radagast
If you hold that both eras shouldn't be called trance the problem still comes when as a result of one taking the name of the first, the original was destroyed. |
Destroyed isn't quite the word I'd use but defaced, overshadowed.. yes maybe, agreed... if you base your entire taste on genre labels.
| quote: |
| Of course I should be directing my discontent at the people who prefer epic/anthem trance...they helped destroy trance. |
I think you must have missed my point. Those people liked that sound, regardless of the name it was given. They didn't decide to call it trance, ergo, they didn't have a part in 'destroying' the old hypnotic sound which you admire.
| quote: |
| Actually I find it amusing that people are posing these questions to me. They have all been answered by other people on these very forums. |
Many topics get covered at least twice around here. I was interested in your opinion, however.
Posted by Radagast on Oct-13-2004 08:09:
| quote: |
Originally posted by isoterra
I think you must have missed my point. Those people liked that sound, regardless of the name it was given. They didn't decide to call it trance, ergo, they didn't have a part in 'destroying' the old hypnotic sound which you admire. |
Who did decide, and can you provide any logical reson why? Replace admire with respect.
| quote: |
Many topics get covered at least twice around here. I was interested in your opinion, however. |
LOL. That's a first.
Posted by DJ Cinos on Oct-13-2004 08:21:
You didn't answer me, Radagast! How was experiencing it back then better than reliving the change today?
Also, saying that trance was "destroyed" is foolish. It evolved.
Posted by Radagast on Oct-13-2004 08:26:
| quote: |
Originally posted by DJ Cinos
You didn't answer me, Radagast! How was experiencing it back then better than reliving the change today? |
I answered your question in two paragraphs. Because they were there when it evolved and see it from a perspective that no one else will quite be able to capture again. And this is a completely different question that the first one. I never claimed that experiencin it back then was 'better', but as you said in your first question, I think it gives them more insight.
Being as how epic trance replaced "classic" trance, and they both elicit different reactions from people, and structuarally they are different...i'd say destroy is a pretty good word. Iraq didn't evolve, it was destroyed and re-formed. Same concept with this particular strain of trance, except the re-forming caused the destroying.
Posted by isoterra on Oct-13-2004 08:31:
| quote: |
Originally posted by Radagast
Who did decide, and can you provide any logical reson why? |
Most likely a combination of event promoters, reviewers & publishers who put out compilations (eg. Ministry of Sound: Trance Nation) etc. As for a logical reason... I can only guess they wanted to put a 'cool' label on a newly emerging and popular sound to help it sell. Alot of it boils down to marketing at the end of the day, sadly.
Posted by DJ Cinos on Oct-13-2004 08:32:
| quote: |
Originally posted by Radagast
Being as how epic trance replaced "classic" trance, and they both elicit different reactions from people, and structuarally they are different...i'd say destroy is a pretty good word. |
It didn't replace the old trance, it just "grew from it", like a young tree growing from an old, fallen tree.
Posted by isoterra on Oct-13-2004 08:38:
| quote: |
Originally posted by Radagast
Cosmic Baby - Magic Cubes |
Any other examples with less annoying lead synths?
Posted by Radagast on Oct-13-2004 08:41:
| quote: |
Originally posted by DJ Cinos
It didn't replace the old trance, it just "grew from it", like a young tree growing from an old, fallen tree. |
What evidence do you have to support this? Tracks? Statements from people who have been in the scene for a long long time?
Posted by Radagast on Oct-13-2004 08:45:
| quote: |
Originally posted by isoterra
Any other examples with less annoying lead synths? |
If you don't like that you don't like classic trance. That's pretty much the epitome of what it's supposed to be. But whatever:
Union Jack - Two Full Moons And A Trout
Posted by DJ Cinos on Oct-13-2004 08:45:
| quote: |
Originally posted by Radagast
What evidence do you have to support this? Tracks? Statements from people who have been in the scene for a long long time? |
What evidence do you have to disprove it? Where do you suppose the "new trance" came from if not the remains of the old?
Posted by isoterra on Oct-13-2004 08:50:
| quote: |
Originally posted by Radagast
If you don't like that you don't like classic trance. That's pretty much the epitome of what it's supposed to be. But whatever:
Union Jack - Two Full Moons And A Trout |
Hah, well, the overall vibe I found fairly appealing... but the overall production quality and sounds used are undeniably dated, which made it harder for me to enjoy. I'll check out that other tune though, cheers.
Posted by Radagast on Oct-13-2004 08:59:
| quote: |
Originally posted by isoterra
Hah, well, the overall vibe I found fairly appealing... but the overall production quality and sounds used are undeniably dated, which made it harder for me to enjoy. I'll check out that other tune though, cheers. |
So it sounds disaffected, repetitive, formless and boring to you? Without any of the pop tricks to give it some sort of chorus climax that one can sing along to, it is definitely an acquired taste. It basically sounds like techno, only with melody instead of percussion.
Posted by Radagast on Oct-13-2004 09:02:
| quote: |
Originally posted by DJ Cinos
What evidence do you have to disprove it? Where do you suppose the "new trance" came from if not the remains of the old? |
Oh it came from the old trance. That doesn't mean it didn't destroy it.
Well i'm going to sleep now. Keep in mind that you're asking too important questions of a grossly unqualified person.
Posted by isoterra on Oct-13-2004 09:06:
| quote: |
Originally posted by Radagast
So it sounds disaffected, repetitive, formless and boring to you? Without any of the pop tricks to give it some sort of chorus climax that one can sing along to, it is definitely an acquired taste. |
Lol, it's somewhat of a mystery to me how you managed to extrapolate that from me saying the production quality and synth programming sounded dated, but whatever. Sounds more like you quoted my post without even reading it.
Posted by Radagast on Oct-13-2004 09:14:
| quote: |
Originally posted by isoterra
Lol, it's somewhat of a mystery to me how you managed to extrapolate that from me saying the production quality and synth programming sounded dated, but whatever. Sounds more like you quoted my post without even reading it. |
Production quality and sounds are dated? How? Because it sounds simpler? Techno is very simple. Minimal Techno is very very simple. What else you got?
Posted by DJ Cinos on Oct-13-2004 09:15:
| quote: |
Originally posted by Radagast
Production quality and sounds are dated? How? Because it sounds simpler? Techno is very simple. Minimal Techno is very very simple. What else you got? |
Simpler as in less advanced and not as in less complex.
Posted by ONION on Oct-13-2004 09:18:
| quote: |
Originally posted by Radagast
No way...listing a bunch of artists means i've narrowed down my knowledge? Is another list what you want? Will this prove one way or another what i've narrowed my knowledge to? Not really:
Union Jack
Electric Skychurch
Commander Tom
Emmanuel Top
Breeder
Castle Trancelott
Clanger
Hardfloor
Poltergeist
Marmion
Cosmic Baby
Arpeggiators
Resistance D
Spicelab
Pulse
Barbarella
Quietman
Dance 2 Trance
Pob
Visions of Shiva
Humate
Microglobe
A lot of repeat people in there, whatever. |
I take back the n00b comment
Posted by isoterra on Oct-13-2004 09:28:
| quote: |
Originally posted by Radagast
Production quality and sounds are dated? How? Because it sounds simpler? Techno is very simple. Minimal Techno is very very simple. What else you got? |
No, dated because the synth programming sounds basic, raw and primitive. Purely because of the technical limitations back then.
I'm not quite sure you can get over the fact that I thought it was musically decent... good gosh, a fan of uplifting liking this? Oh the shame!
Posted by ONION on Oct-13-2004 09:42:
| quote: |
Originally posted by isoterra
Hah, well, the overall vibe I found fairly appealing... but the overall production quality and sounds used are undeniably dated, which made it harder for me to enjoy. I'll check out that other tune though, cheers. |
Did u grab the Casper Pound Mix?
Posted by Redd on Oct-13-2004 11:07:
Cafe Del Mar, never liked it.
But sure, I'm a newbie, didn't start listening to trance until 98'. Before that it was all 2 Unlimited, Felix, Snap, Utah Saints and Prodigy. It's sad I have to excuse myself like this when I reply in this thread.
Posted by DJ Cinos on Oct-13-2004 11:08:
| quote: |
Originally posted by Redd
Cafe Del Mar, never liked it.
But sure, I'm a newbie, didn't start listening to trance until 98'. Before that it was all 2 Unlimited, Felix, Snap, Utah Saints and Prodigy. It's sad I have to excuse myself like this when I reply in this thread. |
Who says you have to excuse yourself?
Posted by kr00t0n on Oct-13-2004 11:15:
i only consider noobs to be starting round 2002+, 98 is old enough for me to consider 'well listened' 
Posted by DJ Cinos on Oct-13-2004 11:28:
| quote: |
Originally posted by kr00t0n
i only consider noobs to be starting round 2002+, 98 is old enough for me to consider 'well listened' |
I think I started REALLY trancing around 2002, before that only in small amounts. Around 2000 was when I started liking trance.
But I've ventured far back to find good music.
Posted by kr00t0n on Oct-13-2004 11:40:
| quote: |
Originally posted by DJ Cinos
I think I started REALLY trancing around 2002, before that only in small amounts. Around 2000 was when I started liking trance.
But I've ventured far back to find good music. |
thats what I like to hear 
ppl who have only recently started listening to trance sometimes take older tracks for granted, not taking into account what resources producers had to work with back then.
Also, the impact that older tracks had was more when they first came around, and I can use ATRC as an example, not really that old, but the majority of ppl when gaga over it when it first came out, then it got too popular, blah blah.
I think it's quite a testament when you look at my top 10 of all time personally:
1. Rodd-Y-Ler - Lifesigns ---1997
2. Binary Finary - 1998 (PvD) ---1998
3. Westbam vs Red Jerry - Wizards of the Sonic (Matt Darey) ---1998
4. Hybrid - Finsihed Symphony ---1999
5. Ralphie B - Massive ---2001
6. Orbital - Halcyon and on and on ---1992!!!
7. Dumonde vs Lange - Memory ---2001
8. Adam Sheridan - Lektrik ---2003
9. Green Court - Silent Heart (Flutlicht) ---2002
10. NU NRG - Dreamland ---2001
Only 1 of my top 6 fall in this century, and still think that wizards of the sonic sounds better than a lot of tracks made these days in terms of effects and overall quality of sound.
Posted by DJ Cinos on Oct-13-2004 11:56:
If I were to post my current top 5...
Hallucinogen - Shamanix (1995)
Chicane - Saltwater (1999)
BT - Deeper Sunshine (or embracing the future, not sure) (1995)
BT - Firewater (1997)
Infected Mushroom - Horus The Chorus (2004!)
I'm pretty sure I've just forgotten some newer tracks, but of these only one is post-2000.
Pages (10): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 »
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.