TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- What's your definition of cheese?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

What's your definition of cheese?

Just wanted to know what your definition of cheese was? E.g. Tracks that have been on the radio, tracks that are overplayed.

DJ Sammy - Heaven
ATB - Till I Come
Darude - Sandstorm

heh....

Cheese is like a guilty pleasure in my opinion.

Kate Ryan and Scooter can be mentioned, although they do have some enjoyable tunes.

A solid food prepared from the pressed curd of milk, often seasoned and aged


but seriously.... DJ sammy or scooter oooooooooooooooooooooor darude

hmm...

a will give you...

~> the definition

~> the list

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...term=cheese&r=f

not really helpful but eh...

THIS is cheese

There's some cheesy non-commercial stuff as well. To me cheese is anything that tries too hard to fit into a certain typeset.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sisterbliss
There's some cheesy non-commercial stuff as well. To me cheese is anything that tries too hard to fit into a certain typeset. [/QUOTE

What do you mean? I've heard Tiesto call what he does prog. and trance does that mean that his tracks are cheese?

quote:

Originally posted by Alexan quote: Originally posted by sisterbliss There's some cheesy non-commercial stuff as well. To me cheese is anything that tries too hard to fit into a certain typeset. What do you mean? I've heard Tiesto call what he does prog. and trance does that mean that his tracks are cheese?

Where did I say Tiesto's tracks are cheese?

I wouldn't say that popular trance tracks are cheesy, because I don't base my tastes on popularity.

quote:

Originally posted by sisterbliss What do you mean? I've heard Tiesto call what he does prog. and trance does that mean that his tracks are cheese?

Where did I say Tiesto's tracks are cheese? [/QUOTE]

No, what I meant is that I don't understand what you meant by saying trying too hard. Do you mean like groups like Brooklyn Bounce talking non-stop bs about how they're addicted to sound and rave and crap?

quote:

Originally posted by Alexan Where did I say Tiesto's tracks are cheese?

No, what I meant is that I don't understand what you meant by saying trying too hard. Do you mean like groups like Brooklyn Bounce talking non-stop bs about how they're addicted to sound and rave and crap? [/QUOTE]

Since when does what the artist says about the track have anything to do with how the track actually sounds? I feel this is where you're going with this, after having said Tiesto describes his music as such. Should I restate what I said earlier?

"There's some cheesy non-commercial stuff as well. To me cheese is anything that tries too hard to fit into a certain typeset."

Now where in that did I mention anything about what the artist thinks of the track? It's not about what the artist thinks of the track, it's about how I feel the track is coming across to the listener.

cheese is everything i don't listen to haha

quote:

Originally posted by sisterbliss No, what I meant is that I don't understand what you meant by saying trying too hard. Do you mean like groups like Brooklyn Bounce talking non-stop bs about how they're addicted to sound and rave and crap?

Since when does what the artist says about the track have anything to do with how the track actually sounds? I feel this is where you're going with this, after having said Tiesto describes his music as such. Should I restate what I said earlier?

"There's some cheesy non-commercial stuff as well. To me cheese is anything that tries too hard to fit into a certain typeset."

Now where in that did I mention anything about what the artist thinks of the track? It's not about what the artist thinks of the track, it's about how I feel the track is coming across to the listener. [/QUOTE]

Ok I understand now thank you. I probably shouldn't have said anything in the first place. The whole point of this thread was to find out people's definitions of trance. Sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by Alexan The whole point of this thread was to find out people's definitions of trance.

Then why ask peple what the definition of cheese is?

quote:

Originally posted by Radagast Then why ask peple what the definition of cheese is?

S**t where's my head today? I meant to say cheese but must've been thinking trance

Post of the year from Vigilante/AJ:
(I did not write this)

.......................................................................

quote:
Originally posted by Lionhead
Generally, cheese = commercial, bad, corny ect.


Exactly right.....

The problem is that some people seem to think that if a track is popular or it achieves some commercial success, then it automatically becomes "cheese".

A track can be popular amongst the trance community, but still be relatively underground, in the broad spectrum of music today. The thing that annoys me is when people immediatley label music "Cheese" because it is popular, or because everyone raves about it on the forums.

For example, today i read a thread where someone labelled
System F - Out Of The Blue cheese. This track is a trance classic that was innovative and new at the time it was produced. The track achieved a lot of success and helped to make Ferry famous, but it was produced with the music as a priority, not mass appeal or money. I think everyone would agree that the uplifting sound pioneered by Ferry Corsten has been overused, but that does not mean that a once great track is now "cheese".

Also, it is neccessary to make the distinction between commercial dance music, and dance music that has commercial success.

Commercial dance music like DJ Sammy, Ian Van Dahl, Lasgo etc is made with the intention of making money, it is made to appeal to the masses and it is very successful in doing this. I am sure some of these artists have made millions by making dance music with popular appeal. I don't really like those artists, and i don't really like the sound of the music they produce, or the seemingly formulaic nature of that music, but that does not neccesarily mean the artists have no musical ability or that they are worthless. Artists like DJ Sammy (just one example) have chosen to go down that path, but that is their choice. I think that commercial dance music that is created with the intention of having mass appeal and making a great deal of money is the definition of "cheese".

Trance music that achieves some commercial success is not really commercial music exactly. It is (generally) produced for the love of music, and because it is what people love to hear in our scene. Trance music with commercial success differs from commercial dance music, because the intentions behind the music are different. I'm sure that the up-and-coming producers Gabriel & Dresden did not anticipate the massive success of their track
Motorcycle - As The Rush Comes when they made it. They made the track because they are passionate about music, and it is what they love to do. Many people loved the track initally, but after hearing it a million times, they naturally began to tire of the track and some chose to label it "Cheese". Even more jumped on the bandwagon after ATRC achieved mainstream success, and they started hearing it on their local radio stations.

So basically, my point is that trance music (with commerical success) has vastly different motives to commercial dance music, and this is why it is NOT cheese, generally speaking. Of course there are exceptions, and there are borderline cases.

Next point: A track that becomes overplayed does not equate to the track being "cheese". I will use the example of As The Rush Comes again. ATRC has been played to death...i concede that. However, the track should be judged on production quality, innovation and the intentions of the producers when they made the track. I believe that it sounded quite fresh, it differed from other vocal tracks, it was made for the love of music and it was well-produced. I loved the track myself, but naturally my enthusiasm for the track dropped after a while. JUST BECAUSE YOU GROW SICK OF A TRACK, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES "CHEESE". I am sure many of you out there did not like ATRC at all from the outset, but once again, not liking a track should not mean that you automatically label it "Cheese". This brings me to my final, and most important point.

It is vitally important that we make the distinction between liking a track, not liking a track, and "cheese". It is possible to not like a track, but still respect the music, because it belongs to the genre that we all love: Trance. Hell, you can ignore the track, you can spread the word and sing to the hills that you HATE the track, but that does not necessarily make it "cheese". If you don't like a track, that is fine....music is subjective, everyone has their own taste. You are entitled to love, hate, like, dislike or feel ambiguous towards any track. However, i think that we should reserve the term "cheese" for the real cheddar out there: the commercial dance music like DJ Sammy, Ian Van Dahl, Sash or whatever else. Because "cheese" should really mean formulaic, boring, stale dance music that is made for the masses with the intention of making money. Cheese does not mean "oh, i don't like that style of trance, or i am sick of it, so therefore it must be cheese." I see too many people throwing the term around without really thinking about what they mean. I think that many people use the term cheese when what they really mean is that they don't like it.

If a track is innovative and it pioneers a new sound when it is released, then it deserves some respect, whether you like the track or not. The number of times you hear the track should not affect this. Obviously, it is impossible for all tracks to be innovative, and many producers have a distinctive style or sound to their music.

However, just because a track is not totally new, just because it is similar to something you have heard before, just because it is not your style, just because you don't like it, just because it is popular, just because it achieves commercial success, just because Tiesto or Paul Van Dyk or Armin plays it, just because it is not hardcore underground, this does not make it cheese!


*relaxes, breathes out, end of rant*

****DISCLAIMER******

This is just my opinion. Just remember that.

.......................................................................


Us Aussies are smart guys...................

quote:

Originally posted by Trance Nutter A track can be popular amongst the trance community, but still be relatively underground, in the broad spectrum of music today. The thing that annoys me is when people immediatley label music "Cheese" because it is popular, or because everyone raves about it on the forums. For example, today i read a thread where someone labelled System F - Out Of The Blue cheese. This track is a trance classic that was innovative and new at the time it was produced. The track achieved a lot of success and helped to make Ferry famous, but it was produced with the music as a priority, not mass appeal or money. I think everyone would agree that the uplifting sound pioneered by Ferry Corsten has been overused, but that does not mean that a once great track is now "cheese". Also, it is neccessary to make the distinction between commercial dance music, and dance music that has commercial success. Commercial dance music like DJ Sammy, Ian Van Dahl, Lasgo etc is made with the intention of making money, it is made to appeal to the masses and it is very successful in doing this. I am sure some of these artists have made millions by making dance music with popular appeal. I don't really like those artists, and i don't really like the sound of the music they produce, or the seemingly formulaic nature of that music, but that does not neccesarily mean the artists have no musical ability or that they are worthless. Artists like DJ Sammy (just one example) have chosen to go down that path, but that is their choice. I think that commercial dance music that is created with the intention of having mass appeal and making a great deal of money is the definition of "cheese".

Well let me respond to that with three statements from someone else (NOT ME):

In North America, there is a strong stigma towards commercialisation of various forms of music by eclectic social tribes who consider those forms of music as belonging to them.

There are people who completely and totally define their musical tastes based on popularity. It makes them feel individualistic, different, unique and hence better than everyone else to know that their music is their own private secret, to be worshipped and cherished and praised above all else. But when something they like becomes popular, this sense of individuality and specialness is lost. The music then is scorned and ridiculed, and in some cases expelled from their pantheon of music altogether. Trance enthusiasts have a tough time coming to grips with the fact that tracks like Alice Deejay and Ian van Dahl are trance, when they've had such overwhelming popular appeal. Other tracks, like Sandstorm, are also exorcised from trance canon, and DJs like Tiesto and Oakenfold are disrespected because they've acquired a sizable following of non-trance consumers. (for the record, I don't hate Tiesto and Oakenfold because they are popular. I hate Tiesto and Oakenfold because they suck. But I digress).

In Europe, this discrepancy isn't heartfelt as much. If anything, the lines often blur, especially on pop radio where deep, dark trance tunes will play side by side with Brittney Spears.

The reason why Europe is more palatable to electronic music in the first place is because of its universal appeal across so many varying cultures smacked close together like that. Lyricless music has tons of success in an area where 14 languages are spoken in a 500 mile radius. In America, where a very large mono-linguistic culture dominates, lyrics hold more weight, power, passion and meaning, and thus instrumental tracks are treated as gimmicks or not real music. Especially when the model of American audio and recording is focused on the star and the message. The music is a distant third when it comes to album-oriented marketing.

Thus: pop music is defined in America as music that has a star, has a message (however trite and shallow it may be), and has lyrics. This is a tidy schism to trance fans, who can avoid the pop world by simply avoiding lyric-filled, star-driven music accordingly, and preserve their sanctioned unconformity.

To answer the question, then: yes, top40 remixes are uncool. But that doesn't mean that they are wrong or bad in some way. The music must be judged on its own merit, and for what it's worth top40 R&B has actually been the more relentlessly experimentative genre out there, and it is now lightyears ahead of anything trance has done in the last 5 years. Sometimes top40 remixes can be pure genius, but if it carries that distinction of crossing the line from trance to pop (a very thin one indeed, and getting thinner all the time), it won't even be given the chance it deserves.

I really like Justin Timberlake and Kylie Minogue. How about you?

===================================================================

Furthermore, there seems to be a strong stigma against Ian van Dahl, Fragma, Alice Deejay and Lasgo....I've seen it before. Because of the unprecedented popularity of their tracks on pop radio, trance lovers (you know, the REAL trance lovers) have felt fit to expel them from the trance pantheon altogether, claiming that they aren't real trance, but some mutant hybrid of pop and Epic Trance. They refer to this music as "cheesy". But what is cheesy? Well...simply put, sacharine schmaltz. Music that really lays the emotion on thick, is never subtle, and in some cases is utterly ridiculous. Bubblegum trance. It seems to me that you have a voracious appetite for this cheese music, and wish to separate it from the more earnest kinds of Epic Trance. But the trance you supplied and the description you gave indicate that you're not really sure what constitutes actual Euro Trance, except for the fact that it's gotta be cheesy, and it's gotta have retarded vocals.

In Anthem Trance there's cheese. In Epic Trance there's cheese. In Dream trance there's A LOT of cheese. In Hard Trance there's a REAL LOT of cheese. And Dutch Trance is the living embodiment of cheese. But despite the gag-enducing pop-tartedness of these tracks, they're still representative of their respective genres. They still contain the same production tricks, the same layout, the same sounds and pads and leads, and they still evoke the same emotion from people. (whether that emotion is rage or bliss, however, is largely up to the listener).

This is an error that I see lots of trance listeners make: they define the music by how it makes them feel (and then, second, they organize it according to how popular it is. Nobody wants to admit anymore that Darude's Sandstorm is Anthem Trance, despite the fact that not only is it Anthem Trance, but one of the better ones to come out in recent years. That's part of the reason for it's unparalleled success). In doing so, they make up all sorts of crazy categories, one for each emotion supposedly. But all those categories really don't exist. And neither does "euro trance". At least, not until you can come up with more justifiable proof of its existence. Or unless you want to define "euro trance" as an umbrella for all cheesy trance music coming out of Europe (boy, is there a lot of it), like Anthem Epic, Dutch, Progressive, Hard, and probably Epic House and Eurodance too. The way "Hard Dance" is used to bunch together Happy Hardcore, NRG, UK Hard House, Freeform, Trancecore, and Hardstyle. <--- Though there might be euro cheese in that music too.

======================================================================

That's a very Ameri-centric way of looking at it.....but quite honestly, I really don't think they give a shit. They're neither conscious nor unconscious of the desire to produce music that "breaks into mainstream pop radio in the states"....(honestly, what musician thinks that way?)....they just make the music they like to make. Whether it makes it big on pop radio or not does not expel it from what it is.

ie: Sandstorm. Would you cease to think of Sandstorm as an Anthem Trance track because it became insanely popular? It could've been any trance track that made it big instead. It's no more than timing, opportunity, and idiot luck that made it the preferred pop radio trance staple that it did.

For every Lasgo or Ian van Dahl or Alice Deejay, there are a 100 For an Angels that did not catch on with the masses as easily and addictively as those did (but boy, did those producers ever try. Make no mistake about it: Every trance musician wants their track to be as popular as ever. Yes, that means North American radio airplay too, if they can manage it). But would you change your tune and say Paul van Dyk was a pop trance musician if For an Angel had become a bigger, more monstrous hit than all of them combined?

This is basically what you're saying. You're defining genres by popularity, and then retroactively looking for other instances and features of the sound that support this conclusion. Bad science.

quote:

So basically, my point is that trance music (with commerical success) has vastly different motives to commercial dance music, and this is why it is NOT cheese, generally speaking. Of course there are exceptions, and there are borderline cases.

Your "commercial dance music" is still epic trance, whether you like it or not. Stardust - Music Sounds Better With You is still French House, Spiller - Groovejet is still Funky House, Soulsearcher - Can't Get Enough is stil vocal diva House.

It's not really the producers trying to make tracks that make it on the radio so much as the style of music being pop friendly and chosen at random by marketers. Or it could just be a really excellent track.

quote:

Originally posted by Radagast Your "commercial dance music" is still epic trance, whether you like it or not.

Agreed. Let's compare Heaven by DJ Sammy to a generic so-called good uplifting vocal trancer.

- Both overutilize the supersaw
- Both overutilize major chords
- Both use a happy-sounding chord progression
- Both use female vocals
- Both have buildups
- Both have breakdowns
- Both use drummachines, with some sort of reference to the X0X line of Roland drummachines
- Both will have lyrics that are essentially saying the same thing (usually something about love, or what love can do, or how you just fell in love, etc...)
- Both use the same types of synths

Yet one sells a far greater amount of copies than the other. The better-selling one gets labeled as cheese, whereas the poorer seller gets labeled as good underground dance music. Since when is economic impact a factor in determining the quality of a piece of music? Sure, one may be more commercial than the other, but both are essentially the same ideas presented in slightly different ways. Both are uplifting epic trancers, and saying otherwise by calling Heaven "Eurodance" or "cheese" or "Eurotrance" (or any one of the multitude of inventive names that have been thought up) is just plain stupid, and ignoring the facts at hand.

As good as AJ's post was, I personally find it really difficult to typify cheese, its one of those things you know when you hear it but can't describe.

As for Sandstorm - I don't really classify it as cheese. imo it was trance that got popular (which does not equal cheese), listening to it, I don't immediately think "this is cheese" which I do for DJ Sammy tracks. I don't know why, and I don't have the production knowledge to be able to pick apart the construction of the song and say........

quote:

Originally posted by sisterbliss Agreed. Let's compare Heaven by DJ Sammy to a generic so-called good uplifting vocal trancer. - Both overutilize the supersaw - Both overutilize major chords - Both use a happy-sounding chord progression - Both use female vocals - Both have buildups - Both have breakdowns - Both use drummachines, with some sort of reference to the X0X line of Roland drummachines - Both will have lyrics that are essentially saying the same thing (usually something about love, or what love can do, or how you just fell in love, etc...) - Both use the same types of synths Yet one sells a far greater amount of copies than the other. The better-selling one gets labeled as cheese, whereas the poorer seller gets labeled as good underground dance music. Since when is economic impact a factor in determining the quality of a piece of music? Sure, one may be more commercial than the other, but both are essentially the same ideas presented in slightly different ways. Both are uplifting epic trancers, and saying otherwise by calling Heaven "Eurodance" or "cheese" or "Eurotrance" (or any one of the multitude of inventive names that have been thought up) is just plain stupid, and ignoring the facts at hand.

Agreed. Very well said!

Determining wether a song is cheese or not seems to be a very sticky and somewhat contraversial subject between trance fans. But the fact remains that a song is a song. And you have to respect an artist for what they do.

quote:

Originally posted by Alexan And you have to respect an artist for what they do.

Pshh, I don't have to give respect to the artist for what they do, not if I don't respect the artist's work.

But thanks for the compliment.

if it makes it to a MOS compilation it's cheese.

*cough* sandstorm *cough*

not that there's anything wrong with that.

I'm a fan of Camembert and Brie myself.

A lil cheddar on occasion isn't too bad either.

quote:

Originally posted by eRRaTiK if it makes it to a MOS compilation it's cheese.

oh no, every trance anthem from 98/99 is cheese!!!!!!!!!
(Clubbers Guide to Trance)

Maybe if it makes it to an annual, then it is cheese, i'd agree with that.

I'm not a great cheese fan (of either kind, but I can stand the musical variety)

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