TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- When does trance become house?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

When does trance become house?

So I've made some tracks that I think might be house rather than trance. I don't really listen to house though. They've got a walking bass-line as opposed to a repeated single note. The voices are trance-like but the melodies were kind of made by improvising on sort of a funk groove as opposed to programming in the way I do with trance.

I just don't want to look like an idiot for calling a song something that it's not.

I know there are millions of definitions as to what qualifies as house and what qualifies as trance. I always thought of house as being more sample/DJ oriented and trance as being more producer/synth oriented. I just wanted to see what people thought about what makes house house and what makes trance trance, why one is good and the other sucks, why it doesn't matter, etc. Just curious really.

Peace, Agent Starchild

If it's not funky, it's not house. If you don't know whether or not it's funky, it's definitely not house.

Trance does not "become" house, no matter how much you slow it down. Basslines that don't repeat the same note over and over again do not imply house music - they could be done just as easily in trance or breaks or techno or d'n'b, it's just that the awful repetitive machine-gun bass in trance is easy and a lot of (notice I didn't say all) trance producers don't like to be challenged.

House has very little to do with samples, either. In the disco house days it was all samples, but not anymore.

If you don't listen to house - it's probably not house. It's very hard to produce something in a genre you're unfamiliar with by sheer coincidence.

I think what I've got is funky. I don't listen to house itself but I get George Clinton stuck in my head all the time so sometimes the funk enters my music-making. Sometimes when I sit down to make music, I feel funky instead of "ravey." I figured funk was the main factor in distinguishing trance from house but I wasn't sure. Thanks. I'll probably call it house until someone kicks my a$$. Peace, Agent Starchild

Why don't you just post a sample?

yeah post a sample, I did read somewhere around here that the difference between trance and house was that house uses a 1 bar drum loop, trance just seems to flow on. Techno uses a half bar (which would explain why i dont't like a lot of techno). Forget who posted that but I'd never thought of it that way before...

well, the gap between trance and house (electro) can be very small sometimes. just check some releases on ferry's flashover label.

but anyway i give it up to fit a track into a genre. it just not possible anymore..

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut If it's not funky, it's not house. If you don't know whether or not it's funky, it's definitely not house.

Oh Reginald...I disagree!

I don't think house needs to be funky. That's a pretty narrow definition for a whole genres. It's like saying all trance songs use hi-hats, and if a song doesn't have hi-hats, it's not trance.

Starchild, I'm surprised that someone who produces has serious trouble differentiating between these two. Trance and house are pretty far apart in terms of sound, in my opinion.

Listen to some house and trance samples on beatport (not the most accurate guide, but good enough), so you can learn to differentiate.

Otherwise just post up a sample from your track, I'd love to hear your work.

quote:

Originally posted by thecYrus well, the gap between trance and house (electro) can be very small sometimes. just check some releases on ferry's flashover label. but anyway i give it up to fit a track into a genre. it just not possible anymore..

I'm gonna have to disagree again. I think the gap is massive.

What did you mean when you said "house (electro)"? As in "electro-house"?, or are you implying that house and electro are basically the same thing?

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut If it's not funky, it's not house. If you don't know whether or not it's funky, it's definitely not house. Trance does not "become" house, no matter how much you slow it down. Basslines that don't repeat the same note over and over again do not imply house music - they could be done just as easily in trance or breaks or techno or d'n'b, it's just that the awful repetitive machine-gun bass in trance is easy and a lot of (notice I didn't say all) trance producers don't like to be challenged. House has very little to do with samples, either. In the disco house days it was all samples, but not anymore. If you don't listen to house - it's probably not house. It's very hard to produce something in a genre you're unfamiliar with by sheer coincidence.

Sorry diginut, I know you know your stuff but saying if it's not funky then it's not house is absolute nonesense. If it's not funky at all then it probably isn't funky house, but it can easily still be house.A classic example of a seminal house track is Usura - open your mind. Not funky at all but perfect example of a typical "house" track.

Also, house uses samples as much and any other genre of EDM. In fact the basis of house is still sample orientated. The only difference now (opposed to dicso days) is that house producers don't have to rely so heavily on samples, as much as they used to because of production changes (VST's, synths) etc. I would even say IMHO and personal epxerience that trance in general uses far less samples than straight up "house", which is clearly demonstrated by the use of softsynths and hard synths among TA's.


House generally has a slower BPM (110 - 125BPM?), more likely to have a funky rhythm, less likely to have the "flowing" elements you describe, uses more tribal and classic drum/baseline pattenrs (than rolling basslines for example. But it's all subjective anyway, and one man's house is another man's electro (etc.).

quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog What did you mean when you said "house (electro)"? As in "electro-house"?, or are you implying that house and electro are basically the same thing?

i just meant that if you look only at the real (original) house you have to compare it to the oldschool trance aswell. so yeah, the difference is massive. but if you gone compare subgenres of both styles you will find a lot of tracks which melt the subgenres together. so it's just about what your understanding of house really is. imho the things labeled with electro house could very well be electro trance aswell. so i don't see a big difference in this part.
but right, old trance is absolutly not the same like the old house stuff. but that was some years ago. together the direction of both genres goes more and more together..

the question should be 'when does house become trance?'

quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog I think the gap is massive.

No, it really isn't. Trance and house both have many diverse subgenres that often cross each other in definitions. In some cases, you can pretty much flip a coin deciding into which genre a track goes. I give you todays progressive house and trance for example.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Sorry diginut, I know you know your stuff but saying if it's not funky then it's not house is absolute nonesense. If it's not funky at all then it probably isn't funky house, but it can easily still be house.A classic example of a seminal house track is Usura - open your mind. Not funky at all but perfect example of a typical "house" track.

For that matter, most 'funky house' is barely 'funky' either...

quote:

Originally posted by Chronosis No, it really isn't. Trance and house both have many diverse subgenres that often cross each other in definitions. In some cases, you can pretty much flip a coin deciding into which genre a track goes. I give you todays progressive house and trance for example.

Indeed.

er...can I point out that "trance" came from house. I've been in to dance music for a long, long time, and those old enough (or educated enough) will remember the day of going out clubbing/listening to "uplifting house" and trance was this thing tht krustieson acid listned to (more akin to psytrance now). Then in '97 I went to a record shop abroad to find that the stuff I knew as uplifting house, was being offered to me as trance. about a year later london shops were now selling trance and uplifting house dissapeared, apart from a few shops that gave you US soulful vocal house when you asked for uplifting house.

My point is back in the mid nineties, you used to go out house clubbing and you would get everyting from what we now call tribal house, tech-house, trance and progressive - all under the label of house. It's all house at the end of the day and in relative terms, we are really splitting hairs when we say there is a difference between these sub divisions

Just say it's progressive if you're not sure.

Trance <---> Progressive <---> House

Electro house is a bunch of nonsense, just like progressive is. They're pretentious words coined by pretentious pricks obsessed with proving that they're always on the cutting edge. I'm not going to name names, but I think many people here will be able to guess who and/or what I'm referring to. It's marketing buzz, like iProduct or Web 2.0.

Those saying that house isn't funky, or doesn't have to be - house is an offshoot of disco. If your definition of "funky" doesn't include that, that's fine, but for the purpose of this discussion, when I say funky I mean funky in the sense of the jazz/funk music that house originally sampled from. And speaking of the samples - I never said that houses uses fewer samples than any other genre, just that it doesn't necessarily use more than any other genre in this day and age. DJ RANN, we don't disagree here so I don't know why you're arguing about that.

Now I'm sure that some people think that the tech/electro/prog house is still house and that one man's this is another man's that and that Sundays are the new Saturdays and yadda yadda yadda, but if you subscribe to that theory then you might as well call your track Extra-Hard Electro-Funk Minimal Tech-Polka or whatever the fuck you want because you've just stated that it's meaningless anyway. If, on the other hand, you're interested in whether or not it fits into a certain genre in its generally accepted usage, then "house" music generally has jazz/funk/soul elements, and has nothing whatsoever in common with other genres that happen to put the word house at the end.

I'm also well aware that trance and house and techno used to be essentially the same thing. However, we are no longer in the mid-nineties. During that period, house followed the French (and to a lesser extent Chicago) trends, sticking with the jazzfunk essentials and going heavy on the filters and effects and maybe tribal elements. Trance producers embraced the techno rhythms and melodic elements and started making more minimal basslines and more minimal arrangements in general until its unholy alliance a few years later with Eurodance, when it became infused with all the sugar-coated schmaltz you hear in the Dutch variety today.

Trance and house were pretty much the same thing - over a decade ago. They went their separate ways, and now they're very different. Newer tracks that end up in the gray area usually get labeled "old school" unless they actually do something really new and interesting.

And yes, the house BPM is slower, that's true. Trance is usually 130 - 140, house is usually 120 - 130 (soft boundaries, obviously). However, I didn't even want to mention that because too many people think that just slowing a trance track down makes it "house". That's about as valid as shifting one kick to the offbeat and calling it breaks. BPM is more of a superficial difference than anything else.

You disagree? I geeve. That's what it is. If you don't even listen to house and you're asking this question, well then maybe you should listen to some freaking house and see if there are any similarities. Otherwise yeah, go with the old catch-all and call it prog.

The lines between genres are really getting blurred these days. Progressive house can sound a lot like Trance at times, and sometimes Progressive Trance can start to venture into house territory. I think the bass line is what usually defines what genre the track falls into. Making the bass a little funky will change the whole feel of the track. Percussion lines will further define it, if you funkify them a little. You won't hear many Trance gates, supersaw leads, or appegiators in the house styles. Also, most straight Trance songs are around 140 BPM, average. House and Progressive House tend to be 134 BPM and below.

Wow, your making trance and it sounds funky? It must be funky trance! This is massive in amsterdam atm I hear, have you thought of getting it signed to buffoonabeats?

Seriously, this is why genres are absolutely hopeless! @ diginut, you may believe that something is house or trance, and you talk about the accepted defintion, but the accepted definition changes over time and not everyone is up to where you are neccesarily. Also it's different in different coutries, so the canadian defintion of trance may be completely different from the UK definition! Its amusing how people who susbscribe to absolute objective definitions always believe that its their definition which is right

The development of trance came through house sure, but a genre is like a child, not many have only one parent. So yes, house came from disco, but it picked up deeper tribal type influences on the way. Then trance came from house, but picked up classical influences and removed the blues based approach. The net result being that it sounds more classical and melodic as opposed to more down and dirty like most house. But it still uses a similar beat most of the time. Of course, this is all generalised, but it holds true mostly.

RE the newer genres of prog house/ trance and electro house/trance, I've always been suspicious of prog, but there is definately a genre electro house, its quite distinct.

There will always be more people making more genres, but they are really unhelpful at the end of the day. When I want to describe a style, I refer to a group of artists, or a label, sometimes is combination with a genre, but a genre alone is hopelessly confusing.

Never said electro house wasn't a genre, just that it has nothing to do with house music.

And trance didn't evolve from house, I don't know why people keep saying that. They kind of had a common ancestor (Euro-pop) but that's as close as the relation gets. The trends were started in completely different places by completely different people for completely different reasons.

Nor does trance really have much in common with classical music. It never gets old hearing people quote silly lines like trance being the "baby" of "disco and classical" music. Trance took precisely one thing from "classical" music, that being the same I-IV-V-I progression used in every pop song and codified long before the Classical era (it was used all the time for masses during medieval times). Trance does not use the same arrangements, instrumentation, or techniques that classical music does, and rarely makes use of harmonic progressions that were still in common use during or after the Baroque era.

Again, you want to say it's subjective, localized, biased... whatever. History is not a soft science, not even music history. Historical facts are verified by convergence of evidence. House did originate somewhere (in warehouses - that's why it's called "house" music), as did trance (its origins are harder to trace, but early trance was clearly closer to techno/electro than it is to house). You can say whatever you want about changing definitions and picking up other influences and so on and so forth, but I'm not really sure who's supposed to care. None of the labels care, unless you're trying to get on the pretentious-ass "progressive" labels, in which case, like I said, just call it prog and be done with it.

quote:

Originally posted by Chronosis No, it really isn't. Trance and house both have many diverse subgenres that often cross each other in definitions. In some cases, you can pretty much flip a coin deciding into which genre a track goes. I give you todays progressive house and trance for example.

I totally agree.

Groups like Gabriel & Dresden, Emjae, Luke Chable, Kasey Taylor etc are constantly blurring the line between progressive house and trance. Often I'm content to call their work either.

However, we were talking about straight trance and straight house, not progressive. I think there's a big difference there.

p.s why does everyone think "progressive" is a pretentious word? I think it's a perfectly valid way of categorising music, the only difference being that it deals with the actual structure of the music rather than the sound of the music itself.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Trance and house were pretty much the same thing - over a decade ago. They went their separate ways, and now they're very different.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut And trance didn't evolve from house, I don't know why people keep saying that.

Got contradiction?

quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog Got contradiction?

i hope he writes 3 more paragraphs against this

so...why does this matter? if it's a good track, it's a good track, no matter what you label it...damn...niggaz....


and lol @ contridiction...

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut [FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#99CCEE]And trance didn't evolve from house, I don't know why people keep saying that.

it's because it did, and those of us who were around 15+ years ago can tell ya that.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut The trends were started in completely different places by completely different people for completely different reasons.

By and large, ONE MAN and ONE group of artists were responsible for the birth of trance: Sven Vath and the artists under the Harthouse Label in Germany around 1992, artists like Hardfloor, Oliver Leib's various psuedonyms (Spicelab, LSG, etc), Barbarella (Vath & Ralf Hildenbeutel), Pascal FEOS (Resistance D), Matthias Hoffmann (Metal Master, Brainchild, Cygnus X, etc), Marco Zaffarano, etc.

It was started as a knee jerk reaction to the "hardcore" sounds that were popular at the time (akin to something similar to today's breakbeats, jungle, and yes... even happy hardcore) that some people didn't really care for (listen to a PVD mix from that time and you'll hear some "hardcore" tracks in them).

The gist was to strip everything down to a simple house beat and use modulating synth textures and hypnotic rhythms to create a certain vibe (the "trance" term was coined later by the media). The TB-303 acid squelch factored heavily into the equation, and was the driving force behind many of the legendary buildup in some of the most classic tracks of the day (notably those by Hardfloor).

"Trance" wasn't necessarily a genre back then, it was a type of house or techno... so long as it had that minimal hypnotic effect to it. EVERYBODY was getting into the act by 1993 and many of today's techno producers (well, those still producing anyway) were influenced by the 1992/1992 trance revolution. Aphex Twin, Orbital, CJ Bolland, The Prodigy, Casper Houser, Felix Da Housecat, Moby, Joey Beltram, Underworld, DJ Misjah, 808 State, The Orb, Speedy J, and even some of the godfathers of techno from Detroit were to be found with tracks on "trance" compilations (like this one, which claimed "100% pure quality house & techno"

Review your history before you go making claims about things from before your time. There are a few others on TA like me who were around back then...

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