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.

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.

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.

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.

It's very simple. Trance doesn't make me wanna dance.

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.

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...

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

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.

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.

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?