|
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Hah, why am I not surprised that the n00bs are jumping on me about the definition of trance. Let me guess, you've been listening to it since 2000 or later? Early trance was more like psytrance, minus the Hindi/Israeli influences and a little slower tempo.
Anyway, what possible incentive would there be for me to define "trance" as just the music I like? I really don't like a lot of the dark stuff. I find it repetitive as hell. And I have no problem with Euro either - it's a bit syrupy but I'd take E-Type over Britney Spears any day of the week. I'm simply telling the truth about the history of the genre. Everything changed around 1999-2000, when producers finally started making tracks with more commercial appeal, then started drawing in a commercial crowd, which demanded MORE commercial tracks, etc. - it's a vicious circle now, one from which I doubt there is any escape.
Some of you probably hate hearing this because for the past few months/years you've been telling yourself how cool you are because you listen to this rare underground music and get sexually aroused when your neighbour yells at you to turn it down. Get over yourselves - not only is it powerfully immature to define yourself based on the music you listen to, but the music is still basically pop music. |
Definition of trance?... It's pretty simple mate
"Trance" is just repetetive rythms. It has been around for thousands of years. Indigenous people used it (and uses it) to get in a state of trance, whilst they dance around the fire. That is the reason why the genre was called "trance". The beat was repetitive, and repetitive rythms gets you in a state of trance. Nowadays you can do this together with your host, Armin van Buuren, if you like. 
Bump, btw
Last edited by lenieNt Force on Dec-02-2007 at 01:17
|