|
I'll add something to the table.
Ishkur's analysis of the situation is completely personalized, subjective and cannot be taken as any sort of logical argument. Let me explain.
When I first started reading this thread, I saw a lot of arguments along these lines:
1) Classic trance was much more emotional and passionate. Songs X, Y, and Z are my evidence of that. Modern "trance" is much worse.
2) Modern trance still rules. Songs A, B, and C are evidence of that.
Of course, most people recognize that those aren't actually arguments -just opinions. They only contain anecdotes about individual songs or vague, personal terms in their attempts to analyze a bigger, more complex cultural change. No big deal.
I saw a problem, however, when Ishkur jumped in and started using what appears to be objective thinking to conclude that classic trance definitely was something good, while modern trance is crap. Ishkur doesn't just name songs, or vague personal qualities like "emotional, passionate, or bad-ass," to justify his arguments, so on the surface, they look like more reasonable conclusions.
Instead of saying, "Classic trance was better because it was more 'emotional' or because song X really rocked," Ishkur used arugments like this:
1) Modern trance is crap because it is formulaic and mass-marketed.
My problem arises because people are more likely to believe that Ishkur just made an objective analysis of the situation. The truth, however, is that Ishkur's analysis is on the exact same level of subjectivenes as the tranceaddict who says, "modern trance is great because it's so emotional!" (Or some other vague, personal term.)
At first, terms like formulaic and mass-marketed look like real criteria for judging music. If something is formulaic or mass-marketed, then it must be worse than something that is not. The point I was trying to make in my previous posts (and I see that I failed, I admit) was that because of our own nostalgic and romantic connections to this music, making objective conclusions on the trends of this culture are impossible.
Terms like formulaic and mass-marketed are loaded criteria that give the illusion of an objective analysis, but they are truly subjective. Let's fully agree that today's "trance" is entirely formulaic and mass-marketed. It is just as plausible that if classic trance was formulaic and mass-marketed, we could romanticize those qualities and decry modern trance for being random, or too niche-driven. It would be easy to imagine Ishkur lamenting about "how you used to be able to hear a song at a dance and know just when the vocals were about to come in every time, ah, the good old days." Or he could be saying, "Remember when we used to be able to go to the club and know that everyone was going to be able to sing along to every song, since we had each just bought the CD, those were the days." Many adults romanticize about mass-marketed pop culture in the Beatles era, or even mass-media in the 3-network TV days, just for an example of this actually happening in reality.
When Ishkur says something is crap because it is contains apparently objective and negative qualities, just know that they are anything but. They are products of a romanticized vision of the past that is no more well-reasoned or analyzed than the average tranceaddict's praise of Tiesto's latest concert.
In conclusion, I'd just like to remind everyone, especially Ishkur, that I'm not actually even disagreeing with his points. I'm just trying to remind everyone that they're fundamentally arguing over inescablably personal visions, and that no matter how objective the language someone tries to use in justifying their condemnation or praise of a recent musical trend, it's all just a product of their own nostalgic and romantized experiences. Forgive me if I never chose a "side of the fence," Ishkur, but my point was that the fence doesnt exist.
___________________
think stasis | latest mix
|