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.

___________________


http://soundcloud.com/subtara

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

quote:

Originally posted by Eldritch Just say it's progressive if you're not sure. Trance <---> Progressive <---> House

the real problem is probably this:

code:
trance <--->  progressive  <---> house
         \-> electro 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.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

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.

___________________
soundcloud

Youtube

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.

___________________
New Mix: March 2010 Promo
Soundcloud|Facebook

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.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

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.

___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide

Last edited by Domesticated on Jul-05-2007 at 03:45

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?

___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide

quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog Got contradiction?

i hope he writes 3 more paragraphs against this

___________________
I really suck at making music

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...