well production quality is obviously going to be better. that is a given. but in todays world where we want to generate the composition and arrangements of the yesteryears, we have the best of both worlds. production quality isn't as good and that goes without saying, however; the composition in my opinion is far better. used to have some true genuises writing dance music who left when vinyl died and i could name names all night long.
I think the main aesthetic difference is that older trance used less elements and this resulted in a less full sound. Most of the energy was concentrated up in the top mids rather than covering all frequencies evenly. Modern trance is a lot fuller sounding because people have the ability to fill the whole spectrum.
Some people percieve that as low production quality, but I like the complete lack of noise sweeps and fancy layering. I think all of that gets really distracting and usually just annoys me.
Its not at all about the gear IMO, although the gear did impose limitations which led to the sound. Its still very possible to get that sound from modern DAWs.
I remember my first studio session in the band I was in c1988
We ended up in Arkantide Studios in North London somewhere and took two 10 hour night sessions as it was much cheaper that way. There was a massive desk, 24 channel TAPE recorder, racks and racks of gear, and EMU Emax sampler with CD-ROM!!!!!
It took us 20 hours, £800 (that's 20 year old money don't forget, maybe £1500-2000 now?) and many takes to record and vaguely mix 3 tracks.
A few years later I was running an Atari ST Pro24 setup with a D50, DX7 and Ensoniq SQ1. That setup cost me nearly £3k back then and is considerably less powerful than an iPhone app I would imagine.
We have it so easy these days it's ridiculous.
Check out the specs of a Fairlight compared to it's retial price back in the day.
Originally posted by kitphillips
Its still very possible to get that sound from modern DAWs.
Of course. But knowing the limitations I think is important if somebody wants to truly limit themselves from lets say a track perspective. ie. No more than 12 tracks per track.
Originally posted by Stephen Wiley
Of course. But knowing the limitations I think is important if somebody wants to truly limit themselves from lets say a track perspective. ie. No more than 12 tracks per track.
Sounds like a forum challenge, although i'd suggest 8 channels as that's what the home recordist was mostly limited to back in the day.
If less is more think about how much more more would be.
-Frasier
Jul-01-2010 11:41
cammaxwell
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto, Canada
Me and a buddy tried getting into production back in 95-96. At the time we got a computer with Cubase, Akai S3000 sampler and a Roland synth (can't remember which one). And that cost a fortune for us too! (Akai was itself $3000 I think)
We ended up selling it all 6 months later becuase we just didn't have the time to learn how to use it all. Was very hard to get going for us with no expeirence at all, and even finding the time back then. We just didn't realize the effort that was invloved.
Not a producer back then and even now, so I could easily not be qualified enough to make this post, but I have been listening to Trance music since many years and I have 3 issues/points that I would like the producers here to address or take in consideration.
1) My impression is that too many producers to simplify their work and increase the quantity of releases, mostly think in term of track structure instead of focusing on the single elements. I am not saying that back in the days music wasn't formulaic at all, but today it seems like producers voluntarily put a creative cage around themselves when they develop a new track.
Let's take Der Dritte Raum - Hale Bopp for example:
How many different elements does this track have? Few, but still you have the catchy melody almost constantly in loop that stands out easily and all the other elements are built to support and emphasize it. Also the track just flows so naturally, not like it is constrained by a structure that the producer wants to follow at all cost.
2) Obviously we are talking about music that is developed for the dancefloor, which is already a fairly big limitation, however this does not mean that you cannot try to create an auditory experience anyway. Try to at least make me feel something when I am listening or dancing, I am not a robot.
On the other hand however don't take yourself too seriously, this is still music for the dancefloor. You can be as artistic as you want, but you will not change the history of music with your tracks. So have fun and try to transmit it in your tracks. Don't be a robot yourself, producer.
Here is a classic by Underworld. One of the most famous track they produced can be considered a "divertissment" (yeah, blasphemy).
If Underworld developed their life changing album without thinking like authors, why would you? Stop consider yourself an author/artist and start to think like a craftsman having fun.
3) Better music is different than better production quality. I know I am good at stating the obvious, but not many producers out there seem to realize this difference.
You can have the most polished music ever, but if your tracks do not have a soul and do not feel like a sound/dancing journey you are doing it (partially) wrong.
As many of you mentioned the complexity of tracks have escalated in the last decade, yet the majority of long term Trance listeners would like to use a time-machine and jump back to the 90ies.
Could be that the producers are just too concerned about producing the best sounding music, instead of focusing on the music itself. In 100 years do you think people will remember more Charlie Chaplin or Michael Bay (now you can bet that Bay will direct the Citizen Kane of the 21st century.... mmm probably not ) ?
This track is from 199fucking3. It sounds good even today (at least relative to the year it was produced), yet the author did not sacrifice the overall quality of the production just to sound good.
So just stop stuffing your tracks just for the sake of stuffing and overproduce just for the sake of overproducing and overpolish just for the sake of overpolishing. Do something because it makes your track a better one and not because this is how music is produced in the 21st century.
Back when I got signed and I got my first advance, anno 1996. All I had was two synths (Korg x3, Roland XP10) plus my pc and its soundcard running cakewalk. The mixer was a CR1604. I invested in some fxs such as a midiverb from alesis, a zoom fx, and a crap behringer compressor.
When I got the jv1080 in 97 it opened a brand new world of possibilities, because of its waveforms, multi-out, and its expansion boards. I kept that thing for almost 7 years.
Basically all was done with cakewalk triggering the synth and sampler parts (I later got an s2000), all synths going to the mixer, eventually sending to the midiverb and zoom fx's, while I had the behringer remotely compressing drums or other parts.
that hardware cost me back then about 8000 euros. Now I have zillions more features with that money spent on virtual instruments and plugins, and the computer and screen that go with it.
Still if you ask one of those bedroom producers how to use that stuff properly without sounding generic, they mostly don't know what resampling, layering, sound design is. They wouldn't care recording sounds with a microphone and a portable recorder as plug-in x already has that same sample. They don't even have the patience to read the manual... oh yeah I forgot, there was none as they use illegal copies.
That is the problem today. You got those kids all doing the same sounds, the same structures, the same instruments because they all get it off the same torrents.
You can't even imagine how many rising stars use cracked software, get gigs, make money, and NEVER pay for their software. Us loyal customers pay for their lack of responsibility.
And sound-wise, some of you gus are right, we're going back to the roots of the sound, in a polished version. By roots I mean 1992 and not 1999. Better generation if you ask me.
___________________
Http://www.airwave-music.com is my new site. Djairwave.com is no more. A new era has begun
Jul-02-2010 07:53
tehlord
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Jan 2009
Location: Windsor
quote:
Originally posted by Lolo
I can share my experience on this.
Back when I got signed and I got my first advance, anno 1996. All I had was two synths (Korg x3, Roland XP10) plus my pc and its soundcard running cakewalk. The mixer was a CR1604. I invested in some fxs such as a midiverb from alesis, a zoom fx, and a crap behringer compressor.
When I got the jv1080 in 97 it opened a brand new world of possibilities, because of its waveforms, multi-out, and its expansion boards. I kept that thing for almost 7 years.
Basically all was done with cakewalk triggering the synth and sampler parts (I later got an s2000), all synths going to the mixer, eventually sending to the midiverb and zoom fx's, while I had the behringer remotely compressing drums or other parts.
that hardware cost me back then about 8000 euros. Now I have zillions more features with that money spent on virtual instruments and plugins, and the computer and screen that go with it.
Still if you ask one of those bedroom producers how to use that stuff properly without sounding generic, they mostly don't know what resampling, layering, sound design is. They wouldn't care recording sounds with a microphone and a portable recorder as plug-in x already has that same sample. They don't even have the patience to read the manual... oh yeah I forgot, there was none as they use illegal copies.
That is the problem today. You got those kids all doing the same sounds, the same structures, the same instruments because they all get it off the same torrents.
You can't even imagine how many rising stars use cracked software, get gigs, make money, and NEVER pay for their software. Us loyal customers pay for their lack of responsibility.
And sound-wise, some of you gus are right, we're going back to the roots of the sound, in a polished version. By roots I mean 1992 and not 1999. Better generation if you ask me.
) ? 
