|
| quote: | Originally posted by muckluck
So you're saying musical merit is based on how "complex" music is? Does minimal techno have less musical merit than trance then? Tech-House has more musical merit than Glitch House maybe? What the hell are you talking about? I should probably just leave it at that since your very premise that less complex music has less "merit" is faulty and it doesn't matter how simple or complex Classic Trance was, but i'll go on.
Now on to the simplistic part. If you've heard many Classic Trance songs you'll notice that none have less than 5 "tracks" (a repeating melodic or percussive segment other than the kick and hi-hats--mostly melodic since we're talking about trance here) that are played synchronously in at least one part of the track if not most of it. You'll also notice that Epic Trance averages no more than 6 usually. All trance songs average about 5-7+ individual "tracks" running at the same time in a given section of a given song. 6 and 7+ usually only on GOA/psy songs. I purposely listened to the four most simple Classic Trance songs i've ever heard, and only one had no more than 4 "tracks" playing at once in any given section of the song. House music averages about 3-5 "tracks" playing at once in the busiest section of a song. Techno about 1-4. Classic Trance is every bit as complicated as Epic.
But you say the melodies are more complex in epic trance. Well that depends. Is complexity simply the chord progression changing notes for more bars before repeating? Or is complexity several relatively repetitive melodies being added, removed, replaced, and synchronized at proper intervals and due time complex? I think either. Epic trance is complex because of the former and Classic because of the latter. The difference being when you incorporate the former, the latter becomes nullified, therefore losing the original repetitive intent of the music. You don't think Classic Trance producers knew how to vary the notes on their melodies so that they weren't more repetitive? They did. Epic trance producers didn't invent the idea of melodies in music lasting for long periods of time without repeating. Classic trance producers made the music that way because that was how it was supposed to be. It was what it was supposed to be, therefore it had merit. Since it has turned into something that is no longer what it was supposed to be, Epic Trance, it has no merit.
No it can't. All popular music does is take small things from its root genre and add things which appeal to more people and take away from the original intent of the music.
Countless musical and technological developments since 1992 huh. Oh, you mean the advent of the JP-8000. Is it really an advancement more than something that creates a different sound? It makes super sawtooth waves in trance music. Now how is that sawtooth more advanced than the one that comes from a 303 for example? It's not, in fact it's worse because it's never arpeggiated when it's used often as the lead synth, and when it's not the lead it's of course washing behind a blaring epic trance melody lasting god knows how many bars. Accordingly, all trance is based on arpeggiated melody and 99% of trance songs contain it. Okay, 100% have it, else it would not be trance. Anyway, that's why what I explained in the middle part of this paragraph is bad.
Oh, and you must think highly of your evolved trance music. Your "technical developments" haven't seemed to affect in any significant way, say, Deep House since 1992{or earlier}, and certain types of Techno since the mid 90's. Those genres must be immune to the advent of super sound technology or something.
Not all melodies are pop. All epic trance melodies are pop. Not all classic trance was good trance. All epic trance is bad trance. Not all epic trance is bad. Hope that explains something. Likely it won't sink in this time either.
I like melody. That's why I listen to Trance.
Most of them are. |
The amount of studio tracks filled on a track does not equate to musical complexity, especially when the bulk of those tracks comprise of extremely simplistic and short sequences looped in an attempt to mimick depth. When you remove the percussion tracks, you are left with the bassline and a lot of layers of what is essentially crap, and a melody. Epic trance removes the crap from the equation and increases the complexity of the melodies.
As for the technologic advancements comment, I didn't mean the introduction of super-saws. To be honest, I don't give a shit about super-saws. That's just another instrument the melody is played in. But I can give you hundreds of examples. Take any producer who has been producing since the early 90s and was or is still at it in the 00s. The Prodigy are a good example. Play any old and new track and you can tell which is old just from the production values. And if you want to try the "they're got better at their instruments" argument, just take any style of music that is still going strong. It's instantly obvious that newer tracks have better production. Don't even bother trying to disagree, because you'll be plainly wrong.
And we have the old chestnut. "It isn't good trance". Excuse me? Is progressive house less "good" house because it doesn't sound like the primordial post-disco stuff of the early 80s? Did people claim that acid house was musically lacking because it achieved different goals to earlier house music? When electro was put to hip-hop did Kraftwerk fans complain that it wasn't "good" electro because it was actually evolving its sound? If a genre evolves and has stylistic changes, you may not like where it's going, but that's subjective taste. It isn't factually any less accomplished as music.
___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24
Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/
|
:rolleeyes:
