quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Orbital managed it.

We're talking about a whole genre, Jack.

Not an artist.


Everyone listen to that oldskool Jason Porter - Trellis set. You really think the mainstream would get into that? How could the pop world of album-oriented marketing and manufactured faces plastered on CD covers possibly enjoy something that unresponsive and unwieldy, spacey, repetitive, weird, and completely antithetical to everything they thought music was supposed to be?

Unless....of course....you market it in album format. Delivered by a recognizable face on the cover. And you remove the repetitiveness and replace it with bridges, and choruses, and lyrics, and all the trappings of the pop music machine glossed all over it. There, now we have something that the average person can relate to and enjoy: A State of Trance.

But why? Was all of this necessary? Maybe to fill the coffers of those involved in the industry (and I don't blame them for doing it, I would have done the same), but what about you? What do you get out of this? Do you really need the validation? Do you need assurance that you're not a freak? Do you want the rest of society to pat you on the back and say "hey, I listen to this music too, you're an okay guy." No, really. What is it about commercial acceptance that you think is going to make things so much better? Is it going to make the music better, or your perceived fears of persecution?

quote:

Originally posted by Ishkur What do you get out of this? Do you really need the validation? Do you need assurance that you're not a freak? Do you want the rest of society to pat you on the back and say "hey, I listen to this music too, you're an okay guy." No, really. What is it about commercial acceptance that you think is going to make things so much better? Is it going to make the music better, or your perceived fears of persecution?

this may be a different tangent altogether, but it is nice to enjoy music on a social level as well as a personal one.

Which is part of my point: You may wish for your music to be watered down and diluted to the point where the lowest common denominator seething, slobbering, masses of humanity will accept it, but therein lies the problem:

The masses like crap.

It's akin to jumping in a mud puddle and not wanting to get dirty.

Ive been to small intimate proper underground trance gigs and been to the biggest "concert" and big events possible over the years. I have had just as good a time at either. If you solely go for the music (like me) and not just for the dj (like some people) then it can be a superb experience. I dont care what all the Tiesto haters say his "concert" concept is unrivalled and is an immense experience anyone thats been would tell you that. Unless you have been i dont think you can comment and say it just a bunch of worhsippers and people that are into the lowest common denominator go to these events.

Its ignorance, arrogance and elitism of the highest order imo

quote:

Originally posted by Ishkur Impossible. There's no such thing as going mainstream/pop while retaining eclectic, avant-garde roots. To go pop, you must become pop. The more people get introduced to trance, the more trance has to sell itself to hold their interest. Popularity reaches critical mass when trance rejects its narrow niche in order to appeal to the superficial, shallow pallette of mainstream behavior. In truth, spirit5, the mainstream already likes trance. Once you take away the trance part. You're living proof.

Do you even know what I am into? I'm not an Armin loving, ASOT listening person that you may percieve I am. Heck, I haven't bought a trance CD in two years. I listen to mostly ambient/downtempo/chill/new age or stuff I refer to as "ethereal" music, and some trance, house, techno, breaks etc.

Yes there is. In your definition, trance is this obscure, completely underground, extremely repetetive and hypnotic sound that only makes up about 1/4 of what is out there. Most trance that I have listened to and enjoy (and don't come back and say "it's shit" like you always do, that's annoying) is the melodic stuff with peaks, made like a wave, that shifts and builds over a period of time.

Sure the style you like more represents psy trance, but i'm not talking about psy trance..i'm talking about melodic, epic trance and melodic, progressive trance. Many of that stuff I feel is quite listenable, quite enjoyable and quite danceable. It doesn't need to be made into 3 or 4 minute radio edits with vocals. It and of itself could appeal to the mainstream because it's more accessible than some dark and acidy or really trippy sound that you and others like.

I'm just looking at this from the standpoint of what better represents what the average person would like. There's nothing wrong with music being slightly popular...I don't hear people complaining about rock music becoming "pop" over the years, really it always has but it does have it's "underground" elements. Why can't trance music do the same? Some parts that are less accessible be more "underground" and ones that are..more mainstream?

That's basically what I have said...I don't think ALL trance should be mainstream, pop garbage that I dislike as much as you do. I hate DJ Sammy, Lasgo, Ian van Dahl, Groove Coverage, Cascada and all that stuff parading as "trance" and new Armin van Buuren, Tiesto and not a big fan of Ferry's latest stuff either. As I've explained over and over..I like trance because I can dance to it and listen to it, and I can't really enjoy the full on psy, acidy sounding stuff, or trance music like that, it's got to have some type of melody (even a subtle one) to be enjoyable IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by Ishkur Which is part of my point: You may wish for your music to be watered down and diluted to the point where the lowest common denominator seething, slobbering, masses of humanity will accept it, but therein lies the problem: The masses like crap. It's akin to jumping in a mud puddle and not wanting to get dirty.

in essence yes, but there's always a middle ground. i'll just have to say that i disagree with this bit:

quote:

Impossible. There's no such thing as going mainstream/pop while retaining eclectic, avant-garde roots. To go pop, you must become pop.

and leave it at that.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Mystery No, not it's not.

How can it not be there? Good trance IMO is long compositions (6 minutes plus) with changes over time..i.e breakdowns, melodies, harmonies, key changes (harmonic mixing). To me, a DJ who can harmonically mix (and sometime when I have more time to mix and key my tracks, i'm going to learn that, already dabbled alittle) and a CD that has tracks linked...is akin in a sense to a classical piece with interlinked movements, that almost sound like one big track but are many "different" tracks or "interpretations" mixed together to form one whole. Isn't this the idea..or should be...with a trance or almost any EDM DJ? A seamless mix, when you don't know where one track begins and the next one ends, with different moods (dark and light), much like different movements, some light and some dark that classical composers did create. That's what I am talking about.

I know trance and classical aren't the same, but they do have "some" similar ideas. You like Micro de Govia, and so do I, and his music is quite elaborate and he does make "compositions" much like what BT does (or really used to do even more with Ima and ESCM). I mean maybe this isn't true for a good number of trance and DJs/producers, but I really think that there should be more focus on making seamless mixes, "movements" instead of just individual tracks, and good compositions.

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 How can it not be there?

It's just not. Trance (or any EDM for that matter) is essentially being made for people to dance to and that hardly has anything to do with classical or any of its elements, does it?

[I removed the middle part since you seemed to ramble on about the same thing for a full paragraph]

quote:

I know trance and classical aren't the same, but they do have "some" similar ideas. You like Micro de Govia, and so do I, and his music is quite elaborate and he does make "compositions" much like what BT does (or really used to do even more with Ima and ESCM). I mean maybe this isn't true for a good number of trance and DJs/producers, but I really think that there should be more focus on making seamless mixes, "movements" instead of just individual tracks, and good compositions.

Structure wise Mirco's tracks and/or albums don't differ from any other trance artists. I'm not really sure where you got that "compositions" idea from but I sure can't hear it.

And as far as BT goes, I've never even considered him a trance artist since that's such a small part of what he does.

___________________
Latest releases:
Endless Cycles [Capital Heaven]
The Charlatan [Morphosis]

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Mystery It's just not. Trance (or any EDM for that matter) is essentially being made for people to dance to and that hardly has anything to do with classical or any of its elements, does it? [I removed the middle part since you seemed to ramble on about the same thing for a full paragraph] Structure wise Mirco's tracks and/or albums don't differ from any other trance artists. I'm not really sure where you got that "compositions" idea from but I sure can't hear it. And as far as BT goes, I've never even considered him a trance artist since that's such a small part of what he does.

I've always considered trance a very listenable style of dance music, like disco, hip hop and vocal house. The use of melody makes it not just good for dancing, but for just kicking back and listening. That's why there are "mixed CDs". I doubt that every mixed CD people buy to dance to, but just for the music that's on there. Trance to me (and your free to disagree) is not a "pure dance" form, meaning it's not strictly rhythm or "drumming" as some other forms of dance music whose intend is for maximum dancefloor action.

To me, the music Carl Cox spins is far more "pure dance music" than what melodic trance DJs are or could be. Sure they might play harder or techier stuff on the dancefloor, but there are plenty of trance tracks and mixes that work just as well for listening experiences as for dancing. A Carl Cox set to me...that's great for dancing, but I don't really care so much to sit back and listen to it. So dancing is just one aspect of trance, but not what it's totally about IMO. One of the reasons why I think modern stuff might lack the "groove" aspect and make more use of apparent melodies, breakdowns, builds and even vocals. Sorry about the ramble, I didn't have time to re-read or edit what I wrote, I was just in a hurry to write something before taking a shower.

And BT...yeah he isn't just a trance artist, but his early stuff is...like on Ima or some tracks on ESCM. And MdG does make some pretty sophisticated tracks or compositions that work well for listening like on his "Chronoscale" CD as they do on the dancefloor. Sure the structure might still be there, but I don't think it's as predictable. There's a certain uniqueness about him. Certaintly not as chill as Chicane's music, but it's more or less album-orientated since he made an album of that stuff, rather than just an "unmixed DJ friendly" package for DJs to use on the dancefloor to make people dance. It's conceptual, compositional....one of the reasons why you don't really see him DJing his music. Trance to me is music you can listen to and dance to at the same time. You can enjoy it either way or both.

Okay, now you're just rambling.

___________________
Latest releases:
Endless Cycles [Capital Heaven]
The Charlatan [Morphosis]

I'm going to be an ass and say that it was good, a natural thing that divides the scene and makes room and reason for new underground movements.

i love both classic trance and deep house, and we can be nostalgic all day about how much better music was in the past, but as for future we have to just let trance go its way. there is an army of well funded people who want it to become mainstream, and it very well may become that. (Personally though, I think trance will always be like the nerd of the pop circle, or ugly girl in a group of hot friends, and it will never be mainstream, just shittier because it wants to fit in. case in point ;ian van dahl)

In the meantime, I'll be supporthing something else.

Last edited by nefardec on Aug-11-2007 at 17:27

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Mystery Okay, now you're just rambling.

Whatever, I have a simple point (I realize I make simple points into long posts, it's a habit I haven't gotten rid of yet) that I feel trance is not simply music to be made for dancefloor action or to be played on the dancefloor, but works very well in a listening environment, whether on mixed CDs or on the radio. This is not a bad thing..it's actually good for music to expand beyond an "underground" or "cliquey/sub-cultural" following. Sorry again for the rambling....but that is my point. Schiller is an example of an artist like I mentioned in a previous post..who has expanded from being a trance artist to an artist who has focused more on album-orientated music, with trance elements mixed in to give it a melodic, ethereal, sometimes hypnotic edge. And he even does live concerts. This is what trance COULD be, not just some DJ dude spinning music in some club with people shaking their booties to.