|
| quote: | Originally posted by Subtle
Generally, yes.. trance has bigger melodies, maybe short was a bad choice of words.. but house has more focus on bass and percussions, while trance has a melodic focus, which needs huge and long leadlines which takes a great amount of space in the mix.. and you cant just introduce huge long melodies in an 8 bar break, it wont sound good. |
Ultimately it sounds like you're basing your entire analysis of music on the way you're best able to produce it.
I'm seriously gobsmacked by how little you seem to know about these genres while claiming to produce both of them. The entire genre of house music was a spinoff on the funk and soul songs of the 1970s and 1980s. By contrast, the very idea of trance music connotes a repetitive, tribal kind of feel. The vast majority of trance made before 1998-1999 didn't really even have melodies in the traditional sense, just various motifs that got repeated, modulated, and transposed.
Try listening to a Snap or Paul Oakenfold or Sasha mix circa 1994-1996. These were brilliant sets that had the dancefloors going absolutely nuts (you know, with people actually dancing?) and the breakdowns are few and far between, even though the basic melodies were more or less the same as today's trance.
So you've posted two examples of tracks that "needed" long breakdowns and buildups. 'Course that doesn't prove that they needed them, just that they have them. And even if that did mean something - wonderful, I can list hundreds of tracks that do that, but it still doesn't prove anything about composition in general. How about some tracks that don't use long breakdowns:
- Daft Punk - Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger
- Armand Van Helden - You Can't Change Me
- Basement Jaxx - Red Alert
- Fatboy Slim - The Rockafeller Skank
- Sandy Rivera - The Light
- Adam F - Music In My Mind
- John B - American Girls
- X-Cabs - Neuro
- Evolver - Evolver
- Paul van Dyk - Forbidden Fruit (long ass intro, but no breakdown!)
- Paul van Dyk - Words (for Love)
And yes, most of these have some break, but taking the kick out for 15 seconds is a perfectly valid way of minimizing the repetitiveness of a track, and is not at all the same as a 1-minute-long build/break/drop sequence. It's simply a break, nothing more, and it certainly isn't introducing any new material.
It's also worth noting that these are the anthems I'm listing, and in general anthems are anthems because of their playability outside the clubs which makes them far more likely to follow the formula. Most DJs don't play anthem after anthem, they play what I'm sure a lot of you refer to as "filler" tracks. Maybe these aren't notable to you, maybe they're even objectively boring as hell, but they are what gets played in the clubs, most of the time.
That's what strikes me as so stupid about all of this. Every amateur trance producer is out there trying to create the next big anthem, which are precisely the tracks that have to be truly original in order to get any significant airtime. If you just make a track that's decent and harmonious and doesn't have 2 full minutes of undanceable material, and send it out to a bunch of DJs, there's a good chance it'll actually get played.
I'm not going to waste any further time on this discussion. I honestly think that this entire argument is based on deep-seated ignorance and self-delusion. People really ought to learn a little about the music they're trying to create, and it seems that so many have barely even scratched the surface.
___________________
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
|
