quote:

Originally posted by Minhaj How would you feel? What if you paid to go see Paul van Dyk tonight and his set looked like this:

I'd rather hear him play that tracklist than drop anthem four times during his set

quote:

Originally posted by Minhaj 01. Alien Nation - Intro 02. Gemini 6 - Skysoaring 03. True Love - Breath Of Stars 04. Effective Force - Diamond Bullet 05. Cosmic Baby - Cosmikk Trigger I 06. Cosmic Baby - Oh Supergirl 07. Microglobe - High On Hope 08. Voov - Strobe Light 09. Futurhythm - Transmanic 10. Cosmic Baby - The Space Track 11. Humate - Love Stimulation 12. Cosmic Baby - Heaven's Tears 13. Visions Of Shiva, The - How Much Can You Take? 14. Cosmic Baby - Sweet Dreams For Kaa 15. Loopzone - Natural High 16. Visions Of Shiva, The - Perfect Night

best. trance. cd. ever.

if he played that live, the crowd would probably be really annoyed because of "da dj be playing old shite yo, why dont he put some minimal", and i would fucking love it.

___________________
sempre contra a corrente do jogo

quote:

Originally posted by SMC You're just rephrasing what you said earlier. So once again: Why do you always say this, what exactly is the point you're trying to make?

That to be so focused on this early stuff as if you've lived back then is silly. 1995 (and prior) was over ten years ago, surely trance is not dead. Trance is great to listen to, but there comes a point where to truly "feel" the music, you have to experience it in a festival or club. Because of this, and the idea that some people feel this old stuff is so much better (yet were too young to even know what it was or truly is about) and the scene being better. Your just basing it off of what others say it was like but do you truly know just by watching, reading, surmising.

Like I said, I doubt many of us were even old enough in 1993 to even have liked or knew what this music was, or even had the taste for it. Ishkur and a few others on here act like this early times was it glory days (and it probably was) but are we going to base this off of Ishkur, or our true experience? If someone said "yeah those were the days" like in the 1960s, and you were born and raised in the 1990s, do you truly know (unless you lived it) how it was? That's what I am saying.

People act on here like they are much older than they actually are in terms of this older stuff being so much better than anything released after when you could actually find compilations, vinyl with your favorite tracks...some of these old tracks are not easy to find unless you use BitTorrent or something. Accessibility maybe? How accessible (in terms of finding) this music? Basically, it's not what I got into, thus it doesn't hold as much value as if it was..what I got into and lived it..back in the early 1990s, but I (like I think others on here) got first into the epic, melodic trance back in the late 1990s when trance was actually a style you could find on the internet, on CDs (from well known and some lesser known DJs) and file-sharing. But it's almost like people are acting like they first got into these earlier stuff, but did you really? It would be interesting to have a poll to find out what year people first got into this type of music.

So that's what I am trying to say the best to my ability without implying that my opinion is the only opinion. People can like this old stuff as much as they want, and I have discovered some of it and it is good, but it doesn't hold the memories, the "nostalgia" if you wish, like the later 90s does. Then you could find these tracks and be like "wow, I remember when I first heard this tune, it was amazing!". It's just people on here act the same with these old tracks, and who knows if they actually heard these tracks when they first came out.

not everyone bases personal preference on nostalgia. i don't see what's 'silly' about that

quote:

Originally posted by isoterra not everyone bases personal preference on nostalgia. i don't see what's 'silly' about that

Not they probably don't, but I just think it's silly that we act like "these were the days" when trance was at it's best as if it is nostalgia. It's just what I observe. It may not be true, but that seems to be the sentiment. "yeah I remember those days" uh..you do...you were 9, 10, 11 years old? The internet wasn't even that prevalent in most households back then...and most clubs wouldn't let someone that young in...and silly to see a 9 year old at a rave or some big festival. Ishkur forces you to see that these times were the best AS IF YOU were there and should know that it was so much better. Uh well I doubt many of us were there in the early 1990s to know. But we act like it don't we? It's okay to like old music, and have gotten into stuff from earlier, but not act like this is what got us into the music. I'm sure alot of us got into like I said..the later 90s stuff and then later found out about these older tracks, not vice versa.

I'm NOT arguing which time was better or not for trance. Just the focus of more and more threads about this early trance. It's all good music, I like both. Just not what got most people I've talked to got into. How do you know about something without being exposed to it? Without truly know if somehow things were different, better...you don't know that the 1960s were different (they really weren't) to today, just because the music was better (in your opinion)...

Last edited by Spirit5 on Nov-30-2007 at 17:22

It's true that people rate early 90s trance to get clout with the "cool" crowd, or for that matter, rate any music where the general consensus among those who are considered "in the know" is that it's good. With that comes nostalgia and "back in the day..."-anecdotes. It's how scenes work.

This doesn't change that trance in the early 90s hadn't been afflicted with commercialism and the formulaic nature that goes comes with it. This way, it's that much more refreshing to hear a trance tune from back in the day when DJs didn't employ 3 minute breakdowns, big supersaws and/or "tech trancey" percussion for every other tune, and that much easier to fall in love with, regardless of having been there or not.

___________________
"Wenn du dich zum Untergrund zählst, reicht es nicht, es nur zu sagen. Du musst auch viel graben, um es zu werden."

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper It's true that people rate early 90s trance to get clout with the "cool" crowd, or for that matter, rate any music where the general consensus among those who are considered "in the know" is that it's good. With that comes nostalgia and "back in the day..."-anecdotes. It's how scenes work. This doesn't change that trance in the early 90s hadn't been afflicted with commercialism and the formulaic nature that goes comes with it. This way, it's that much more refreshing to hear a trance tune from back in the day when DJs didn't employ 3 minute breakdowns, big supersaws and/or "tech trancey" percussion for every other tune.

Yeah but wouldn't if the tracks sounded just like the early 90s, people would complain as well? That the music truly hasn't evolved..grown, just stayed the same? Trance has evolved into tech trance, hard trance, progressive trance, epic trance, and a mix of epic and progressive trance (slower epic tunes..McProg..whatever), and tracks that are almost more minimal or ambient as well. "this track isn't interesting..it sounds just like the last track" someone could argue.."it needs something more...".

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 Yeah but wouldn't if the tracks sounded just like the early 90s, people would complain as well?

I don't think anyone said that they wanted trance to remain static in the state it was in during the early 90s. If they did, I disagree with them.

The point is that people want producers to have the same mentality towards the music that they had back then, when trance was just something the few freaks in the corner cared about, and not all the people who saw Tiesto in Madame Tussaud.

___________________
"Wenn du dich zum Untergrund zählst, reicht es nicht, es nur zu sagen. Du musst auch viel graben, um es zu werden."

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper I don't think anyone said that they wanted trance to remain static in the state it was in during the early 90s. If they did, I disagree with them. The point is that people want producers to have the same mentality towards the music that they had back then, when trance was just something the few freaks in the corner cared about, and not all the people who saw Tiesto in Madame Tussaud.

So it should remain underground for only a select few to enjoy? I don't understand this attitude. Can't everyone be able to enjoy it? What's wrong with music being shared, being somewhat mainstream? I think having underground and mainstream stuff is good, it's like that in rock music and other forms of music as well...you have the big names, big bands and singers..and lesser known ones who tend to be local or more experimental ones that wouldn't be as accepted in the mainstream. Why can't trance be both mainstream and underground? sort of like it is now.

I wouldn't say "trance" is that mainstream really, the vocal stuff is but that's not really even trance. I think that mentality is NOT GOOD, because it limits itself to a "scene" like some kid who only talks to people who like the same types of music and wears the same type of clothes (like Skaters only hanging with Skaters, Preps only with Preps etc). I've always thought of trance and the trance festivals and such as being welcoming places where people of all types go to...to enjoy the music and the experience, not a "select few in the scene".

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 So it should remain underground for only a select few to enjoy? I don't understand this attitude. Can't everyone be able to enjoy it? What's wrong with music being shared, being somewhat mainstream?

Because, and this was the whole point of my previous post, music going mainstream almost always entails the sacrifice of creativity and innovation.

___________________
"Wenn du dich zum Untergrund zählst, reicht es nicht, es nur zu sagen. Du musst auch viel graben, um es zu werden."

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper Because, and this was the whole point of my previous post, music going mainstream almost always entails the sacrifice of creativity and innovation.

ALWAYS? so all rock, pop (which implies mainstream), alternative, jazz whatever..that is "popular" or well known is uncreative? Innovation is great, but once something is innovative, more and more people try to duplicate it or change it. Something can't keep reinventing itself. I thought people liked what trance was like back in the early 90s? It changed. So if it shouldn't sound just like it did back then and it was better back then, then how should it have changed other than either 1. Go more Mainstream, or 2. Stay underground thus only a few would know about it or be able to find records. Should it have gotten darker? (it did with much of the progressive house and tech-trance stuff) should it have gotten more melodic (it did, with melodic/epic trance), should it have gotten harder and edgier or more "extreme" (it did, with hard trance). It splintered, but there's still progressive trance that has kept the flowing, mild to no breakdown formula...

Last edited by Spirit5 on Nov-30-2007 at 19:01