This is going to sound funny I guess, and it's really no pun to anything or related to the quality of either type, but I always considered progressive more upscale club/lounge type music, that you would usually find/hear at a 21+ venue with open bars, and mainstream trance/epic more the stuff you would hear at a festival or a massive/(used to be...rave) - the progressive sounds tend to get everybody in the mode and mess with your mind a bit after you have had a few....and epic/mainstream trance is quite energy-laden with lots of peaks, riffs, and wobbly funky basslines that just make you want to dance and scream the whole time...

both can be called 'trance' just simply based on the synths and atmospheric elements / dreamy swimming sounds that play with your head - well, damnit, you know what trance is hahah

Just trying to further identify what (I think the) differences are in prog vs. epic/"regular" trance

System J is right. You other people are wrong.

Most trance before the late '90s featured slow builds and no choruses, too. Doesn't mean that it was "progressive."

lol at the retardness here.

___________________


http://www.cev3.com/

wtf, have you people even listened to any 90's electronic music?

Progressive house was called progressive because it was different. It has nothing to do with the structure.

Progressive trance was called progressive because it was different. It has nothing to do with the structure.

Epic trance is in fact just a genre that sprung from progressive trance. It pushed the new direction trance was taking, to the extreme.

quote:

Originally posted by distant wtf, have you people even listened to any 90's electronic music? Progressive house was called progressive because it was different. It has nothing to do with the structure. Progressive trance was called progressive because it was different. It has nothing to do with the structure. Epic trance is in fact just a genre that sprung from progressive trance. It pushed the new direction trance was taking, to the extreme.

er...so how can you classify anything these days as "progressive"?

There's rarely anything groundbreaking these days.

Basically you're implying that progressive as a genre is dead.

___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide

quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog er...so how can you classify anything these days as "progressive"? There's rarely anything groundbreaking these days. Basically you're implying that progressive as a genre is dead.

It's just a bleedin' name. It stuck. It was called progressive because it was new and innovative at the time, obviously it couldn't stay that way forever, but the name stuck.

And there's plenty of genre-fusion going on, you just haven't found it yet. Drop the defeatist mentality.

EDIT: In case I wasn't clear enough: Progressive is NOT a genre. It means absolutely NOTHING unless you put something after it. It's a prefix, just like "nu-", "neo-" and "post-".

Last edited by distant on Aug-07-2007 at 04:36

quote:

Originally posted by distant It's just a bleedin' name. It stuck. It was called progressive because it was new and innovative at the time, obviously it couldn't stay that way forever, but the name stuck. And there's plenty of genre-fusion going on, you just haven't found it yet. Drop the defeatist mentality.

Defeatist?

Ok, so instead of championing my own view, maybe now I'll probe yours (SYSTEM-J please answer, would love to hear).

If then, you think that progressive is defined by sound and not structure, what sounds/instruments separate a progressive song from a normal one?

What sounds define it?

___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide

quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog Defeatist? Ok, so instead of championing my own view, maybe now I'll probe yours (SYSTEM-J please answer, would love to hear). If then, you think that progressive is defined by sound and not structure, what sounds/instruments separate a progressive song from a normal one? What sounds define it?

Compare German trance from 1992 to British trance from 1998.

Compare Chicago house from 1988 to British house from 1994.

Seems pretty obvious. You can't have a group like Leftfield who fucks up the idea of house music, and simply call them "house". They changed the genre. They're progressive.

And again you're making the mistake of refering to "progressive" as a genre. Asking what sounds define it makes no sense since you haven't defined what progressive music you're talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by distant Compare German trance from 1992 to British trance from 1998. Compare Chicago house from 1988 to British house from 1994. Seems pretty obvious. You can't have a group like Leftfield who fucks up the idea of house music, and simply call them "house". They changed the genre. They're progressive. And again you're making the mistake of refering to "progressive" as a genre. Asking what sounds define it makes no sense since you haven't defined what progressive music you're talking about.

You can't define a genre by comparing two different things!

That's like saying "listen to song x, then listen to song y, and you will understand what house music is" to someone who's never heard it before.

Ok...explain what sounds you think are prevalent and defining in progressive house.

quote:

Originally posted by distant Seems pretty obvious. You can't have a group like Leftfield who fucks up the idea of house music, and simply call them "house". They changed the genre. They're progressive.

You just shot yourself in the foot.

When the first acid house came out...it was new. Did everyone call it "progressive house" because it was different and changed the genre?

No, it became a new genre in itself, with a proper name.

If something's new, it gets a new name. When trance first arose, did people call it "progressive house" because it was a new variant of house? No, they called it "trance", because that's what it was!

___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide

Trance was a new variant of techno, not a variant of house.

We've already established that Leftfield's music wasn't called progressive because of its structure, so obviously it must be because they threw in african, electro, dub, techno and whatever other influences into their music.

So how could it be that progressive TRANCE, a genre very closely associated with progressive house, suddenly takes it name from its changes in structure? How does that make any sense?

As for the acid house sentiment, it was called acid house because it ALWAYS involved a certain instrument called the Roland TB-303. Acid was chosen as a name. Sure you could replace progressive with afro-electro-dub-techno, but that doesn't make sense since not ALL progressive house tracks had ALL of those influences. That was the point of progressive house: it allowed various influences, it had no real boundaries. Hence, progressive. But it was still technically house, so there you go: progressive house.

Tracks that dont follow the typical pop formula and use different arranging techniques.