quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 ALWAYS? so all rock, pop (which implies mainstream), alternative, jazz whatever..that is "popular" or well known is uncreative?

Your ability to miss the point is extraordinary indeed.

There are always exceptions to a norm (which is why I said ALMOST always. Underworld comes to mind in this regard), but once something goes mainstream, it usually has the consequence that creativity and innovation is marginalized due to the pressure from the other factors of the industry. People don't want to hear a trance record that's really out there and radically different. They want to hear anthems they can hum and put their hands in the air to on the dancefloor.

___________________
"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 They want to hear anthems they can hum and put their hands in the air to on the dancefloor.

And maybe to the average person this much more fun than some tripped out, noisy, overly repetitive track. People like to have FUN when they go out, not always be on some drug trip. The music reflects that fun, carefree attitude, not always some deep, psychedelic experience. Do you think the average person who goes out to a club wants to either 1. Have fun with friends or 2. Go on some journey. Yes I really like the second one, cause I'm all for this (even with this melodic, hands in the air stuff) but you have to think of the average person who a DJ plays for and why the people are going out (to have fun!, get away from the business of everyday life and drink..be merry).

But no, you guys seem to take this elitist attitude that the average person can't possibly like true trance because they are unenlightened or have poor taste in music. This may be true, but trance DJs don't always play for those who have refined tastes. They probably play for many people used to rock and pop music, not flowing, rhythmic music. That's probably why they make more structured tracks, or structured mixed with some more abstract, out there stuff...to appease everyone not just a select few.

Mikka Kuisima's new album has some more pop stuff mixed in with more traditional instrumental trance and some that has prog house or electro type influences. He's respected on here, but he's trying to appeal to both. A DJ is an entertainer, they play to entertain, help people enjoy themselves...like a comedian does. They guide the mood of the party.

This idea of yours might work better for those who are in the underground, at a festival where most people are really into the music, but this isn't the case with clubs. And I am sure as the music started getting played more and more at clubs and not raves or large festivals, that they tried appealing towards a different demographic...becoming more mainstream, making more structured, pop-like music. There might be a correlation to this, who knows.

Last edited by Spirit5 on Nov-30-2007 at 19:33

quote:

Originally posted by Erotic Buddha you sir, are a fucking moron

+1 ...

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 That to be so focused on this early stuff as if you've lived back then is silly.

Why do i need have lived when a work of art first was created to enjoy it without being silly? Or why do i need to have heard it when it was new to enjoy it? Explain that to me.

quote:

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.

Says who? Must i have heard Mozart being performed 200 years ago to truly enjoy the music he wrote? Must i have attended Genesis and Yes concerts in 1973 to say the best prog rock was made in the first half of the 70s?

Besides, i don't really care about clubbing today and i wasn't out clubbing when i was 5, so even if your stupid assumption was correct i would be equally inclined to like old and new music.

Also i strongly believe that a decent audio system playing music at a reasonable volume in a quiet environment is the best setting for appreciating music, far superior to a club with drunk people yelling and music that is at best very loud and owerwhelming, but most likely incredibly loud, distorted and hurtful.

quote:

do you truly know just by watching, reading, surmising.

No, but by listening perhaps.

quote:

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.

Is it really so hard to believe that someone can pick up a record that isn't new and listen to it? Is it physically impossible for me to listen to X-Dream - Trip To Trancesylvania from 1993 just because i didn't first hear it in 1993?

quote:

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.

Why are you so obsessed with what people got into first? What does it matter?

1. People might get into something at first but discover something else they like better later.

or

2. Tastes evolve/change.

or

3. Both 1. and 2.

quote:

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.

Let's be serious for a moment here, what's most important, the actual music or the memories and the "nostalgia"? Also, can no feelings arise and memories be created when hearing a tune unless it's new? C'mon.

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 But no, you guys seem to take this elitist attitude that the average person can't possibly like true trance because they are unenlightened or have poor taste in music.

On the contrary. The problem is that DJs are too worried about their wallets, their fanboys/girls and the industry to test their audience and try something brand new and different (and no, playing a Umek track between two of your anthem trancers does not count as "different"). It's never been about how the audience cannot possibly like "true" trance. It's about noone having the balls to try them out.

And that's the crux of it. Nowadays people only make the "fun" stuff, as you describe it, because they think that this is the only thing people want to hear, and anything else will put their positions (and finances) at risk.

For instance, who would've thought that someone like Dizzee Rascal would go mainstream and get his biggest hit ever with a tune that has a big fuck off dirty bassline and gabber kickdrums at 140 BPM? Luckily, the people at XL Recordings had the guts to push it, believing in introducing something new to the world.

___________________
"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 noikeee 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.

That's assuming that they even knew what that music was. What if it were completely new to them? Now that would make it interesting.

___________________
This is trance...
Jose Amnesia - The Eternal (Pulser Remix) / Chicane - Saltwater / Photon Project - Illumination / Gouryella - Tenshi / Altitude - Altitude (SHOKK Remix) / Rank 1 - Airwave / The Thrillseekers - Synaesthesia (En Motion Mix)

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 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.... ...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"... ...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?...

1 - it's actually more accessible than you might think. visit vintage record stores, shop on ebay, shop on discogs. by these early compilations, etc. there are also a massive amount of oldskool sets floating around out there, you just have to look for it.

2 - early trance music has an undeniable energy that comes from it being innovative and unrestrained. if things sound crazy it's because the producer was doing something nuts with the equipment that hadn't been done before, trying to drive people out of their minds and make asses shake and hands flail. now it's all about packing every last frequency in the spectrum and creating tracks which are more akin to 19th century romantic painting than dance music.

3 - what is so bad about thinking something is great even if you never experienced it first hand? does this mean that if you claim to like gustav holst's planets suite that you are a poser, because you can only truly appreciate it if you had lived in 1916 and had heard it played in Royal Albert Hall? Obviously you wouldn't have the same experience, but you certainly might find something impressive about it with which you can identify in your own context.

For many younger people who respect older trance, including myself, it is because it has a meaning greater than the sound itself. The fact that it was first makes it all the more interesting and fun, because you are essentially listening to raw creativity, playful experimentation, bold innovation...

it's more conceptual, more ballsy, more futuristic - those who made it were actively breaking away from society. this was and remains a romantic ideal for many angsty and intelligent misanthropes around the world.

much of it sounds live and maybe unprofessional by today's standards because of the way in which it was recorded and performed - today it is produced in a way not unlike things are grown in laboratories, and the sterilzation is really evident.



It's like the difference between listening to Charlie Parker live at Birdland or listening to smooth jazz from Kenny G. conservative. soulless. bland. trite.



As for me personally, I respect and listen to older trance (as well as detroit techno, oldskool jungle, and house) for a few reasons:

- it's new to me, and thus exciting
- it is unrestrained and experimental, and thus inspiring
- i admire many of the personalities involved in its development
- it gives me perspective and deeper understanding of newer music

That said, I buy hundreds of dollars a month of new music. I try to make music which I think is contemporary. I certainly do not pretend to live in the past, but I try to gather as much as I can from what I can learn of it.

quote:

Originally posted by SMC Why do i need have lived when a work of art first was created to enjoy it without being silly? Or why do i need to have heard it when it was new to enjoy it? Explain that to me. Says who? Must i have heard Mozart being performed 200 years ago to truly enjoy the music he wrote? Must i have attended Genesis and Yes concerts in 1973 to say the best prog rock was made in the first half of the 70s? Besides, i don't really care about clubbing today and i wasn't out clubbing when i was 5, so even if your stupid assumption was correct i would be equally inclined to like old and new music. Also i strongly believe that a decent audio system playing music at a reasonable volume in a quiet environment is the best setting for appreciating music, far superior to a club with drunk people yelling and music that is at best very loud and owerwhelming, but most likely incredibly loud, distorted and hurtful. No, but by listening perhaps. Is it really so hard to believe that someone can pick up a record that isn't new and listen to it? Is it physically impossible for me to listen to X-Dream - Trip To Trancesylvania from 1993 just because i didn't first hear it in 1993? Why are you so obsessed with what people got into first? What does it matter? 1. People might get into something at first but discover something else they like better later. or 2. Tastes evolve/change. or 3. Both 1. and 2. Let's be serious for a moment here, what's most important, the actual music or the memories and the "nostalgia"? Also, can no feelings arise and memories be created when hearing a tune unless it's new? C'mon.

I'm NOT saying that you have to have been there, I'm saying that it is IMPLIED that people have by glossing over this old stuff now by these types of threads when you never really did, you just HEARD the music. I'm not the one arguing for this, I'm trying to argue AGAINST this idea, by implying that others feel like you should have. Case In Point..this thread...it's about stuff from 1995 and prior to that. It doesn't have to be new, but you guys act like a bunch of old geezers when you really aren't.."yeah back in the day..." yeah but what about now? What about new tracks?

What about stuff from the later 90s, early 00s when you could actually hear this music at clubs, hear it on the internet, find DJ sets..etc. It's like someone who loves old cars but never has driven in one...and feels like the old cars as so much better because they are old...yeah they might like the look. I'm not arguing about the quality of the music, I'm arguing about the implied justification for the scene being so much better back then by people who were never really into it back then to know. That's what I am trying to get at, not about appreciation for the music...the scene surrounding the music. Because someone tells you...does that necessarily make it so? Someone could tell me that it was so great back in the early 20th century when you didn't have computers, but do they really know what it was like back then? Does someone who likes this old trance really think that it better without actually having been there? at the clubs..at the festivals, hearing the music...or just think it's better cause someone says so...

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec 1 - it's actually more accessible than you might think. visit vintage record stores, shop on ebay, shop on discogs. by these early compilations, etc. there are also a massive amount of oldskool sets floating around out there, you just have to look for it. 2 - early trance music has an undeniable energy that comes from it being innovative and unrestrained. if things sound crazy it's because the producer was doing something nuts with the equipment that hadn't been done before, trying to drive people out of their minds and make asses shake and hands flail. now it's all about packing every last frequency in the spectrum and creating tracks which are more akin to 19th century romantic painting than dance music. 3 - what is so bad about thinking something is great even if you never experienced it first hand? does this mean that if you claim to like gustav holst's planets suite that you are a poser, because you can only truly appreciate it if you had lived in 1916 and had heard it played in Royal Albert Hall? Obviously you wouldn't have the same experience, but you certainly might find something impressive about it with which you can identify in your own context. For many younger people who respect older trance, including myself, it is because it has a meaning greater than the sound itself. The fact that it was first makes it all the more interesting and fun, because you are essentially listening to raw creativity, playful experimentation, bold innovation... it's more conceptual, more ballsy, more futuristic - those who made it were actively breaking away from society. this was and remains a romantic ideal for many angsty and intelligent misanthropes around the world. much of it sounds live and maybe unprofessional by today's standards because of the way in which it was recorded and performed - today it is produced in a way not unlike things are grown in laboratories, and the sterilzation is really evident. It's like the difference between listening to Charlie Parker live at Birdland or listening to smooth jazz from Kenny G. conservative. soulless. bland. trite. As for me personally, I respect and listen to older trance (as well as detroit techno, oldskool jungle, and house) for a few reasons: - it's new to me, and thus exciting - it is unrestrained and experimental, and thus inspiring - i admire many of the personalities involved in its development - it gives me perspective and deeper understanding of newer music That said, I buy hundreds of dollars a month of new music. I try to make music which I think is contemporary. I certainly do not pretend to live in the past, but I try to gather as much as I can from what I can learn of it.

I get what your saying, I understand, I AGREE. I don't mean to imply that you have to have been at a certain time to appreciate music from a certain time period. I'm stating, as I keep trying to state..that the implication as if you've been there is what I am after, and the implication that it's this nostalgic music when it wasn't nostalgia to you in the first place because you discovered it later (you as in a general you, not you personally). Like my last post to SMC..about old cars...someone thinking they are so great because they are old or what not..but not having actually been in one...and when they ride in one their impression might change of it.

Basically....

The music isn't nostalgia and shows no value because I have just discovered it recently (in the past two years..the stuff prior to about 1996 or 97 that I am familiar with). It's not nostalgic if it's something you just discovered. But it probably is just as good if not better than some of the nostalgic tracks that I have liked over the years. But those certain tracks are still impactful to me and probably to others on here as well. This shouldn't be a place where only pre 1995 tracks are discussed. Let's not be so stuck on the past. I'm being nostalgic but also against the nostalgia when it comes to trance. Anything new worth discussing? Another "trance was better then that it was now" thread?

Last edited by Spirit5 on Nov-30-2007 at 20:16

well, judging from the title of the thread, i think that's what we're dealing with here

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec 1 - it's actually more accessible than you might think. visit vintage record stores, shop on ebay, shop on discogs. by these early compilations, etc. there are also a massive amount of oldskool sets floating around out there, you just have to look for it.

That's fine and dandy but what about things being "new and fresh"? I've heard this old stuff, I like it, but am I going to be able to look for a new track from this particular artist? Something "new and fresh"? On Beatport? Maybe, maybe not, but your a little more likely to hear something new from the producers from the later 90s and early 00s than these from earlier...