quote:

Originally posted by evil_bastard I don't see how you can judge the compexity of any art quantitively. Isn't this a wee bit like looking at a painting and working out how many colours were used to achieve the final work?

YESSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SOMEONE WHO UNDERSANDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dude, that just made me really happy to read!!!!

-m

___________________

no obstacles between my heart and my words; my lips, the great liaison to my soul.

Wow... quite a few results, too many to tackle all of them, but since cobalt seems to really want a reply, i'll address him first.

quote:

Nowhere in your reply do you address a single one of my arguments. I think they are far from 'irrelevant,' unless you are the absolute authority on relevancy as well as 'intelligence.'

i'm not an absolute authority on intelligence, and one mistake I made at the beginning of this thread was not defining intelligence... I propose that we start a new thread, or perhaps two. One will deal with the "complexity" of trance, and another will deal with the "intelligence" of trance. We will start out by debating a solid definition of both terms, and once we have those terms layed out we will then discuss the merits of trance based on them. Since I failed to do this at the beginning of the thread, its become very hard to keep it on topic, or even keep arguing the same point because the definition of those two terms which I had in mind were not the same that you all had in mind. THe only way for this post to continue is to find a solid definition of those terms that everyone can agree on, and go from there.

And as for irrelivancy, I didn't say you in particular were irrelivant, but there were a large number of posts that were offtopic, or did not directly deal with the issue at hand, and I therefore ignored them deeming them irrelivant. At the time I posted that thread, I was quite tired, and really didn't feel like rebuting alot of responses at the time. IT takes me quite a while (30 minutes or so) to form a complete response, and I ddin't feel like replying to everyone's. You were next on my list, but, I thought alccode needed addressing first. I'm sorry if I offended you in any way. You post brought up some good points, and I will address them now.

quote:

Your definition of 'intelligent' music seems to be music that takes extreme effort on the part of the artist and utilizes various techniques. Why were these techniques you deem indicators of 'intelligence' developed in the first place? Were they implemented so that after hearing a given piece the listener muses on how technically innovative and intelligent the artist must have been? Do you listen to a piece of music and merely enjoy it by dissecting the parts? That's only one half of the whole, and you're reducing the 'intelligence' of music perversely to its constituent elements.

once again, this goes back to my definition, or original lack thereof, of intelligence. ITs true there is more to musical intelligence than pure technique, but take most classical masterpieces of music, and then remove musical technique, and what do you get? Generally, you would have something that sounded flat, boring, unemotional. Therefore, techniques can be quite a good objective judge of intelligence. Once you get into emotion, etc...,it becomes purely subjective, at which point the argument becomes useless. So, for arguments sake, techniques are a good judge of intelligence. However, as I said, if you would like to start a new thread, where we debate the meaning of intelligence at the beginning, i'd be willing to do so.

quote:

Part of how masterful or 'intelligent' music is also how it makes us feel, what mood it imparts, and the harmony of its instruments it creates... Trance is intelligent in different ways than what you deem as intelligent.' You're ignoring whole branches of artistry.

see previous point

quote:

You can criticize individual tracks all you want, but you're ignoring the art of the progression, the art of crafting a journey for the listener from multiple tracks. Trance has an entire extra layer of complexity in liveset form that most every other genre lacks.

This is the first really good point i've read. I've always loved live sets, and I find I enjoy listening to them much more than individual tracks. That's because they create a mood, and send you on an emotional journey. However, at the same time, they generally can't carry as much of a specific message, as more of a general theme, or tone. But you're right I am ignoring certain parts of intelligence, due to the purely subjectivity of thier nature.

quote:

Why does progressive have such appeal? Why do fans of it call it 'intelligent?' Because it is, just in a different way than you describe, and in a valid way that you are ignoring. Progression, mood, and atmosphere of a set all require intelligence and skill.

I dont really know what progressive is. I've read dozens of posts about it, and I still can't give you a good definition of it. I think I know what the sound is, and i'm pretty sure I could recognize it, but under no means am I an expert at it, and I dont feel i'm expirienced enough to really argue eithier way.

quote:

So in conclusion, I understand the point you are trying to make, but with all due respect, you are ignoring different forms of talent and 'intelligence' in music.

well, lets start a new debate.

Now to your next major post.

quote:

Would you care to explain how 'ideas' are expressed behind the melody? It looks like you are botching these terms in order to degrade the intelligence and skill that does exist within trance.

Most often, musical ideas are expressed through words, however, in the types of music we've been discussing, lyrics are generally absent, or simply act as another instrument, rather than expressing ideas. But Ideas can be expressed through music through a variety of techniques which I really can't explain. instead, i'll give you some examples.
Beethoven's 6th pastoral symphony uses some light tones to create the image of nature
Vivaldi expresses the idea of the four seasons through use of differnt melodies that sound what his idea of that particular season are.
Namistai (for me) gives me the idea of traveling to a far away place
7 Cities uses a simple arpeggio riff that gives me the image of a mystic city.
ITs not something I can really explain, but the ideas are there, and if you can't hear them, then perhaps you should try listening again. (these are subjective of course, but in the case of the first two, the examples are actually pretty obvious what the theme of the song is, in the latter two, I just gave my own interpritation of what I thogut the artist meant)

quote:

Interesting to note that you deem the most 'intelligent' reply the one which most closely agrees with you.

I dont think it agrees with me that much, and it has as many valid points as yours. IT simply came first, so I replied to it first. So I guess it wasn't entirely the most intelligent, but at the time you two were the ones I needed to reply to most, I only had time tow rite one, and his came first.

quote:

You seriously believe that the emotion of Moonlight Sonata is due to all the techniques you just listed? Furthermore, are you placing a value on the piece simply by the 'numbers of techniques' it implements? Sorry, but this is not necesarily how I judge the skill and intelligence that went into a production.

Lets assume that the song started out in slow 6/8 time like it does, and then stayed there no switch to 4/4 or any tempo changes. Now take out the crecendo's/decresendo's, key changes, etc... now what do you have? that song has quite a few different themes that could not be accomplished without the use of those. IF you listen to it, it really does have a wide variety of different ideas that all come together to form one amazing song, and without those afore mentioned techniques, it would be flat, boring, and actually quite impossible to write.

quote:

Classical has existed for hundreds of years and has more artists than trance does. Abusing people who feel trance is an intelligent form of music by comparing it to the monolithic power of classical is ludicrous.

Actaully, classical has far fewer artists than trance, although probably many more tracks, bach alone wrote thousands of songs in his life. But anyway, how is this abuse? its an intelligent debate, at no point have I resorted to jokes, sarcasm, insults, or anything other than a point by point rebutle? many others have as well. I've simply ignored the ones who had nothing constructive to say, I dont see how that qualify's as "abuse". And by using the term "monolithic power of classical" you actually invalidate your own argument.

quote:

No offense, sir, but you seem to simply be attempting to elevate your own status with this thread. The artistry of trance takes talent and intelligence, and I put it above most other genres in that respect.

I have no reason to try and elevate myself. This is an anonymous forum, I am not a regular poster. I started this thread with a specific point, and I am willing to defend it. I have greatly enjoyed this debate, and have now acknowledged all your points. Please stop resorting to personal assaults as it accomplishes nothing and distracts from the original topic of the thread.

quote:

Also, was it really necessary to double-space your reply?

Sorry about that, I write everything in notepad, and hten copy and paste, I messed up this time around, i'll try to not let it happen again.

dyson-

quote:

Classical music isn't more "intelligent" than anything, its just been around for a really long time so that somebody invented a theory.

Once again, this depends on your definition of intelligence, but no, the theory was originally invented for classical, not derived from pre existing classical works. And if nothing else, the absolute power of classical to keep surviving has something to say about it. Its the only type of music that really has lasted and is as widely picked up on by new audiences. Most other genreas listeners today are simply the people who grew up listening to it, and when they die, so will the music style. Surely this says something about it.

quote:

Also I think the topic really got off topic, but what do you expect, you post something like this in a trance forum???....you are not that intelligent I see.

it got slightly offtopic, but its stayed pretty much ontopic, aside form some rather ignorant and/or unrelated posts. I am quite pleased by the way its progressed, the topic at hand is still relevant to the one we started on, although a little more narrow than original. I've been in debates where we ended up debating a completely unrelated topic.

DJ Pio-

quote:

Dude, I'm sorry, but you have it all wrong. Simplicity is underrated. Good electronic music is not simple, it's minimalist, derived directly from the classical avant-garde mvt. of the 60s called minimalism. It is true that there's a lot of generic shit in trance nowadays, but you have to distiguish the rubbish from the quality. Here's why your argument's wrong:

keep in mind, the argument is not wether or not simplicity is bad, its wether or not trance is simplistic. That (very long) essay that I merely skimmed over, was interesting, but pretty unrelated to the rest of this thread. although you did show that trance is simplistic, which proves point one pretty much without a doubt. I guess this leaves the intelligence to be debated now.

Lastly i'd like to close by pointing out one common misconception you all have. The general idea on this website is that if music does not illicit trance like emotions, i.e. euphoric, super happy, etc... it does not illicit emotions at all. THIS IS WRONG. Classical does not have these same emotions, but it does not make the emotions it has any less valid or powerful. Rock, punk, pop, jazz, blues, etc... ALL have quite alot of emotion, wether it be anger, love, depression, they all ahve emotion, and most of it is quite stong. just because it doesnt make you feel good deep down inside does not make it non emotional.

quote:

Related is the tendency of trance to have a higher tempo, and frequenly, much more energy - an important component of emotion.

haing more energy is not an important component of emotion. I'd like you to write a piece of music that has alot of energy, and is trying to display a sad tone... thats right, its impossible. Yes, having energy is good for some emotions, i.e. happyness or anger, but it is by no means required for all emotion.

___________________
Have none

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of classical pieces I enjoy. But to think the genre can hope to compare in terms of complexity, when it is fundamentally based upon human limitations, whereas trance is based only on the limitations of machines, is the true manifestation of stupidity.

forgive me, for I never read your entire post when preparing my previous post. I would like to say that this statement is actually quite ironic. The very fact that on computers there is no limitation, and yet the most that can come out of it is "trance" is ironic indeed. Trance, generally, is not too difficult to reproduce on instruments. Alot of the litle sounds yes. but a good drumber, could, feasably reproduce a 4/4 beat throughout a song, could reproduce the hi hats, and most of the melody pieces. Imagine what Beethoven could do with acid? One could only imagine. Classical music, despite the "human limitations" actually has quite a few more levels of sound than most trance. Where trance only has a few individual instruments, many classical pieces have as much as a 70 piece symphony. So to say that it can't hope to compare is quite ironic indeed, because more has been done within the "human limitations" than has ever been done with a computer.

___________________
Have none

quote:

Originally posted by branmuffin forgive me, for I never read your entire post when preparing my previous post. I would like to say that this statement is actually quite ironic. The very fact that on computers there is no limitation, and yet the most that can come out of it is "trance" is ironic indeed. Trance, generally, is not too difficult to reproduce on instruments. Alot of the litle sounds yes. but a good drumber, could, feasably reproduce a 4/4 beat throughout a song, could reproduce the hi hats, and most of the melody pieces. Imagine what Beethoven could do with acid? One could only imagine. Classical music, despite the "human limitations" actually has quite a few more levels of sound than most trance. Where trance only has a few individual instruments, many classical pieces have as much as a 70 piece symphony. So to say that it can't hope to compare is quite ironic indeed, because more has been done within the "human limitations" than has ever been done with a computer.

a 70 piece symphone divided up into a certain number of parts.

also, recognize that humans cannot reproduce, in any way without some sort of computer, the sounds created by phazers, reverb, etc... there are so many ambient sounds that are produces as an "after effect" or some synths and even more that come from other little tweaks such as reverb.

interesting thoughts tho...

and beethoven... i think his music was really a product of the times. If you look through time you may notice this pattern: in the beginning of written "western classical" music, around 400AD, there was basically one type: church music. Chants and such were used in mass to add some "flair" if you wanna call it that. Much later, around 1400 AD, music was stull being used for church but now also entertainment purposes but only the rich could afford it because they could pay composers to compose. soon after, 1700-1800, music was much more accessible and there were a few different forms of "classical" as we know it today, we had romantic, baroque, medieval, classical.. and in each there was certain forms and such. now music is for everyone and there are hundreds of broad genres such as trance and thousands of sub genred like epic trance, progressive trance, goa trance, and so on. itts fucking crazy how exciting this is and how music has evolved from just one source (in america in writing). and back to beethoven, his music on acid would be probably similar to before since the forms he used are the forms he mastered.

-m

___________________

no obstacles between my heart and my words; my lips, the great liaison to my soul.

quote:

Originally posted by Rakoon Every genre is different, trance being the most different. The style of trance is to be repetitive and to repeat melodies. You cant compare the complexity of other music genres to trance because they are all different styles, and therefore its impossible to justly draw a comparison. It would be possible, however, to compare the complexity of 2 tracks within a genre. That said, all this fuss is based on opinion, since no one can truly compare the complexity between 2 different genres. Therefore each side of this argument (10+ vs 1) makes valid points but nobody will ever win

What he said.

Branmuffin, I don't think it is fair to line trance up against classical, even if it's just for the sake of your argument.

Classical is in a league of it's own regarding talent and complexity. If you line any musical genre up against classical it will look simplistic. Many people, if asked to name the most talented musician ever, would probably name a classical composer. Classical has been around for 100s of years and thus has a massive pool of people from around the world, amongst whom there are bound to have been some amazingly talented people. Trance is not very popular relatively speaking, and has barely been around a decade. The music is still evolving, it may die out, it may grow, who knows.

I agree with you that trance is simplistic so far as the final output is less 'cluttered', but to take it apart falls into the trap of treating an art like a science. Rachmaninov's Piano Concertos involve just a piano, does this make them 'simple'?

You're also working on the simple hypothesis that more instruments = more complexity. This disregards the merit of each individual instrument and how it is used. You could spend ages working on some awesome 303 lines and have trouble getting it to sound right, a Jazz musician could spend years honing on his skills, or a grungy metal band could get a local drummer to do a simple loop. You would mark all of these off as "1 instrument" and count up a final score of complexity? That is a major flaw with your analysis, you are counting the number of contingents and the frequency of their use rather than actually judging each contingent on it's merits. You are comparing arts quantitatively rather than qualitatively.

For the record I actually agree with you, so far as I know what you are getting at. However, I would say trance is "formulaic" and "minimalistic", but "simple" is the wrong word. As I said at the beginning of this post, I propose you take classical out of the equation, and judge the individual instruments on their merits rather than simply counting how many there are or how often they are used.


As I see it, there are two ways you can look at this:

Quantitatively: ie "This is far more complex than that, because he only used this instrument with this one in the background and repeats the same melody while the other track has all these instruments coming back again and again etc etc"
or
Qualitatively: ie "This is far more complex, look at the way he has manipulated this instrument to work in harmony with that instrument, look at the choice of timing in this track compared to this one which IMO introduces this instrument too soon, look at how he gently fades out this instrument etc etc"

I don't mind you calling trance simple, but I would rather you did so looking at it qualitatively as I have yet to see you do that. You are cynically treating this genre of music like a science and I believe that is why you have met a lot of opposition. It's not how many or how often instruments are used, it is how they are used. Look at impressionist paintings for example.

mmm.. pretty interesting thread. but no way i'm gonna read all that.

my point:

I used to tell my friends who listen to mainstream crap that my music was better because it wasn't comercial, it was more underground and more complex. Now I don't say it no more.

I started to realize many trance is just based on the same formula aplicated again and again and again without inovating, with similar main leads. that is comercialism, and it could be complex for the pioneers, but not for the ones who copy them.

Still, there are pretty complex tunes getting released. For a random example, Leama - Requiem For A Dream (Leama's Dream Mix). this tune is a valid point to show anyone who thinks trance is comercial crap that doesn't go nowhere. so much emotion and melodies put together perfectly.

My final conclusion would be that trance isn't THAT complex. but is more complex than the mainstream MTV pop stuff. you must have an open mind to "understand" certain trance tracks. some ppl aren't just intelligent enough to understand trance, or they don't give it a chance. But after all the point in trance is to get people animated at parties, not to be sitting home analising how complex the track is. It's more about the emotions, than the complexity. After all, music is a form of art about expressing emotions, making you feeling good, sad, angry, or whatever. It's not about seeing who can make the longest melody or such.

Simple music doesn't mean it's bad music.

___________________
sempre contra a corrente do jogo

shit its like English class for this thread ahahahahh eassay writing still exist.

Yeah music is simple and also nice lets keep it that way and stop being nerds about it. hahahaha

does anyone think trance would even sound as good with many more "parts"? Not that this is any sort of an argument because it obviously isnt but just a thought.

-m

___________________

no obstacles between my heart and my words; my lips, the great liaison to my soul.

Exactly. You could just bung loads of shit into a track without a care in the world and it would not be a complex piece of work. Also, it is possible to overproduce a track, as the saying goes 'too many cooks spoil the broth'. For example, I find breakbeat makes a nice change but I would not find 2 hours of nothing but breakbeat an enjoyable experience - I'd probably get a headache.

___________________

Download all my EuroHardTrance traxx & learn more about me ("Kompulsor"):
www.kompulsor.com