|
| quote: | Originally posted by Numidia
I think of it this way: Over the last couple of years there's been a rise in that "new sound" of trance. I think you all know what I mean. It sounds proggier, instead of a saw lead there's pulse/sin stabs with a shitload of delay and the melodies are nice but they're not as "epic" as the melodies in the '99 sound of trance. As well, the basslines aren't as energetic as before, but they're deeper, proggier sounding. A usual Armin set, for instance, is full of these types of tracks.
Now I'm not saying one style is better than the other, or anything like that. But here's the problem with this. This "new sound" is just referred to as "Trance" even though it's clearly different from the form of trance we originally know. The point being that people who listen or prefer the original form of trance have to refer to it differently so people don't think they mean this new proggier sound. That's why I think people (at least i do) refer to "uplifting/epic" when talking about the original style, so people don't get confused with the new style... Anyways I hope this makes sense but if it doesn't just ignore it i guess. | I understand ur point, good point.. but maybe that older style should be described as classic trance or epic trance, that makes more sense..
but as for uplifting, i think its a wrong description, im listening to Nick Warren 28 - Shangai right now, i find that uplifting, but it doesnt make it right to say that its uplifting breaks/prog or trance..
___________________

http://soundcloud.com/subtara
|