|
TRANCE vs CLASSICAL (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Majutsu
The original poster has a great topic. Let's put it in better terms maybe: Does trance have sufficient depth to be serious art music (like that of the classical period), or is it fly-by-night pop fluff? i would like to hear what trance fans think without the slinging ad hominem attacks on both sides. Let's hear some opinions. |
let's get some definitions first, no point in discussing something like art without agreed upon definitions of what art is, among others such as "what qualifies as trance and what doesn't". |
|
|
| Danny Ocean |
My post was meant to anyone in general, the only part of my post that was directed to you was "he did not give a definition", so nice waste of time writing that pal.
And by the way, im from El Salvador, not Costa Rica. I also assisted an American private school there were English was the primary language in all classes (with the exception of Spanish) since Kindergarden. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
let's get some definitions first, no point in discussing something like art without agreed upon definitions of what art is, among others such as "what qualifies as trance and what doesn't". |
To me art is human expression in a form that is intended to be percieved by others. A painting is art because an artist paints it and then people look at his expression and interpret it. A film is art because a director makes it and then the audiences watch it and take their own opinion away. A book is art because the author pens it and then people read it. And so on.
(Note that this is not a concrete definition of art and nor am I claiming it to be. It's simply the easiest way I've found of defining what links generally accepted art.)
All music is art at some level. What we have here is like Russian Formalism- identifying the component of something which elevates it into the form of art. Music which is made purely to make money or to provide cheap entertainment is debatable as art. Music which has a personal message or theme that the musician intends to share, rather than just providing kicks to the masses, is closer to conventional art.
But which is trance? For that matter, which is classical? Can we extract meanings and themes from classical, or was it really just penned to keep the composers under a roof? It's logical to assume that there's more to it than that, based on the complexity of the theory behind classical: it goes deeper than the techniques of writing a catchy tune.
However... trance is much more controversial. Dance music is essentially about communion: the seperation of social barriers and unification under one beat. That's what acid house was about and that's why superstar DJs are bad. Dance music is recieved in a social context- the dancefloor. Everyone in the crowd is equal if it's a true club and not a meat-market about what trainers you're wearing and where you bought your shirt from. Due to this, dance music can be interpreted as very visceral: the 4/4 kick drum is proven to be something the human mind instantly associates with. A lot of dance music is really nothing more than tricks and tools to please a dancefloor. Is there art in that? Despite the mass reception by an audience, this music is really appealing to them. The producer may have had something to say, but more often than not he was about stimulating the people on the floor.
IDM is the most obvious opposition of that- some dance fans are more equal than others. This is music that is more than snobbish- it's subverting dance music to its own aims. IDM producers are about albums, not mixes, they're about being unique and individual. IDM often sounds selfish.
I don't think trance is high art, but I don't think you can discount it. It's cerebral not for its messages, but for how it involves the dancer. Ignoring the bombast of epic trance, the pure stuff, whether it's classic, acid, psy or progressive, is about layers. Trance is rarely complex but it's rich and deep- lots of goes on at once. The standard 4/4 beat in a high tempo is a base- its never ending reptition is instantly hypnotic. Trance is about drawing your mind into the sound and then taking it places. Ishkur talks about TAZ and loss of sense of time, which is evidence of trance involving you in your mind. You become so absorbed in the music and what it's doing you know nothing else. It's different to music which works on vocals or beats. Trance is often the longest and most repetitive dance music. Minimal techno may be muscling in there, but minimal rarely has anything to do: it creates a never-ending groove and leaves it. Trance is more musical than minimal: trance is often evocative or atmospheric even when it isn't being openly emotional. Trance uses the simplicity and multitude of elements to hook your mind so it can do things and take you places.
That may sound ing pretentious, but I believe it. Trance these days may use the musical templates to do different things, but "pure" trance has always been associated with this sense of elevation. It's not just trance fans being snobby- it's when they make bold claims about intelligence and art that it sounds stupid. Trance isn't intelligent in musical terms but it is something that speaks to your intellect. |
|
|
| Majutsu |
this is a very good post.
well reasoned, and precisely the sort of comment I was looking for. Are you familiar with the music philosopher Leonard Meyer? you would like his work on music, culture and emotion.
this post of yours is very similar to my ideas on trance and EDM in general. I am curious what others think of this? |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
I guess this is a point where maybe I can delve into my music-philosophy diatribe i've been on quite a few times on here. Well really, I feel that trance is a highly subjective style, as most instrumental music is, because the artist doesn't give you a story through lyrics, you have to figure it out. The meaning often is related to your own personal experience and your own personal interpretation and imagination. I really feel that trance music has come to mean, through many forms of the more structured, melodic forms of trance like epic trance and some progressive, to mean not literal trance music. While other forms are more literally "trance" music.
There's a division of trance music I see. There's the really hypnotic kind, the old stuff or the psy stuff, that is designed with the intention to put the dancer in a "trance" state, which stems from ancient and modern tribal music from indigenous people's all over the world. This stuff just amplifies it to a new level, using bass like in psy and really out there effects, and the older stuff, to bring about a meditative and trippy feel, like a mind trip. Now this stuff is purer "trance" music, because it's designed for dancing and for just getting outside of oneself, for a type of transcedence in an ancient form, based around more eastern thought and rhtyhms as well as african etc.
Now here comes the progressive and epic side where I see the term "trance" comes in. To me, the trance that isn't as hypnotic, isn't built around really trippy effects and a steady, consistent beat and rhtyhmn..well this stuff is "trance" music too, but in a different sense. It's not about literally putting the listener in a trance like state, trance is used to describe the feel of the music, not what it does. The music does do stuff for the listener, it builds a sense of euphoria, a euphoric rush, where one will also feel, like the really hypnotic stuff, to have a trascedent, altered state. But this isn't based around the ancient rhtyhms and ideas, but owes more to western music. Everything from classical/romantic and baroque, to jazz, rock and modern pop music. The idea from this, is to escape reality and feel as if one is "not here" or in the "here-now" through a euphoric, elevated state brought on by the kind of sound. The euphoric sound, much like classical, is created through a build up that changes over a period of time, and then goes into a breakdown or "b" section. Then a build up, or climax, as found in classical music.
This style of trance music owes more to Jean Michel Jarre, as well as Beethoven and Mozart, and to Detroit Techno as well, then it does to ancient tribal music or ideas. So essentially, this music that is also "trance" is not trance made to put people in a trance, but rather music that reflects a trance like state. Both are euphoric, but one revolves more around a consistent beat to dance to, the other revolves around the idea of something being a compositional piece that is also for dancing, but is also made for listening and for a sense of "euphoria" and being "elevated" or "uplifted" hence why a lot of it is described as "uplifting" and not "hynoptic" or "subtle".
I guess one, the hypnotic kind, is like a modern-tribal style, the other is a modern-classical and modern-pop style. It's technological pop music essentially, for the 21st century. There's nothing wrong with either. Some prefer just dancing their asses off to literal trance music, some prefer hands in the air type stuff, with the more compositional and listening/dancing style. But this is my opinion, because I mean I'de rather listen to the melodic epic and progressive style, as well as dance to it, but the really hypnotic style, i'de dance my ass off at a club or rave or whatever, but not sit around and listen to it in my room, just too repetitive and minimal for me. I guess I prefer more structured music (some a little less maybe lately) then just more purer dance music as I see the hypnotic, literal style as.
I guess the best way to describe it as the hypnotic stuff is more eastern/african, while the epic and progressive stuff is more western/european (although most prog could be argued as both). Hence why you hear more epic stuff in western and eastern europe and North America, and more really hypnotic goa/psy stuff in the east. I guess thats one way of looking at, but it's not true in all areas, but does explain some of the disctinations with the sound.... |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spirit5
There's a division of trance music I see. There's the really hypnotic kind, the old stuff or the psy stuff, that is designed with the intention to put the dancer in a "trance" state, which stems from ancient and modern tribal music from indigenous people's all over the world. This stuff just amplifies it to a new level, using bass like in psy and really out there effects, and the older stuff, to bring about a meditative and trippy feel, like a mind trip. Now this stuff is purer "trance" music, because it's designed for dancing and for just getting outside of oneself, for a type of transcedence in an ancient form, based around more eastern thought and rhtyhms as well as african etc. |
just wanted to point out i disagree with psytrance being lumped together with oldschool trance, it's been nearly a decade since it had the relavant hypnotic features, and nowadays it's mostly a ludicrous "who can surprise the audience more construction wise" dick-measuring contest, which runs completely against hypnoticism.
other than that, what eastern influences are you referring to throughout your post? and what have they got which is similiar to the african ones? |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
just wanted to point out i disagree with psytrance being lumped together with oldschool trance, it's been nearly a decade since it had the relavant hypnotic features, and nowadays it's mostly a ludicrous "who can surprise the audience more construction wise" dick-measuring contest, which runs completely against hypnoticism.
other than that, what eastern influences are you referring to throughout your post? and what have they got which is similiar to the african ones? |
Well the structure isn't the same in eastern and african music as it is in western music. It's more free-form, and based around beat and rhythm, and not this "structure" and if there is structure, it's not as identifiable. It's more "sound" based, a sound that is more hypnotic then western music. It's really hard to explain, i'm not an expert in this field really, not an ethnomusicologist, but I have done some research...and of course the spiritual influences found in Goa trance which are really a forefront in the movement (hinduism, buddhism..mysticism)
Well I see psy trance, from what I've heard, as being more similar to older trance then the epic and progressive stuff. I mean it's more hypnotic, it's an extension of Goa trance, they really aren't that different from each other. The older stuff, from what i've heard, didn't have as many breakdowns like a lot of the epic and some prog trance has nowadays. It's just this idea of putting someone in a trance through trippy effects, a constant beat and rhythm, that isn't found in epic or prog to the same degree as in psy/goa trance. I mean this isn't true in all cases, but it is a distinction. |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| Classical music is by far better than any other genre of music. Classical music takes time and talent to create and the rest is really able to be produced by anyone. Also the classical musicians weren't a bunch of pussies like these **** toad djs. |
|
|
| pvdclubber |
this may sound stupid, but I'll try and explain.
i like some classical music but haven't really heard that much,
the reason why i think trance is better, comes down to the fact that trance has scope to use sounds that classical music never will be able to use,
i.e. those synthesizers in "love stimulation" are mind-boggling,
something classical music will never be able to give me,
i think trance is a logical progression from classical music,
if mozart was around now, i'm sure he'd be caning his keyboard and producing stuff like chicane's far from the maddening crowd.
if the synthesizer had never been invented, i'd probably be hooked to classical music, but heavens thank god it was |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by pvdclubber
the reason why i think trance is better, comes down to the fact that trance has scope to use sounds that classical music never will be able to use,
i.e. those synthesizers in "love stimulation" are mind-boggling,
something classical music will never be able to give me,
|
well, that's what happens when you limit 'classical' so much.. bit hypocritical, dont you think? pre-eliminating tracks that include anything but 'classical instruments' from the genre, and then complaining about the lack of anything but 'classical instrument' in the genre. |
|
|
| pvdclubber |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
well, that's what happens when you limit 'classical' so much.. bit hypocritical, dont you think? pre-eliminating tracks that include anything but 'classical instruments' from the genre, and then complaining about the lack of anything but 'classical instrument' in the genre. |
hmm, classical music with synths isn't classical music in my opinion if that makes sense.
i.e. i've got william orbit's "Pieces in a Modern Style" album.
this for me is electronic music and not classical music,
i believe it's the way classical composers would have gone if they had had computers in the old days.
modern classical composers are often just plain snobbish or ignorant of the computer's ability to create fantastic sound ranges. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by pvdclubber
modern classical composers are often just plain snobbish or ignorant of the computer's ability to create fantastic sound ranges. |
seems more like the minute they do decide to use the computer, they're no longer classical composers in your book.
| quote: | Originally posted by pvdclubber
hmm, classical music with synths isn't classical music in my opinion if that makes sense. |
|
|
|
|
|
