|
Differences between old and new trance
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Omega_M |
| lol what's happening to MD these days ? |
|
|
| dj_kane |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
By "old" trance I mean the stuff that was coming out ten to twenty years ago; "new" is anything from 1997/8 or so and after.
1. Breakdowns: New trance has long ones, often two in the same song, old trance has none at all or maybe one to two short (under thirty seconds) ones.
2. "Leads": I have noticed listening to older trance that it tends not to have a particular sound in each song that yells out: "I am the lead! I will play the main melody that will make you scream and throw your hands in the air!" Old trance seemed to concentrate instead on having many sounds work together to provide movement and atmosphere rather than having a single primary sound (or primary sound + vocals) in a song and the other sounds providing mostly a "lead-up" or "backing" to the main one. The old stuff seems to me like more the type of music to "lose yourself" in, since there is often no one sound that tries to "dictate" that it be the center of attention.
3. Vocals: Newer trance is often much more centered around vocals, and the lyrics of vocal songs tend to have the flow and subject matter of a pop song.
Maybe I am off on these, but these are the impressions I have gotten. Early trance seems to be a deliberate denial of "pop sensibilities" -- no lyrics, no "main" melody, and changes coming very gradually by adding or cutting out elements rather than through the wind-up / pitch method of the typical verse / chorus structure. Newer trance seems to have become more "poppy," for lack of a better term, and I think that is the best way of summarizing the differences between the two styles.
Any others you can think of? |
20 years ago? trance? i wouldnt even call the music in the early 90's trance. its old skool with electronic elements. my opinions of trance appear from 95 onwards. everyone has their own opinion on it, some people may see it from the 80s but i disagree. |
|
|
| RebeL9 |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj_kane
20 years ago? trance? i wouldnt even call the music in the early 90's trance. its old skool with electronic elements. my opinions of trance appear from 95 onwards. everyone has their own opinion on it, some people may see it from the 80s but i disagree. |
so you say that Cygnus X - Superstring and Vernon - Vernons Wonderland which are both from 1993 isn't trance? |
|
|
| eyeball_2003 |
| quote: | Originally posted by RebeL9
so you say that Cygnus X - Superstring and Vernon - Vernons Wonderland which are both from 1993 isn't trance? |
i think trance originated, or at least elements of trance originated as early as the 80's i would consider New Order - Blue Monday the original, a type of trance, thats the thing though you can never fully define trance so who on earth is gonna know when the 'beginning' of trance was?
anyway back to the point i agree with what the original poster has said but....why?? obviously trance should not sound the same as it did 10 years ago otherwise it would be dead. :toocool: |
|
|
| RebeL9 |
seriously this has been discussed several times on this forum.
but I'll add another one:
In the old trance there is a much more hypnotic aspect which you very rarely find in the modern day trance (at least not in the epic trance). |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
What? Not sure what you are referring to. |
this thread has the potential of errupting into a flame war between the so called "elitists" and "noobs". |
|
|
| dj_kane |
| quote: | Originally posted by RebeL9
so you say that Cygnus X - Superstring and Vernon - Vernons Wonderland which are both from 1993 isn't trance? |
id consider them versions elements of trance not full on. |
|
|
| david.michael |
What is the difference between the old threads like this and the new threads like this?
Nothing. |
|
|
| RebeL9 |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj_kane
id consider them versions elements of trance not full on. |
so what you mean is that a track like System F - Out of the blue from 1999 is more a trance track than a track from 1993 such as Vernons Wonderland? |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| quote: | | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: |
1. Breakdowns: New trance has long ones, often two in the same song, old trance has none at all or maybe one to two short (under thirty seconds) ones.
|
I would prefer the older trance. I think long breakdowns simply fizzle out the energy :whip:
| quote: |
Maybe I am off on these, but these are the impressions I have gotten. Early trance seems to be a deliberate denial of "pop sensibilities" -- no lyrics, no "main" melody, and changes coming very gradually by adding or cutting out elements rather than through the wind-up / pitch method of the typical verse / chorus structure. Newer trance seems to have become more "poppy," for lack of a better term, and I think that is the best way of summarizing the differences between the two styles.
|
Me thinks the same. Paul Oakenfold's Bunkka was flamed by hard core TAs but it's genuinely different and I actually liked most of it. Talk about Great Wall as well. Kinda Poppy cheesy. But i think it reached a wider audience than just the main stream trance. |
|
|
| dj_kane |
| quote: | Originally posted by RebeL9
so what you mean is that a track like System F - Out of the blue from 1999 is more a trance track than a track from 1993 such as Vernons Wonderland? |
have i missed something here? when did i mention out of the blue?
id say more along the lines of age of love - age of love |
|
|
|
|
