|
The trance formula (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| PETRAN |
But then again this goes for many genres of EDM (and indeed for genres outside EDM) not just trance. I mean Joris Voorn's music uses EXACTLY the same detroit techno formula which was originally founded around 93-94, the same goes for Aril Brikha and many other techno producers. Almost all modern deep house stuff (like the stuff by Timewriter) have been done before. In a matter of fact-well sad but true-the ONLY stuff in EDM that haven't been done (to that extend) before are the modern so-called "minimal-techno" stuff which often use "unconventional" (usually disturbing!) sounds. Although, listening to the album by The Field, well, it somehow brings to mind what Spooky were doing in the 90s...
but i thing this is the situation for all modern EDM genres not just trance, although truth to be said, epic/uplifting trance is the one that is very strictly stuck to its formula. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
But then again this goes for many genres of EDM (and indeed for genres outside EDM) not just trance. I mean Joris Voorn's music uses EXACTLY the same detroit techno formula which was originally founded around 93-94, the same goes for Aril Brikha and many other techno producers. Almost all modern deep house stuff (like the stuff by Timewriter) have been done before. In a matter of fact-well sad but true-the ONLY stuff in EDM that haven't been done (to that extend) before are the modern so-called "minimal-techno" stuff which often use "unconventional" (usually disturbing!) sounds. Although, listening to the album by The Field, well, it somehow brings to mind what Spooky were doing in the 90s...
but i thing this is the situation for all modern EDM genres not just trance, although truth to be said, epic/uplifting trance is the one that is very strictly stuck to its formula. |
you have a fair point, a lot of the more approachable deep house like timewriter is fairly formulaic.
I don't mind music that uses that same sounds over again. (a ton of classical music uses the same instrumentation for hundreds of years) the kind of formulae i don't like are those that create linear, predictable structure.
i think what makes trance different though is the degree to which it is standardized across artists, where in other genres artists sort of repeat themselves alone or maybe make useful reference to others. i mean, any time a particular movement lasts a certain amount of time and spans a certain amount of generations it becomes susceptible to meta-reference and enters a "post-modern phase".
i think the most formulaic musics outside of trance would have to be fart-house, chuggy microhouse, and maybe naked music style deep house
re: aril brikha and joris voorn. these "detroit revival" producers, while i enjoy, play, and consume many of their tracks, it seems they definitely fall into a certain nostalgic trap and tend to repeat themselves . taho is another, rennie foster another (monochasm is tremendous though)
jori hulkkonen is an example of a producer making modern detroit who doesn't fall into this trap
however, repeating oneself in art is kind if important IMO. in my personal experience it allows one to approach an ideal. making music for me is a very personal, spiritual thing, and you're constantly fighting with technique and experience to get to the point where you can make the expression that is closest to the ideal form of it within you.
I think with myself and probably a lot of people making music after the detroit tradition there is a certain amount of idealization and fetishism of certain sounds and techniques.
the difference i think here is that it is an honest artistic ideal whereas with commercial trance it is often an easy way to achieve 'success' vis a vis notoriety and cheap thrills |
|
|
| Clovis |
The lack of variation in sounds used for making tracks is what kills me.
All other genres can claim the same, but not to such an extent... |
|
|
| PETRAN |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
you have a fair point, a lot of the more approachable deep house like timewriter is fairly formulaic.
I don't mind music that uses that same sounds over again. (a ton of classical music uses the same instrumentation for hundreds of years) the kind of formulae i don't like are those that create linear, predictable structure.
i think what makes trance different though is the degree to which it is standardized across artists, where in other genres artists sort of repeat themselves alone or maybe make useful reference to others. i mean, any time a particular movement lasts a certain amount of time and spans a certain amount of generations it becomes susceptible to meta-reference and enters a "post-modern phase".
i think the most formulaic musics outside of trance would have to be fart-house, chuggy microhouse, and maybe naked music style deep house
re: aril brikha and joris voorn. these "detroit revival" producers, while i enjoy, play, and consume many of their tracks, it seems they definitely fall into a certain nostalgic trap and tend to repeat themselves . taho is another
jori hulkkonen is an example of a producer making modern detroit who doesn't fall into this trap
however, repeating oneself in art is kind if important IMO. in my personal experience it allows one to approach an ideal. making music for me is a very personal, spiritual thing, and you're constantly fighting with technique and experience to get to the point where you can make the expression that is closest to the ideal form of it within you.
I think with myself and probably a lot of people making music after the detroit tradition there is a certain amount of idealization and fetishism of certain sounds and techniques.
the difference i think here is that it is an honest artistic ideal whereas with commercial trance it is often an easy way to achieve 'success' vis a vis notoriety and cheap thrills |
Ok agreed, but who is going to be the judge on what is "honest idealistic repetition" (as you state) and on what is just a cheap way to achieve success and money? I mean you can easily state that all modern epic trance is trance by numbers, but try to tell that to the kid who cries over these super-saw lead-lines (and i personally adored them when i first heard them). Similarly, the modern detroit techno producers could just produce records (with the same formula) just for the reason to push them in the market and receive the goods (an easy way to get money, make the tried-and-tested sound that which will be played by some big-name techno djs).
I'm not saying that this is what they do, i 'm just suggesting that they could do that, and you possibly couldn't know the difference. I have a friend who is an old-school techno lover, being going to parties and djing from 95-96, and he was hugely dissapointed by Brikha's and Voorn's new records, stating that it is "the samey same by numbers, as is most of modern techno", in the same way you refer to modern epic trance. Obviously, there is a high degree of subjectivity going-on here, a subjectivity which is formed in complex ways by the subject's (listeners) previous experiences, exposure, aesthetic perception, expectations, attitudes and beliefs. You can believe that "techno" is more experimental and cooler to listen to and this belief/attitude towards it will dynamically contribute to your perceived enjoyment.I personally don't listen to epic trance anymore, but i enjoyed some of the records by (gulp) Daniel Kandi ("child"/"nova") or Lemon and Einar K's ("hope") a few months ago. I mean i liked the melodies and i personally didn't feel that they were made in the "fake-by-numbers" way, but ofcourse you can thing the opposite. Thing is, that many EDM structure is similar (identical) accross many genres and many things are left to the listener to decide what is "good", "of high quality", or more "forward thinking" in comparison to others, a process which is formed/biased by the cognitive aspects i mentioned before (current perceptions, previosu memories, beliefs etc.) perplexing things more... |
|
|
| Trance-MB |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
the difference i think here is that it is an honest artistic ideal whereas with commercial trance it is often an easy way to achieve 'success' vis a vis notoriety and cheap thrills |
Hmmmm, sounds logical...... or maybe not?
Is it really so easy to be "successfull" with commercial trance?
Personally I think it was easier around '98-'02 then now. Maybe also a reason why many started using vocals. Also with vocals there is much more variation possible. The number of producers which first only made non-vocal trance and started adding vocals is huge. E.g. Chicane, Jam&Spoon and about all top producing DJ's. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
Ok agreed, but who is going to be the judge on what is "honest idealistic repetition" (as you state) and on what is just a cheap way to achieve success and money? I mean you can easily state that all modern epic trance is trance by numbers, but try to tell that to the kid who crys over these super-saw lead-lines (and i personally adored them when i first heard them). Similarly, the modern detroit techno producers could just produce records (with the same formula) just for the reason to push them in the market and receive the goods (an easy way to get money, make the tried-and-tested sound that which will be played by some big-name techno djs).
I'm not saying that this is what they do, i 'm just suggesting that they could do that, and you possibly couldn't know the difference. I have a friend who is an old-school techno lover, being going to parties and djing from 95-96, and he was hugely dissapointed by Brikha's and Voorn's new records, stating that it is "the samey same by numbers, as is most of modern techno", in the same way you refer to modern epic trance. Obviously, there is a high degree of subjectivism going-on here, a subjectivism which is formed in complex ways by the subject's (listeners) previous experiences, exposure, aesthetic perception, expectations, attitudes and beliefs. You can believe that "techno" is more experimental and cooler to listen to and this belief/attitude towards it will dynamically contribute to your perceived enjoyment.I personally don't listen to epic trance anymore, but i enjoyed some of the records by (gulp) Daniel Kandi ("child"/"nova") or Lemon and Einar K's ("hope") a few months ago. I mean i liked the melodies and i personally didn't feel that they were made in the "fake-by-numbers" way, but ofcourse you can thing the opposite. Thing is, that many EDM structure is similar (identical) accross many genres and many things are left to the listener to decide what is "good", "of high quality", or more "forward thinking" in comparison to others, a process which is formed/biased by the cognitive aspects i mentioned before (current perceptions, previosu memories, beliefs etc.) perplexing things more... |
Hey I am making the same point you are re: voorn and brikha - it is very samey. they seem like they used the same project file really
i value experimentation but honestly i think given the stagnation of music technology we're not going to see much of that (at least in the realm of dance music) what I value in dance music is a very basic, essential, honest expression of a metaphysical idea. a transfiguration of sound and movement into a visceral form of contemplation and meditation. that doesn't really matter though, it's personal.
as for who the judge is - obviously, none of us can really know, but we can at least look at the way that the artists promote themselves as maybe an indication of their incentive...
again, let me assure you that I agree with you concerning the formula as being present in many forms of music. that's why i am calling it a "form of music".
what I am point out, though, is that the combination of this formula, the culture that surrounds the music, the stated motives of those producing and promoting it, and the actual methodology of promotion and general lack of a critical culture (by now) really make "trance" seem a bit different than genres like 'deep house', ' detroit techno', etc etc (in a negative way) i could just be blinded in my position and look back on this in ten years and see everything the way I see trance now. god knows i was nearsighted enough even a few years ago |
|
|
| MeLLyMeL |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Oh, and I didn't edit the tracks -- in fact, I didn't even have to speed them up or slow them down, since they were all at 138 BPM. And they really do all start their breakdowns 96 bars into the track.
:wtf: |
yeah that part made me LOL.
crazy |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
i think what makes trance different though is the degree to which it is standardized across artists, where in other genres artists sort of repeat themselves alone or maybe make useful reference to others. i mean, any time a particular movement lasts a certain amount of time and spans a certain amount of generations it becomes susceptible to meta-reference and enters a "post-modern phase".
|
What the does that have to do with anything? |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trance-MB
Hmmmm, sounds logical...... or maybe not?
Is it really so easy to be "successfull" with commercial trance?
Personally I think it was easier around '98-'02 then now. Maybe also a reason why many started using vocals. Also with vocals there is much more variation possible. The number of producers which first only made non-vocal trance and started adding vocals is huge. E.g. Chicane, Jam&Spoon and about all top producing DJ's. |
I don't think it's as much about being successful as it is people just being satisfied with mediocrity. I don't think these guys are trying to make quick money so much as they just have bad taste. :wtf: Some people just don't mind really superficial music. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
What the does that have to do with anything? |
looks like someone is angry i threw out "post-modern"! (people really hate that)
basically in movements of art, when enough work has been produced, and there are sufficient generations of it, the work begins to refer back to itself and refer back to itself.
i assume you know what meta reference is but just for the others...
anyways, i think at a certain point trance music became more about trance music is about (or was about) (sources from without) rather than being "about" a more direct personal creative expression, or whatever the artist felt impelling him from within.
i'm not necessarily suggesting this is a conscious effort on the part of producers. (although i think it probably is)
For instance, I personally know amateur producers of the stuff whose creative process is trying to "make it sound like it would go well on ASOT" or "sounds like a PvD melody with a Sean Tyas Kick" this is a kind of meta reference. the structure is also derived and not invented or improvised. you can see this in the colontonio review mess in the cd discussion forum, where one of them says something to jivebojingles like "now you know how to make a trance buildup" - objectifying a thing like 'a trance buildup' is exactly what I am talking about.
the 'modern' trance movement i would consider to be the original generation, when it was a more theoretical, experimental movement, produced with more or less "aseity". post modernism is when metareference begins to take over the original creativity and replaces it with endlessly referential work - fetishistic, critical, kitschy, etc
i hope you see where i am coming from
and let me reiterate that this is something that we see across the board in electronic music, not just in trance |
|
|
| Trance-MB |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
I don't think it's as much about being successful as it is people just being satisfied with mediocrity. I don't think these guys are trying to make quick money so much as they just have bad taste. :wtf: Some people just don't mind really superficial music. |
Indeed it doesn't always need to be money. I can imagine some would like to be famous, like their idols or just want to get their music video played on MTV. Nothing wrong with that.
Commercial trance producers often get comment about their tracks, but what if it was their goal to make commercial tracks? They are happy and we are disappointed?
By the way, the difference between a track which sounds like many others and something completely different can be very small. Like somewhere above mentioned, that producers can be teached to make trance is true, but I think then it will sound like many others. The skill is to make it sound different, but not too much. That's probably why we like remixes so much.
Problem is that everyone has his own idea of what sounds the same or different. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trance-MB
Problem is that everyone has his own idea of what sounds the same or different. |
maybe the deepest thing i've read today, whether or not you intended that
any kind of dance music sounds identical to my grandmother |
|
|
|
|
