|
EDM clichés - c'mon ppl, start being original! (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| kitphillips |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jimb0b
I knew someone would come back with an answer along those lines, and although I do agree with what your saying, if you really like a song that you hear out in the club and want to go and buy it, you dont really want the long intro / outro unless it has been done well, you just want to listen to the "song".
I kind of see trance as a producers kind of music, in as much as I feel a lot of the people who like / listen to trance actually produce it and maybe loose touch a little with actually making a "song", more something that will just "fit in".
I just feel sometimes that there is a real lack of innovation and / or complete saturation of tracks and it's a real job sorting the good from the bad, it's almost as though there is more producers than there is listeners, almost to the point where people are just making music for themselves, which I suppose is no bad thing, but the quality suffers I think.
Maybe its just me getting old, I just dont hear much stuff that excites me these days, its pretty much the same old / same old. My favourite times where 99 / 00 when there seemed to be a lot of fresh stuff about and some good producers, also some of the tracks from the early / mid 90's (cygnus x etc..., eye q & harthouse label stuff)
Anyway its late and im starting to waffle! lol |
Yeah, I agree with you in that sense, people shouldn't be concerned with how a track will act in a DJs mix when they're making it.
I also agree that people should be able to grab a song that they heard the night before off the Internet and listen to it without being bored. But I don't think that selling versions of the song without the intro and outro is preferable, it would be better to grab the whole set off beatport or whatever and then listen to that, because I suspect that if you just had the single song, even without the intros and outros, it wouldn't make sense.
Contrary to what some people think, trance is very much live music to be played in a live context, it doesn't suit being dipped into just for a minute in my opinion like the radio soundbites that they call "songs" in the mainstream do. A DJ set is (or should be) a live performance where each track becomes an instrument to be played by the DJ, not just a track to be mixed into another.
I started off in trance listening to live sets and radio shows, then I went for a few whole albums and almost lost intrest, now I've come back to the live stuff, I understand that the sterility of a compilation just kills the atmosphere and power of tracks.
Also, there probably are as many producers as there are listener, that was another thing I always liked about the scene, because the people who listened also created, they knew good tracks when they heard them and rubbish when they heard it, this improved the quality. Also, it kept the scene tighter, because DJs wouldn't be separated from the fans by a metaphorical barrier like rock stars are - essentially, the DJs and the listeners were the same thing, one of them just happened to be playing the tunes right then, but the others might later that night, because they could. |
|
|
| mysticalninja |
| A song isn't complete until it's in a mix. That's what this music is all about. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by kitphillips
Contrary to what some people think, trance is very much live music to be played in a live context, it doesn't suit being dipped into just for a minute in my opinion like the radio soundbites that they call "songs" in the mainstream do. A DJ set is (or should be) a live performance where each track becomes an instrument to be played by the DJ, not just a track to be mixed into another.
I started off in trance listening to live sets and radio shows, then I went for a few whole albums and almost lost intrest, now I've come back to the live stuff, I understand that the sterility of a compilation just kills the atmosphere and power of tracks.
Also, there probably are as many producers as there are listener, that was another thing I always liked about the scene, because the people who listened also created, they knew good tracks when they heard them and rubbish when they heard it, this improved the quality. Also, it kept the scene tighter, because DJs wouldn't be separated from the fans by a metaphorical barrier like rock stars are - essentially, the DJs and the listeners were the same thing, one of them just happened to be playing the tunes right then, but the others might later that night, because they could. |
Right on -- again. :) |
|
|
| Nightshift |
| quote: | Originally posted by mysticalninja
A song isn't complete until it's in a mix. That's what this music is all about. |
Agreed |
|
|
| kitphillips |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Right on -- again. :) |
Heh, thanks, I keep expecting to get shot down by everyone for being an opinionated bitch, I'm glad Other's think similarly:p |
|
|
| emc^2 |
| quote: | Originally posted by kitphillips
Yeah, I agree with you in that sense, people shouldn't be concerned with how a track will act in a DJs mix when they're making it.
I also agree that people should be able to grab a song that they heard the night before off the Internet and listen to it without being bored. But I don't think that selling versions of the song without the intro and outro is preferable, it would be better to grab the whole set off beatport or whatever and then listen to that, because I suspect that if you just had the single song, even without the intros and outros, it wouldn't make sense.
Contrary to what some people think, trance is very much live music to be played in a live context, it doesn't suit being dipped into just for a minute in my opinion like the radio soundbites that they call "songs" in the mainstream do. A DJ set is (or should be) a live performance where each track becomes an instrument to be played by the DJ, not just a track to be mixed into another.
I started off in trance listening to live sets and radio shows, then I went for a few whole albums and almost lost intrest, now I've come back to the live stuff, I understand that the sterility of a compilation just kills the atmosphere and power of tracks.
Also, there probably are as many producers as there are listener, that was another thing I always liked about the scene, because the people who listened also created, they knew good tracks when they heard them and rubbish when they heard it, this improved the quality. Also, it kept the scene tighter, because DJs wouldn't be separated from the fans by a metaphorical barrier like rock stars are - essentially, the DJs and the listeners were the same thing, one of them just happened to be playing the tunes right then, but the others might later that night, because they could. |
interesting observation. I agree on quite a few points. Esp. about long intro/outro. Just got a hold of "Not the end" - I'm in love with that tune but I have to fast forward the first 3 minutes of it and then only 3.5 short minutes later it is over, with about 2.5 mins worth of filler left. So, out of almost 9minute track, there's only abut 3.5 of listenable material. And this is what is often known as "radio edit" -e.g. get rid of the fluff, get to the point edition.:cool: |
|
|
| emc^2 |
| quote: | Originally posted by kitphillips
A DJ set is (or should be) a live performance where each track becomes an instrument to be played by the DJ, not just a track to be mixed into another. |
ummm... to an extent, maybe. I personally love "old" feel of sets - e.g. letting some tracks breathe. The stuff you're talking about reeks of PvD and I've long abandoned the PvD Fanboiii club, lost my membership card, and stopped bothering with attending every gig he played in the area. He lost me because of exactly that - using Live too much and being all over the place, playing predictable styles in the cities he plays (e.g. NYC gets more "hard" stuff, other places get different, more melodic version). |
|
|
| kitphillips |
| quote: | Originally posted by emc^2
interesting observation. I agree on quite a few points. Esp. about long intro/outro. Just got a hold of "Not the end" - I'm in love with that tune but I have to fast forward the first 3 minutes of it and then only 3.5 short minutes later it is over, with about 2.5 mins worth of filler left. So, out of almost 9minute track, there's only abut 3.5 of listenable material. And this is what is often known as "radio edit" -e.g. get rid of the fluff, get to the point edition.:cool: |
I'm of two minds about the radio edits. On one hand they get rid of the fluff, but like Mystical ninja said, a track isn't complete until its in a mix.
We had a DJ called Jimmy Z here a few years ago, and although he played mainstream house which I didn't particularly like, he did small miniturised mixes where he'd have between 2 and four songs mixed together as in a DJ set. Maybe that's the best way to prepare trance for radio, that way you preserve the context, remove the fluff and still get to listen to something which will not take up more than one car trip:p
Personally I'll stick to my live sets, but I understand why they might not work for some people due to length etc. |
|
|
| Sean Walsh |
| The intro/outro is generally what I find the most interesting in trance tracks these days. |
|
|
| neonstereo |
| quote: | Originally posted by kitphillips
I'm of two minds about the radio edits. On one hand they get rid of the fluff, but like Mystical ninja said, a track isn't complete until its in a mix.
We had a DJ called Jimmy Z here a few years ago, and although he played mainstream house which I didn't particularly like, he did small miniturised mixes where he'd have between 2 and four songs mixed together as in a DJ set. Maybe that's the best way to prepare trance for radio, that way you preserve the context, remove the fluff and still get to listen to something which will not take up more than one car trip:p
Personally I'll stick to my live sets, but I understand why they might not work for some people due to length etc. |
hehe ur sig should be a reply to this post dude |
|
|
| Eric J |
I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't always felt real good about EDM being played in any other context except a mix. Radio edits just dont do it for me personally. I just like the concept of a "mix", where the entire set builds and creates a sort of "journey".
Having said that, a good "mix" between two songs is one where both songs compliment each other, so I've always been a fan of the "Sasha"-style 3-4 minute mix and even the "stacks of tracks" style if it is done correctly. I always mixed that way when DJing. |
|
|
| neonstereo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Eric J
I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't always felt real good about EDM being played in any other context except a mix. Radio edits just dont do it for me personally. I just like the concept of a "mix", where the entire set builds and creates a sort of "journey".
Having said that, a good "mix" between two songs is one where both songs compliment each other, so I've always been a fan of the "Sasha"-style 3-4 minute mix and even the "stacks of tracks" style if it is done correctly. I always mixed that way when DJing. |
+1
in fact that period of time where tracks meet to make new tracks has been my favorite in the mixes that got me into EDM (digweed spundae anyone) |
|
|
|
|
