|
Have trance tracks become slower on average?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrJiveBoJingles |
And why?
This question came up in another thread and it interested me. I think the answer is "yes," but I don't yet have a strong conclusion why it might have happened. |
|
|
| montana |
| i think the common 'trance bpm' has gone down from 140 to like 135 or so , it's not that different, but then again, i haven't listened to new trance in a while |
|
|
| thoughtlessjex |
| On average, yes. I blame McProg. |
|
|
| Whirloop |
| We must not let it happen... :whip: :whip: |
|
|
| greeko |
| they havnt gotten slower just some producers are adding house elements which make them slower, and those traxx shouldnt be considered trance, trance to me should be 138bpms and over, armin really slows traxx down though |
|
|
| Jono404 |
| The bpms have definitely decreased in variation. I bpm my tracks before I burn, and a lot of the time at least half the tracks are 140, so you don't even need to beatmatch just cue up and play. |
|
|
| [mart] |
| Trance has become so dull these days that everything even has to be at the same tempo. Honestly! |
|
|
| SkooB_E |
| I never understood why bpm is such a big issue. I've read many people say that they can't listen to edm in "this" or "that" bpm, and I've seen this on various forums. |
|
|
| Project-K |
| I'd say yes, and it's also become too static. Back in the early 90s you'd have BPMs all over the place, from slow proggy 120-ish to 150+ on hard trance. That all went away when trance started sounding all the same. |
|
|
| Whirloop |
| quote: | Originally posted by SkooB_E
I never understood why bpm is such a big issue. I've read many people say that they can't listen to edm in "this" or "that" bpm, and I've seen this on various forums. |
Energy man. Energy.
If you ever felt the rush, you know.
| quote: | Originally posted by smakmagik
138-145 ftw |
160bpm+ ftwd! |
|
|
| smakmagik |
| quote: | Originally posted by Whirloop
160bpm+ ftwd! |
 |
|
|
|
|
