|
~+~+~ Trance can't possibly be your fav type genre, is it? ~+~+~ (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Project-K |
| quote: | Originally posted by leph555
we are getting nowhere with these kind of discussions |
I disagree; the comedic value of this thread is quite an achievement. |
|
|
| PETRAN |
| quote: | Originally posted by ohbeone
This is still subjective using the word 'superior'. if you want to say jazz is more complex, that might fly...but the complexity is superior doesn't quite fly...in my mind anyway. Trance is itself a broad term. I'd like to see the greatest 'jazz' (also broad term) musicians write a great 'trance' track on the level of what I consider to be great 'trance'.
Just because there's a 4/4 beat doesn't mean there can't be many complexities and intricacies going on. |
Its not at all subjective, the overall effort put in jazz in terms of muscianship is vastly higher compared to trance. Its not only that trance is put in a four-to-the-flour beat (although this factor is clearly restraining the "musical boundaries" of trance), the overall complexity of the music is extremely poor. Trance usualy involves a sequence of 8 or 16 simple notes repeating over and over, over a stable rhythm, whereas a jazz track can have a huge number of complex chord changes and tempo changes over the course of a single track, requiring an extreme virtuosity of instrument playing and an excellent knowledge of musical theory. Trance can literally be produced by ANYONE who knows how to navigate the Cu-Base, Reason or FL environments with a limited or none knowledge of musical theory. All that is required is an "ear for the good catchy melodies and rhythms" and a relatively good knowledge on production techniques. Put it simple, trance is club music made for people (nowadays the masses) to dance and hence can never exceed a critical point of complexity. I repeat though, i don't argue that "trance is better" than jazz. i just state that "jazz (and to stay on topic-"classic rock") is technically superior to trance or any other form of EDM. One canno't deny that since it is an objective fact. |
|
|
| ohbeone |
| quote: | Originally posted by Project-K
I disagree; the comedic value of this thread is quite an achievement. |
It's just what happens when people take a subjective subject and try to make objective statements about it.
there is nothing obvious or superior about any 1 music to the other. Music is a personal thing.
But that's usually where all threads like this go. |
|
|
| SMC |
| quote: | Originally posted by ohbeone
Yes I did. I said I don't care what the definition is I am simply using the term as most people do. |
Why do you use a word if you don't care what it means? Are you aware of the fact that the term as most people use it encompasses a lot of instrumental music? |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Minor correction: plenty of jazz players had little or no knowledge of theory. What they did have was extensive experience playing their instrument and improvising in realtime with other players. |
|
|
| ohbeone |
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
i just state that "jazz (and to stay on opic-"classic rock") is technically superior to trance or any form of EDM. One canno't deny that since it is an objective fact. |
YES! Thank you so much for actually having a discussion!
I see your point. Especially regarding chord changes and music theory. Problem is it also often takes someone who knows all that as well or somewhat to truly appreciate it for that reason. And my definition of good trance is not at all like you described. There is much more going on than 8 or 16 notes repeated over and over again. there's progression, effects phasing over time, different sounds coming in and out. Some trance is simpler than others. Some of the best tracks are pretty amazingly simple but trying to repeat the pattern into a new song just as good isn't as easy as it might seem.
So yes jazz is technically more complex...I still don't know if I can say technically 'superior'. Superior by definition I think is a subjective word. Complex is objective. |
|
|
| SMC |
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
Its not at all subjective, the overall effort put in jazz in terms of muscianship is vastly higher compared to trance. Its not only that trance is put in a four-to-the-flour beat (although this factor is clearly restraining the "musical boundaries" of trance), the overall complexity of the music is extremely poor. Trance usualy involves a sequence of 8 or 16 simple notes repeating over and over, over a stable rhythm, whereas a jazz track can have a huge number of complex chord changes and tempo changes over the course of a single track, requiring an extreme virtuosity of instrument playing and an excellent knowledge of musical theory. Trance can literally be produced by ANYONE who knows how to navigate the Cu-Base, Reason or FL environments with a limited or none knowledge of musical theory. All that is required is an "ear for the good catchy melodies and rhythms" and a relatively good knowledge on production techniques. Put it simple, trance is club music made for people (nowadays the masses) to dance and hence can never exceed a critical point of complexity. I repeat though, i don't argue that "trance is better" than jazz. i just state that "jazz (and to stay on topic-"classic rock") is technically superior to trance or any other form of EDM. One canno't deny that since it is an objective fact. |
Well written. |
|
|
| ohbeone |
| quote: | Originally posted by SMC
Why do you use a word if you don't care what it means? Are you aware of the fact that the term as most people use it encompasses a lot of instrumental music? |
I am and it really has nothing to do with if people like trance better than all other music. I know what it means, I don't care to discuss it here. It has no bearing on the subject.
Could you PLEASE actually talk about the subject at hand in the future thank you. |
|
|
| zen_zo |
| quote: | Originally posted by paulandrews
How do you know? You just registered recently. |
Ya but I read a lot before.. Okay? |
|
|
| SMC |
| quote: | Originally posted by ohbeone
I am |
Good. You wrote that one of the appeals of trance (in contrast to classic rock, as far as what you wrote leads me to understand) is "the absence of words". That lead me to question what you were refering to as "classic rock". |
|
|
| zen_zo |
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
Its not at all subjective, the overall effort put in jazz in terms of muscianship is vastly higher compared to trance. |
Ya ok, but in the end.. the end result is just a fail... no matter how much you artificially complexify and sophisticate it. |
|
|
| ohbeone |
| quote: | Originally posted by SMC
Good. You wrote that one of the appeals of trance (in contrast to classic rock, as far as what you wrote leads me to understand) is "the absence of words". That lead me to question what you were refering to as "classic rock". |
Okay well how about actually stating what you're thinking or what your questions are up front instead of having to go through 10 posts to get here. I'm not sure why that makes you question what I am referring to as classic rock. If you're saying there is a lot of classic rock that has no lyrics then I'm sure I can't argue that. I was also addressing someone who referred to 'pretentious lyrics'. Most of us know classic rock is a LOT of things but most people think beatles, zeppelin, eagles, greatful dead etc and songs they have all done that contain...lyrics...pretentious or not. MOST trance (at least the kind of trance I listen to) has no lyrics and I prefer it with no or very little lyrics. Most trance with lots of vocals sucks IMHO. |
|
|
|
|
