|
[Melb] Godskitchen 2008 (pg. 23)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Aesthetic |
*** begic editted this post because its the same scott and i have been talking about since we were in our dad's sacks.
| quote: | Originally posted by batemanscott
sorry mang but i disagree, even if there is not that much of it being released now compared to before (and there is still a fvcking ton of it coming out) it has been exactly the same formula/sound for the last 6 or 7 years.
Problem with that is that the scene/people have moved on, all genres have grown and changed but that epic/melodic stuff still sounds exactly the same as it did in 2002 - i loved it for a couple of years but then it just got boring and the fact that it STILL sounds the same makes it even more boring and sound even more overplayed then it probably is.
I'm with you all the way on the late 90's stuff mate, imo the best trance has ever been, but this is quite different. it's like a bunch of trance producers get together once a week to hold a lookhowingepicicanmakethistuneomgitsanemotionalrollercoaster contest.
:) |
|
|
|
| Light The Fuse |
gunna have to back bateman on this one...
it had heaps of stoccatto synths, driving basslines and kick drums with techy percussion - it sounded like tech trance to me |
|
|
| Fpcookie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
I kind of agree with both of you, but cookie if you listen to Riff, it has a very cruisy feel. The percussion is pretty minimal and clicky, with most of it centred on the first and third beats of each bar, which is a classic techno feel in my opinion.
In comparison, the tracks like I mentioned, or Marcel Woods - Advanced, or Bart Claessen - Playmo have a very upbeat, driving feel, with maximal percussion.
In my head that's the difference between tech-trance and...whatever Sander played. |
i understand and agree with what you are saying man. there is no doubt there is a heavy techno influence but you cant deny there is major trance elements as well.
i agree tracks like advanced and the future etc etc are definitely tech-trance, although one could say that they are just trance with a harder (techier? :p) edge.
i dunno man, to me there is more to tech-trance than the obvious stuff. even stuff like Reaky i would consider tech-trance even though it is very very techno influenced. then theres the Dave Schiemann type stuff which has major electro elements. IMO there is 4 very different sounds that all be would be considered tech trance by most i think.
in any case, sander did play some of that typical tech-trance stuff anyway and to say he played no (tech) trance is just ridiculous. |
|
|
| Fpcookie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Light The Fuse
lol it had heaps of stoccatto synths, driving basslines and kick drums with techy percussion - it sounded like tech trance to me |
 |
|
|
| vitamin v |
We went for a peek, between 12 and 2 :) I had lots of fun.. Just sitting in the stand watching. I swear the lasers there could of given you a tan :D
The music just sounded like 1996 techno.
Straight after went to Ffour and walked into Keitel playing nearly the exactly the same music, just a pace slower, which makes is sound slightly different.. you could have swapped him for Menno and no one would have noticed.. except Jolene, of course ;) ;)
I had fun! Bring on GG. :) |
|
|
| Trance Nutter |
The last few pages of this thread is why I rarely talk about genres.
Stop trying to clasify everything into some little niche, its pointless and - in the end - just going to cause arguments.
Whenever anyone ever mentions a genre theres always people disagreeing, everyone has different opinions on what genres are and aren't. Trying to distill everything down to a minimal-tech-unicorn-trance subgenre is doing nothing worthwhile. Why can't (for example) trance have different feels or different interpretations, why do you have to classify it down into exclusive little categories where everything either is within 0.3% of a classification scale or its not that genre? How does that improve your enjoyment of it at all? How does it improve your description of it at all?
At the end of the day genres are absolutely useless, just say you a) enjoyed the music, or b) didn't enjoy the music. |
|
|
| vitamin v |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trance Nutter
Trying to distill everything down to a minimal-tech-unicorn-trance subgenre is doing nothing worthwhile. Why can't (for example) trance have different feels or different interpretations, why do you have to classify it down into exclusive little categories where everything either is within 0.3% of a classification scale or its not that genre? How does that improve your enjoyment of it at all? |
I think that you should be allowed to talk about music anyway you want.
For some people breaking music down and classifying music, is what they enjoy about it... on this board are alot of DJ's and producers.. and if they can't talk about generes here where else can they do it??
If people just said whether we either enjoyed the music or didn't, the whole forum would be threads full of polls with two answers.
Music is subjective, we all get a lot of different things out of it. And a good debate never hurt anyone. :) |
|
|
| Fpcookie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trance Nutter
The last few pages of this thread is why I rarely talk about genres.
Stop trying to clasify everything into some little niche, its pointless and - in the end - just going to cause arguments.
Whenever anyone ever mentions a genre theres always people disagreeing, everyone has different opinions on what genres are and aren't. Trying to distill everything down to a minimal-tech-unicorn-trance subgenre is doing nothing worthwhile. Why can't (for example) trance have different feels or different interpretations, why do you have to classify it down into exclusive little categories where everything either is within 0.3% of a classification scale or its not that genre? How does that improve your enjoyment of it at all? How does it improve your description of it at all?
At the end of the day genres are absolutely useless, just say you a) enjoyed the music, or b) didn't enjoy the music. |
i partly agree, i just cant help myself :p |
|
|
| batemanscott |
I have been saying for a loooong time that i don't believe the best 'trance' sets are sets full of just 'trance tracks'.
I really do believe a set can be called a trance set with very few typical trance tracks as long as it builds, flows, has contrast, peaks and troughs.
Ultimately it's a genre which is based on representing a feeling or state of mind - it doesn't matter how the artist achieves that feeling as long as they do.
I don't play many tracks these days which you could strictly call trance but very much still call myself a trance dj. I'll use a more minimal or percussive techno track to help me build the peaks of the big melodic/vocal breakdowns because i think the breakdowns sound bigger when you do. That's all part of playing 'trance' imo.
The thing i loved about what sander played is that he did just that - it built, it had contrast, it felt like it got more intense as it went and for me at least had me standing there thinking this is fvcking brilliant - what will come next.
If all he did was play Anjuna tunes for two hours i would have asked FP Cookie for tips on how to neck myself out of boredom. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by batemanscott
If all he did was play Anjuna tunes for two hours i would have asked FP Cookie for tips on how to neck myself out of boredom. |
Again...I understand what you're saying, it is important to have variety.
However, there are heaps of awesome trance DJs who play pure trance with no variation and come out on top purely with track selection. van Dyk traditionally doesn't play much more than uplifting or borderline hard trance, and look how ing awesome he is. |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ghandi
The last few pages of this thread is why I rarely talk about genres.
Stop trying to clasify everything into some little niche, its pointless and - in the end - just going to cause arguments.
Whenever anyone ever mentions a genre theres always people disagreeing, everyone has different opinions on what genres are and aren't. Trying to distill everything down to a minimal-tech-unicorn-trance subgenre is doing nothing worthwhile. Why can't (for example) trance have different feels or different interpretations, why do you have to classify it down into exclusive little categories where everything either is within 0.3% of a classification scale or its not that genre? How does that improve your enjoyment of it at all? How does it improve your description of it at all?
At the end of the day genres are absolutely useless, just say you a) enjoyed the music, or b) didn't enjoy the music. |
true, but what cke said :p |
|
|
| FiK |
| quote: | Originally posted by batemanscott
Problem with that is that the scene/people have moved on, all genres have grown and changed but that epic/melodic stuff still sounds exactly the same as it did in 2002 - i loved it for a couple of years but then it just got boring and the fact that it STILL sounds the same makes it even more boring and sound even more overplayed then it probably is.
|
that's true scotty but i guess for me personally i still really like that style, its just a matter of weeding through that generic bull which floods the scene to try and find the good tracks which while still similar have something unique that makes them awesome. |
|
|
|
|
