|
Are there many talented trance producers about these days ?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jimb0b |
I dont quite know how to phrase this really, and im not trying to slag off trance music but it may seem like it.
Ive lately been listening to quite a lot of older music (70's stuff), and back then when there was a limited amount of musical instuments about (say your piano, guitar, bass, strings, sax etc...), the songs are still entertaining to listen to, and some are timeless classics.
If you listen to some of the stuff, there is a lot going on in them, and the way all the parts interact with each other makes it interesting also, and the actual melodies and arrangements seem to be a lot more complicated etc... than your average trance peace, I suppose you could say that it is made by "professionals".
I suppose one of my points is, that pretty much anyone can jump in and make a run of the mill trance song and be done with it, but how many trance producers (newbies and pro's) could write a song using just traditional instruments, and not having a limitless amount of sounds at your disposal ?, I imagine a few would be able to, but a big proportion would not. Also, you sometimes see an "amature" create a track, with an absoulte shed load of sounds, but the track is crap, whereas you can give a talented person a keyboard and they could bring the house down with just that one instrument, its the differene between a pro and an amature.
I suppose another one of my points is that with the ability for pretty much anyone to make music these days, you do get a lot of crap out there, and have to dig about for the real good stuff, and I must confess it's been quite a while since I have heard a "trance" track that isnt just your usual kind of structure and your usual kind of sounds, and not a hell of a lot of interaction between the sounds being used, they are all either just on or off, they dont really play with one another.
Well, that turned out to be a longer post than I expected, but it's just something thats been on my mind, so thought I would see if people think im talking utter bollox, or if there is some sense to what I am saying. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jimb0b
Well, that turned out to be a longer post than I expected, but it's just something thats been on my mind, so thought I would see if people think im talking utter bollox, or if there is some sense to what I am saying. |
This topic has been talked about a lot. These days there are fewer "quality filters" for who gets to compose music, who gets to make a track, which tracks go into wide distribution, et cetera et cetera et cetera.
Forty years ago, you could only make music if you could either play an instrument or compose on staff paper and then get someone to play it. You could only record a song in decent quality if you had access to a studio. Recording was expensive, and editing was very primitive, so you had to be able to get things right at least semi-consistently. And you could only get a song into wide distribution if people were willing to invest some significant money in your music; and they would only do this if they either thought that you had some real talent or at least had a gimmick good enough to bring in enough money to recoup all the costs of recording, pressing, and touring.
There were more obstacles to making and distributing music, and to some extent these obstacles filtered out a lot of people who weren't truly committed to making good music. No-talent dabblers were discouraged by the expense and difficulty of recording and disseminating a song.
All of that is true, of course, but it isn't going to change. If anything, it will only get worse as production gets easier and cheaper, and more and more untalented people flood the market with forgettable junk. You just have to try and sift through the garbage heap to find the gems that lie buried beneath all that stinking refuse.
:clown: |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Forty years ago, you could only make music if you could either play an instrument or compose on staff paper and then get someone to play it. You could only record a song in decent quality if you had access to a studio. Recording was expensive, and editing was very primitive, so you had to be able to get things right at least semi-consistently. And you could only get a song into wide distribution if people were willing to invest some significant money in your music; and they would only do this if they either thought that you had some real talent or at least had a gimmick good enough to bring in enough money to recoup all the costs of recording, pressing, and touring. |
... and now any old idiot can download a cracked copy of Reason or Live and a bunch of softsynths, squeak out a preset-laden arrangement slathered in nice delays and slick reverbs, call it a "trance" or "techno" track, and probably get some new digital label to sign it if he shops it around enough -- as long as it's at least of mediocre quality. |
|
|
| Jimb0b |
| Yes, I mean, I wonder how many "trance" producers could just sit down with a piano, and make a good song ? |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jimb0b
Yes, I mean, I wonder how many "trance" producers could just sit down with a piano, and make a good song ? |
I can't say, personally. I'd imagine that there are plenty who could not.
If you gave a keyboard that played nothing but plain sine waves to a Beethoven or a Chopin, or a dinky little guitar to Jimi Hendrix, he could use it to move people and make brilliant art.
But if you gave the biggest, most expensive studio in the world and all the best acoustic instruments to some no-talent dabbler, then had the best mixing and mastering engineers touch up whatever he made, then you would still get uninspired junk, no matter how "professional" it sounded. |
|
|
| cryophonik |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jimb0b
Yes, I mean, I wonder how many "trance" producers could just sit down with a piano, and make a good song ? |
So, what if they can't? How many piano virtuosos can play a djembe? How many opera singers can write a rock song? Could Neil Young write a decent trance song? Probably not, but what the hell does it matter?
I probably have a much different perspective on this subject than most people on this forum because I'm old (41 years to be exact), I have a degree in music theory/composition, and I played professionally for most of my adult life. Even with all that experience, my early attempts (and even some of my current attempts) at trance were terrible and would have been laughed at by producers with a fraction of my experience. Some people are good at producing trance, some aren't, some try hard, and some put little effort toward it, but again, what the hell does it matter? It's music and music should be created and shared by everyone. It's not an exclusive club and, as MrJiveBoJingles pointed out, it's becoming increasingly more accessible for everyone to give it a shot. I don't see the harm in that at all and, to the contrary, I celebrate it. |
|
|
| Jimb0b |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
I can't say, personally. I'd imagine that there are plenty who could not.
If you gave a keyboard that played nothing but plain sine waves to a Beethoven or a Chopin, or a dinky little guitar to Jimi Hendrix, he could use it to move people and make brilliant art.
But if you gave the biggest, most expensive studio in the world and all the best acoustic instruments to some no-talent dabbler, then had the best mixing and mastering engineers touch up whatever he made, then you would still get uninspired junk, no matter how "professional" it sounded. |
I think you put into words exactly what I was thinking! |
|
|
| Jimb0b |
| quote: | Originally posted by cryophonik
So, what if they can't? How many piano virtuosos can play a djembe? How many opera singers can write a rock song? Could Neil Young write a decent trance song? Probably not, but what the hell does it matter?
I probably have a much different perspective on this subject than most people on this forum because I'm old (41 years to be exact), I have a degree in music theory/composition, and I played professionally for most of my adult life. Even with all that experience, my early attempts (and even some of my current attempts) at trance were terrible and would have been laughed at by producers with a fraction of my experience. Some people are good at producing trance, some aren't, some try hard, and some put little effort toward it, but again, what the hell does it matter? It's music and music should be created and shared by everyone. It's not an exclusive club and, as MrJiveBoJingles pointed out, it's becoming increasingly more accessible for everyone to give it a shot. I don't see the harm in that at all and, to the contrary, I celebrate it. |
Well, I agree on some of your point but not others.
The thing im trying to say is, that I personally think that if you had the ability to write a song with say just a piano, that gives you a good foundation with composition and structure to make a trance song that has some actual content to it, not just say one melody and some stabs and then call it a day.
I agree that yes its good that more people have access to create music these days, as you do get some talent through that otherwise would not of been able to make it, but on the flip side you also get a lot of crap coming out, which in itself, I feel hurts the music badly, as people hear a lot of the crap and not the good stuff, you have to dig around for the good stuff which not everyone wants to do.
I mean, I consider myself most deffinately in the "amature" group, and wouldnt consider even trying to get anything released etc... as I know it is not of good enough quality, but others will just throw out any old junk without a care in the world.
Thats my personal opinion anyway. |
|
|
| Eric J |
I kind of have a different take on this topic.
For me, there is very little value in comparing Electronic Dance Music to more traditional genres of music, because the contexts are different.
EDM is generally supposed to be played in a mixed set, so I think there is less need for any one individual track to stand on it's own as you have with more traditional music. A lot of people who are not into EDM have trouble grasping this concept, because they are conditioned to hear each individual song as a single unit of work. In a mixed set, every track is stitched together and the entire MIX is the body of work that is to be judged.
Think about how different EDM is when compared to traditional music. In traditional music, its the "composers" who get the recognition, where in EDM is the DJ's, not the composers, who get the recognition by the public. Nowhere else in music is that the case. This is one of the primary reasons why the traditional music industry has had SO much trouble trying to figure out how to market and sell this music as they have with traditional genres. It just doesn't fit their models (thank god!).
Now, I am not suggesting that you can put together a mix of crappy tracks and have a good mixed set, but, for me, EDM tracks have always been "pieces" of a unit, rather than the "whole" unit as is the case with traditional music. To me, this is one of the things that makes EDM so great. Each track is a puzzle piece that can be used to build the "journey" that is a mixed set. It is the DJ's responsibility to program the mixed set so that it has flow and actually goes somewhere. If you can put these pieces together in a meaningful and/or logical way, then that's where the talent comes in.
This is one of the reason why I think the definition of a "good" DJ goes way beyond simple beatmatching or tricks (not counting turntablism). Once you get past the basic required skills, such as proper beatmatching, the mark of a good DJ is entirely in their ability to program a good set. A good set should be like a journey: It has its peaks and valleys, each track compliments the next, and the mix as a whole makes a statement. Programming a set is entirely an art form all its own.
This also applies to specific genres of music. A set thats all "trance" that has the same energy level through out is boring to me, and robs trance of the ability to act as the "peak" of a set. If you listen to a really good trance DJ, for example, they usually start off with some techier or progressive house and slowly build the set. This usually happens either with one giant crescendo through out the set or the set has peaks and valleys. Housier DJ's might start off with some minimal and work it through some tech and then some more "up tempo" house, for example.
Personally, if I have the whole night (3-4 hours), then I'll start off with some Deep House and build things slowly up through some Tech house, then Electro, then Progressive, then Tech-Trance, and finally to the huge stuff towards the end of the night. If I'm only playing an hour or whatever, the music I'll play is entirely dependent on my time slot. If its 12PM, then its probably going to be electro or progressive house. If its 3AM, then I'll probably play bigger tunes. Its a great way to keep things fresh and interesting.
A&B, AVB and others do this all the time. They start off with progressive stuff (like Anjunadeep, Jaytech type stuff, for ex), then once they get to the monster trance tracks they'll usually play 2 or 3 of these types of tracks, then segue into some "darker" or "techier" type stuff (think SVD or Bart Van Classen) to release some of that energy and bring things back down. You kind of have to do this to give yourself room to build it back up again. If you just play peak hour stuff non stop for 3 hours, then the energy level never changes, and it gets boring real quick.
So, there certainly is nothing wrong with an individual track having all the elements to stand on it's own, but at the end of the day, that track should still have the ability to be used as a part of the whole, because that is where dance music has it's place. |
|
|
| Eric J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jimb0b
The thing im trying to say is, that I personally think that if you had the ability to write a song with say just a piano, that gives you a good foundation with composition and structure to make a trance song that has some actual content to it, not just say one melody and some stabs and then call it a day.
|
While I do not necessarily disagree with this point of view, I also think that this assumes that a good dance track requires a good melody. For me this is not always the case. The point of dance music, at its core, is to make you want to "dance". SO a track that has very little melody but an outstanding groove and movement is just as good for me than a cleverly programmed melody. I think many people who listen to only trance kind of forget this point. There are loads of good tracks that have very little melody at all, but their ability to move butts on the dance floor is what makes it a good track.
The ability to program a good "groove" is just as important in dance music as one's ability to write a good melody, and some people would argue that it is even more important. |
|
|
|
|
