|
Differences between sub genres (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by enydo
If there were no genre distinctions how would I display my musical tastes on Facebook? |
good point. i concede the thread :( |
|
|
| Trance-MB |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
good producers don't give a about 'genre', all they care about is 'music'. |
I wonder who many of the vocal trance ASOT producers don't give a about genre.
My guess is more than you think.
If most of them are like Lisaya, (which I mention because that's my only reference producer I know personally), then they just do and produce what they like. Only problem is that many others don't like it and also kind of blame them for this. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| I don't want to listen to tooth-rotting candyfloss trance just because someone labelled a mix "Trance". Trance is a big ing genre, and Techno and House are even larger. Genre tags like "prog psy" may sound ridiculously anal, but they describe the music, and descriptions of music are helpful things. You can off if you think that makes me lazy. |
|
|
| PETRAN |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
Some really interesting observations on myth, storytelling, and evolution.
Isn't there a trance producer nowadays called 'fairy tale'?
Since the beginning of oral traditions, figures of speech (kind of like memes) were used as repetitive elements, as a kind of oral memory which infiltrates the individual and spreads itself to his progeny. these survive many times as epithets. each epithet is like a mini story in itself, a meta-exegesis for the whole mythology. in other words, every little epithet carries the same dna of the whole mythological body
For example, Dawn in the iliad is always addressed 'with her rose-red fingers' or 'rosy-fingered'. Calypso is "softly-braided nymph". The sea is "The wine-dark sea".
They are effectively memes transmitted by an oral culture.
These days we do not have an oral culture, but we have a recorded culture, which is kind of similar. And like homeric epithets, we have sound-memes and stereotypes, and cliches. The click for instance is like a psytrance epithet for the kick drum.
So, like oral traditions, its basically a game of telephone. People try to convey the same message and believe in the same mythology. However, the rules for this telephone game make it not only legal to change the exact message, but they are encouraged through remixing, editing, deejaying, etc.
So now we come to the interesting part (at least to me). The oral traditions of a culture tend to express its most essential characeristics, all it holds dear. Hence we have stories of heroism and war and legendary beauty in ancient greece and mycenae. Obviously homer's stories were legendary and have survived because as you pointed out, PETRAN, they are the fittest memes.
So what is the mechanism in the culture surrounding trance music that selects memes?
Let's look at what strains/memes have dominated
- female vocals about young love
- fat, grand classicalesque pads
- sunsets/sunrises
- clouds/flying
if the culture selects what memes it wants to hear, we must assume it selects what is most relevent to it culturally. So it appears that this culture is highly romantic, young, and escapist.
Now, I think you can say that when you are young you tend to be romantic and escapist, so in this case let's not put the cart before the horse. But what I think it proves, however, is how trance music has evolved through this process of meme-selection that PETRAN described to become a kind of hyper-streamlined expression of this romantic, young, escapist contingent, and how certain sonic aspects of this music have become imbued with almost magical meaning to carry this mythology. while others have fallen by the wayside. (though, I think it also has to do with other things such as the development of the superclub and the decreasing attention span of young people.)
PETRAN, I highly recommend this book, if you haven't already read it:
More Brilliant Than the Sun: Adventures in Sonic Fiction
by Kodwo Eshun |
Very interesting thoughts on the development of a meme-trance. I think that modern trance is the genre for the "romantic", "escapist" crowd and possibly for the younger people (or younger minds! heh)who-in our modern society at least- seem to exhibit a stronger romanticism than your average "grown-up"/"mature" individual (a modern social role which somehow is associated with rigidity, anhedonia and flat-emotional-efect-something that IMO is a negative aspect of modern culture). I don't think though that trance-or any music for that matter- characterises the modern "emotional tendencies" (emos? lol) of the youngsters, but the ever-present need of the (younger and...older) human being for emotional expression (e.g. i think that emos just express the younger person's ever-present emotionality and sensitivity in a cold, commercialized culture which everything is viewed in economic terms e.g. income/outcome)
I generally don't think that the zeitgeist is characterised by a romanticism or escapism or anything like that. On the contrary, our age seems to be much colder, rigid and detached than e.g. renaissance...but maybe those are just superficial traits and deep-down all people are/were always the same heh!
I don't know anything about this book and it seems very interesting from the reviews and the "look-inside" i did in Amazon. It looks very intelligent and witty, definitely a future buy. Thanks again for the reading suggestion!
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I don't want to listen to tooth-rotting candyfloss trance just because someone labelled a mix "Trance". Trance is a big ing genre, and Techno and House are even larger. Genre tags like "prog psy" may sound ridiculously anal, but they describe the music, and descriptions of music are helpful things. You can off if you think that makes me lazy. |
Lazy...maybe, fanboy...yes lol.
As i said before genres can be helpful but people seem to extensively fixate to that concept-"genre". Hell, they even create social groups around them! Ok, i guess that it is an aspect that all art exhibits up to a certain extend, but too much is just bad. You say "candyfloss" trance because of that specific sub-genre's isolation from other trances (and that genre's extensive "unicorn" bashing lol), why not have prog-psy with a bit of candy-floss? Its just art not some political movement. Unfortunately, people view sub-genres in that serious way leading to clear-cut seperations and divisions (hence the prevention of mixing between them like they are some kind of different species!The evolutionary paradigm again...heh...) something that IMO is just not good in an artistic context.
But maybe again its just the way humans work. Well, we can always become better |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
As i said before genres can be helpful but people seem to extensively fixate to that concept-"genre". Hell, they even create social groups around them! Ok, i guess that it is an aspect that all art exhibits up to a certain extend, but too much is just bad. You say "candyfloss" trance because of that specific sub-genre's isolation from other trances (and that genre's extensive "unicorn" bashing lol), why not have prog-psy with a bit of candy-floss? Its just art not some political movement. Unfortunately, people view sub-genres in that serious way leading to clear-cut seperations and divisions (hence the prevention of mixing between them like they are some kind of different species!The evolutionary paradigm again...heh...) something that IMO is just not good in an artistic context.
|
Because candyfloss trance is . Do you want to cling to some naive ideal that everything is worth listening to regardless of its source, or do you want to take the realistic option and say it's not worth listening to an 80 minute set because you might like one or two tracks? I would never say I disliked a genre because genres are too big, but sub-genres identify specific trends within larger musical realms. If my taste doesn't coincide with those trends, then I have a tag that helps me seek out or avoid certain musical sounds in the future.
I don't believe in ing up being able to describe music because of ideals, and because some people abuse genres. Listen to my "Spaced" mix in my sig and then tell me I don't mix up genres. |
|
|
| PETRAN |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Because candyfloss trance is . Do you want to cling to some naive ideal that everything is worth listening to regardless of its source, or do you want to take the realistic option and say it's not worth listening to an 80 minute set because you might like one or two tracks? I would never say I disliked a genre because genres are too big, but sub-genres identify specific trends within larger musical realms. If my taste doesn't coincide with those trends, then I have a tag that helps me seek out or avoid certain musical sounds in the future.
I don't believe in ing up being able to describe music because of ideals, and because some people abuse genres. Listen to my "Spaced" mix in my sig and then tell me I don't mix up genres. |
"Candyfloss trance is ". Now say that to all the ASOT fans.:p I don't know if candyfloss trance is , but one of the reasons that made it remain steady and sterile is probably because it was restrained within its "candyfloss" boundary (since it "worked" with the crowds). Maybe candyfloss trance "was not " if people didn't fixate to the genres and played and experimented a bit more.
"Some" people abuse genres? I believe that almost all people have abused genres (this sounded like an epidemiological study lol).
And which are the "Genres" and "sub-genres. What is the superordinate and the subordinate category? Isn't EDM a genre and trance, techno are sub-genres? Isn't this enough? Why should anyone go further than that to create more sub-sub-genres? (or "styles" or whatever) IMO this can only have a negative impact, since the positive aspects of "precise description" are not well balanced with the unnecessary extra-restraining and division that comes with it(which unfortunately is NOT that easy to NOT fixate to...) .
Idealistic? Yeah why not, sometimes ideals can drive someone to make and say important things...
P.s. your mix has a homogeneous structure and atmosphere through-out, its not reallity the prototype of "blending". Breaks and Progressive yeah, NOT that experimental... |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
"Candyfloss trance is ". Now say that to all the ASOT fans.:p I don't know if candyfloss trance is , but one of the reasons that made it remain steady and sterile is probably because it was restrained within its "candyfloss" boundary (since it "worked" with the crowds). Maybe candyfloss trance "was not " if people didn't fixate to the genres and played and experimented a bit more. |
Maybe not, although melodies and vacuous production seem a bit terminal to me, but you're talking about the producers. The fact remains there is a large canon of very similar tracks that I have very little chance of enjoying, and having a tag to identify them with is helpful. Remember that genre tags emerge to describe the music: the body of similar, trope-obeying sounds comes first and then gets named. What makes you think cutting out the name application would stop the tropes?
I have a huge amount of love and respect for producers who I couldn't even begin to categorise according to genre. Orbital are one act so idiosyncratic I don't consider them part of any genre anymore, but I remember having an argument with you where you went through the Brown Album and gave each track a different genre. I like it if you can't categorise an artist according to genre, but often you can and I see no point in leaving these large stylistic trends unidentified.
| quote: | | And which are the "Genres" and "sub-genres. What is the superordinate and the subordinate category? Isn't EDM a genre and trance, techno are sub-genres? Isn't this enough? Why should anyone go further than that to create more sub-sub-genres? (or "styles" or whatever) IMO this can only have a negative impact, since the positive aspects of "precise description" are not well balanced with the unnecessary extra-restraining and division that comes with it(which unfortunately is NOT that easy to NOT fixate to...) |
I'm not claiming there's a scientific method of classification. Genres are notoriously slippery bastards, some of them meaning absolutely nothing, which is what makes them so interesting to me. They're just names that come into being to describe things. Looking merely at what currently exists I think genres are too big to write off but sub-genres aren't. That's entirely from experience- it isn't a rigorous model.
Again: I don't support people following genre classifications because they feel they have to, but I don't object to the existence of genres on tenuous ideals. If genres didn't exist, it would be necessary for someone to invent them.
| quote: | | P.s. your mix has a homogeneous structure and atmosphere through-out, its not reallity the prototype of "blending". Breaks and Progressive yeah, NOT that experimental... |
In DJing terms, "blending" is a long, smooth transition, which is more or less exactly what I do there. Cutting is rapid juxtaposition of genres. The fact you call it "homogeneous" to mix from an Orbital track into something released on Hardcore Beats amuses me though. I guess I did a good job of making different genres sound very similar.
EDIT: It should also be noted that I think all these arguments should apply very specifically to musical genres. I'm doing my dissertation on genre theory, specifically texts that cross two narrative genres, and in my opinion genre in literature and narrative arts is a far more interesting and positive thing than it is in music. |
|
|
| Barachem |
| quote: | Originally posted by paulandrews
What is that supposed to mean? |
Precisely what i say, purer epic trance, epic trance without any other influence, maybe even trying to overemphasize the stock features of epic trance.
Maybe going so far in that, that a new subgenre can be formed like that or that one gets new inspiration of what to add to/subtract from the overemphasized features to gain a new subgenre.
| quote: | | Originally posted by paulandrews How? First, you would have to define what pure epic trance is - strict rules basically, because everyone's definition of pure epic trance differs - which would then impose limitations on all the artists' creative work, and that's hardly a way to make unique music. |
Does it matter that much what it exactly is?
As long as you have a grasp for yourself what a subgenre is, maybe based on what other define it is, you may work with that and try to see if you can turn it into something new.
If anything history teaches us that limitations, whether in equipment or in style, can give rise to creativity.
I do not mean the emulation or copying of previous tracks, but looking at what defines a subgenre and working within its confines.
| quote: | | Originally posted by PETRAN "Candyfloss trance is ". Now say that to all the ASOT fans.:p I don't know if candyfloss trance is , but one of the reasons that made it remain steady and sterile is probably because it was restrained within its "candyfloss" boundary (since it "worked" with the crowds). Maybe candyfloss trance "was not " if people didn't fixate to the genres and played and experimented a bit more. |
It's more that you think candyfloss trance is and that candyfloss trance is a definition you make and is different for you than for SYSTEM-J, me and each other poster here.
Many people like what you, me, SYSTEM-J and other posters here call ty candyfloss trance, so tastes differ.
| quote: | | Originally posted by PETRAN "Some" people abuse genres? I believe that almost all people have abused genres (this sounded like an epidemiological study lol). |
What's abuse anyway?
| quote: | | Originally posted by PETRAN And which are the "Genres" and "sub-genres. What is the superordinate and the subordinate category? Isn't EDM a genre and trance, techno are sub-genres? Isn't this enough? Why should anyone go further than that to create more sub-sub-genres? (or "styles" or whatever) IMO this can only have a negative impact, since the positive aspects of "precise description" are not well balanced with the unnecessary extra-restraining and division that comes with it(which unfortunately is NOT that easy to NOT fixate to...) . |
It's a matter of definition, or not?
And for some people it IS important to separate and classify.
That you don't find it important does NOT mean that others should not be able to.
So let them be, let people define subgenres/substyles, etc.
Maybe a new sound can come from that.
Many of the people who claim to be inclusive and tolerant in nature and tell about listening to all kinds of music, but yet when it comes to people wanting to be exclusive in their taste, the former become quite bitterly exclusive and intolerant towards the latter.
I am one of the few who openly declares that he listens almost exclusively to harmonically melodic trance and has not much desire to explore all kinds of other genres, because he did sample them and found them distasteful.
If others like them, so be it, but don't force me to listen to stuff i don't care about.
Suggesting stuff is not a problem, but trying to force me to change or broaden my taste is fruitless, i will only stubbornly keep listening to what i like. |
|
|
| PETRAN |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Maybe not, although melodies and vacuous production seem a bit terminal to me, but you're talking about the producers. The fact remains there is a large canon of very similar tracks that I have very little chance of enjoying, and having a tag to identify them with is helpful. Remember that genre tags emerge to describe the music: the body of similar, trope-obeying sounds comes first and then gets named. What makes you think cutting out the name application would stop the tropes? |
ha, its not that simple. Do you really think that all of todays epic trance producers come with the same sound again and again out of the blue? Ofcourse not. These producers were fans of that genre-the epic trance genre-and their heroes are the genres masters-Tiesto, Van sBuuren etc. It is true that the "mutation" in sound comes first and categorization follows. But oh boy. When the name comes and the underlying music (which is described) is "successive", it is difficult for many people NOT to get restrained by it.
Look at the things we talked about with nefardec before, the "mythology" and "evolution". Simply put, when someone comes with something new (regardless of what it is) it creates a "narrative-gravity" (i use the term "narrative" metaphorically, in relation to the mythology analogy before). The power of the gravitational field could be proportional to the amount of success that the narrative has (its success in adapting to the culture). This would mean, that there would be a higher chance for people to get "trapped" within this "narratational field" than come with "(narrative)-fields of their own". This is why a lot of current EDM sub-(sub-?) genres today are so steady. They have reached a point of maximal cultural adaptation and there is no need for change (except for some disturbing TA people!).
If, and maybe if- those "species" weren't both perceived-and hence produced-in such isolated ways by the vast majority of people, maybe (and just maybe) that "steady state" would not have been reached so easily. Maybe there would be no need for cultural adaptations, since the music would be so heterogeneous, that people would not feel/have the need to "follow" just one narrative. They would have "ears" for many. Ofcourse, their ears would naturally prefer some stories more in comparison to others, but they would just be more "open" in hearing other stories. And this would simply increase the chance of coming with even more "wild", "witty" and "adventurous" stories than before.
| quote: |
I'm not claiming there's a scientific method of classification. Genres are notoriously slippery bastards, some of them meaning absolutely nothing, which is what makes them so interesting to me. They're just names that come into being to describe things. Looking merely at what currently exists I think genres are too big to write off but sub-genres aren't. That's entirely from experience- it isn't a rigorous model.
Again: I don't support people following genre classifications because they feel they have to, but I don't object to the existence of genres on tenuous ideals. If genres didn't exist, it would be necessary for someone to invent them. |
Genres and sub-genres possibly exist because people naturally want to categorize everything. Categorization= prediction and gain of control. In the end of the day, people can't help it but categorize. People are actually so passionate for categorizations, they even invent different names for one sub-(sub?) genre e.g. epic-trance, uplifting trance, melodic trance, euphoric trance, anthem trance etc. I guess its natural. At least, people can be more "easy-going" with regards to those seperations. Becasue, believe it or not, categories and ideologies can be very powerful in shaping one's taste and preferences.
| quote: |
In DJing terms, "blending" is a long, smooth transition, which is more or less exactly what I do there. Cutting is rapid juxtaposition of genres. The fact you call it "homogeneous" to mix from an Orbital track into something released on Hardcore Beats amuses me though. I guess I did a good job of making different genres sound very similar.
EDIT: It should also be noted that I think all these arguments should apply very specifically to musical genres. I'm doing my dissertation on genre theory, specifically texts that cross two narrative genres, and in my opinion genre in literature and narrative arts is a far more interesting and positive thing than it is in music. |
Hmm to tell you the truth i didn't listen to your set, i just knew all the tracks lol. Most of them just gave me the impression that they "move" within common paths and that they were not that different despite the fact that some are categorized differently. Although i have to listen to it. :p
If you are doing your dissertation about genre theory, can i suggest this book? I don't know if it is directly related, although i feel that it can be very helpful. Give it a go (if you already haven't!)
Susan Blackmore- "The Meme Machine"
http://www.amazon.com/Meme-Machine-...33074873&sr=8-1 |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
ha, its not that simple. Do you really think that all of todays epic trance producers come with the same sound again and again out of the blue? Ofcourse not. These producers were fans of that genre-the epic trance genre-and their heroes are the genres masters-Tiesto, Van sBuuren etc. It is true that the "mutation" in sound comes first and categorization follows. But oh boy. When the name comes and the underlying music (which is described) is "successive", it is difficult for many people NOT to get restrained by it. |
Show me a universally agreed term for what I've just called candyfloss trance. Epic trance? Uplifting trance? Melodic trance? Euphoric trance? I've heard all these terms and more levelled at the same sound. Beatport just calls it all "trance" without discrimination. There is no universally agreed tag. Tracks get lumped into all kinds of different genres. You only need to go on Last.fm to see the disparate tags people assign to tracks. Tracks I'd call house others call trance. House or techno. They overlap constantly, and they're massive designations. That throws a giant ing spanner in your neat "mythology" clockwork theory.
The tropes and stereotypes will exist regardless of the tags. You act as though sub-genre names control producers. Do you think hoardes of candyfloss trance producers would simply not make music if the tag "epic trance" (or uplifting/euphoric/melodic) didn't exist? They copy the sound, whether it has a name or not. The sound comes first and is subject to all kinds of categorisation. When they hear sets full of the same sound of music, they'll go and copy that sound even if they call it all "cyber trance" or some other idiolectical designation. The genres trail the trends. They do not control them.
| quote: | | Hmm to tell you the truth i didn't listen to your set, i just knew all the tracks lol. Most of them just gave me the impression that they "move" within common paths and that they were not that different despite the fact that some are categorized differently. Although i have to listen to it. :p |
Well that's the whole point, right there. They sound similar even though they are supposedly from different genres. That's because genre tags don't stratify sound nearly as much as you're claiming. You talk about the power of categorisation and then knock it all down by saying this.
| quote: | | If you are doing your dissertation about genre theory, can i suggest this book? I don't know if it is directly related, although i feel that it can be very helpful. Give it a go (if you already haven't!) |
That book wouldn't be any use to me, unfortunately. I'm focused on something much more specific and in-depth than what that book deals with. |
|
|
| nefardec |
i think the only use for genre is in criticism and analysis, and my personal opinion is that criticism and analysis of music tends to be futile and masturbatory anyways.
about the only kind of analysis i like is either a history of how an individual piece of music was made or a kind of fiction about an individual piece of music. both of those deny genre.
for instance, i don't want to read about how some random dude believes X album was the watershed moment for X subgenre in 2008. I don't want to hear about 'what happened to techno in 2007' or 'what deep house was about this year'. that stuff infuriates me
i never use subgenre when i shop for music, i always explore through artists and labels in online stores, and in record stores i always either comb through the undifferentiated mess on the bottom shelves or browse by new release or label. there are broad distinctions between hiphop and techno and house and experimental, but i don't stick to a bin that says 'deep house' or 'detroit techno' or something else.
interestingly enough i am currently developing a project which is a map of the social and creative network associated with electronic dance music, beginning from its origins. the entire thing is based on an xml database and a navigable, interactive flash map is generated alogorithmically that a user can explore in a web browser. the xml database will act like a sort of wiki where many people can add information to the database. so it's sort of like a cross between discogs and ishkur's site, except instead of being subjective humorous, and geometrically static, this map is expansive, mathematically generated from a database of people and their myriad relationships and endeavors, and the interface is a more intuitive way of exploring music and relationships than discogs. the mathematics reveal inherent patterns, proximities, and underlying patterns and hidden relationships. i'm working on a glorified version of this basically, for the web. http://www.graphviz.org/ more on this in the future
but the point is i'm not using genre at all. genre is emergent in this model. one experiment i would consider is an option where there are color coded point clouds around the map entities based on generic designations in their discographies. viewed en mass, zoomed out, one would be able to see all of the color blending and 'generic territories' but again, generated by code and relationship, borders blurred and thickened, not determinative designations of a critic |
|
|
| Trance-MB |
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
"Candyfloss trance is ". Now say that to all the ASOT fans.:p I don't know if candyfloss trance is , but one of the reasons that made it remain steady and sterile is probably because it was restrained within its "candyfloss" boundary (since it "worked" with the crowds). |
Yes, all those ASOT producers must earn loads of money to keep making they don't like but sells good.
Give me one good reason why producers, who know that the chance of making a hit is tiny, keep producing ASOT like tracks?
As far as I can tell most producers just like what they produce and at the end it again only is a matter of taste.
Also I wonder how many over here still love compilations like Trancemaster, which have been around like forever, regardless of any changes in trance over the years.
I cannot imagine I would be the only one. (Although it would be special if I would be...) |
|
|
|
|
