|
1999 Trance [Re-creation] (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| StephenWiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Beatflux
No need to type all of that out.
"Paul Oakenfold-Tranceport" would have been just fine. |
Not so fast my friend.....If I'm not mistaken not a single one of those tracks were on that album.
There is a big difference, in my opinion, between Tranceport and the tracks I posted. Tranceport is way more commercial and for the most part has too much of a modern sound in my opinion. |
|
|
| StephenWiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Leon
awesome example tracks |
I know, right?
Sure would be nice to hear music like this again at the forefront. I've actually got a few (of course they're unknown) artists who produce music that has a 99 feel to it. The funny part about it is they don't create it with the 1999 goal in mind. It's just their style.
check out "First Awake - With You" |
|
|
| StephenWiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by pvdalltheway
Stephen, I love your choice of tracks. I'm an old-skool techno fan as well. The second track by taste xperience gave me goosebumps.
These guys obviously didn't have so many fancy vsts and NASA-computers we have out today. They actually worked hard trying to get their sounds. Most of the stuff they used were simple sounds that were sampled or from hardware synths.
But what distinguishes their tracks from nowdays is the fact that they put alot of 'soul' into their music. They didn't care so much about sidechaining and super special effects on every part of the track like we have today. If you notice, there's hardly any automation going on in those tracks. It's all about play of sounds and using perfect melodies.
There was an interview with Ferry where he said something like 'back in the days, all the momentum from the studio used to go in the track, but now we have all these weird plugins that sort of kill creativity'.
I spent the last few years tryin to learn about sequencers, synths, effects, etc... I made a few tracks while doing so, but I think I'm ready to actually start making full tracks now instead of messing with more synths and what not.
Stephen, if you're looking to collaborate I'm available here. I think you and I have similar taste in music. 2 heads are better than 1. |
I appreciate the offer. I completely agree about two heads being better than one. What DAW do you use? Add me on AIM (djstephenwiley9) and shoot me a message if you're serious about this. |
|
|
| StephenWiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
I think some of the best stuff came out in 1997 - 1998, right before it really blew up. Those are for sure some nice tunes, though. Your best bet at creating something in the exact same style would be to get some of the popular hardware synths of the day (JP-80x0? Virus?) and get to work. Don't crowd things up with a ton of effects. And use lots of snare rolls of course.
:p
It might help to try limiting yourself to eight or ten tracks playing at once or something. The simplicity is part of what makes a lot of those oldies effective. Just a few nice melodies played with a few pretty sounds, none of the "slam twenty delays and ten compressors on every track" and "use three or four synths to create a bassline" method used today.
But in order for simplicity to be attractive, the sounds themselves have to be very nice so that they can stand on their own. Otherwise the tune will just sound thin and tinny. |
I'm actually not a big fan of the snare rolls. I don't listen to or play many tracks that have them. Same goes for the kick builds. The thing that is mind blowing from the 99 trance is the pads, melodies, and tracks that were totally lead by an insanely strong and melodic bassline.
Like you said, they are fairly simple tracks and use minimal elements all the way around, yet they're beyond effective. This is what frustrates me so much about why people won't produce this stuff. Even if it isn't popular or selling, I think most of us here agree that it is an amazing style....yet nobody produces it...and its simple? It just doesn't make much sense? |
|
|
| Beatflux |
Today's music is more interesting to listen, but the use of effects, automation, and SFX can lead producers to put less effort toward the musicality of trance music. Despite this, there are still rare artists that do make good melodic trance. I don't think we've hit a dry spell, it's that EDM has always steered away from melodies and harmonies and even though people make trance the skill it takes to make a quality melodic trance track is always going to be rare. The few tracks you posted are the exception, and not the rule.
This thread is tainted with nostalgia. |
|
|
| orTofønChiLd |
| wait a minute, you don't need hardware, all that can be replicated with skill on a soft synth :rolleyes: |
|
|
| gr8ape |
| quote: | Originally posted by orTofønChiLd
wait a minute, you don't need hardware, all that can be replicated with skill on a soft synth :rolleyes: |
i prefer to set each one of the samples myself for authentic recreation |
|
|
| asdfg |
| Jon Vesta - Gull is a nice track, makes you wonder what his music would be like if he were still around. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by StephenWiley
I've also thought about running the final mix down (if it ever gets there) through some ty 2 channel gemini mixer that may not even turn on. I know that sounds stupid, but this has been suggested to me on more than one occasion as a way to create a "less digital" sound. |
Is it an analog mixer? |
|
|
| Stephen Wiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Is it an analog mixer? |
I'd need to unpack it lol. I'm going to see if I can track it down online. It was a 2 channel gemini mixer from a starter kit!!! |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| I'm wondering because if it's a digital mixer it probably won't do anything at all to the sound, except add a little noise and perhaps degrade the signal if it's an old or damaged mixer. |
|
|
| flutlicht junky |
All aboard who's coming aboard!!!
Next stop Crasher when PVD first drops For An Angel :toothless
 |
|
|
|
|
