|
L O ****ing LLLLL! (pg. 14)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| sixofour.604 |
Trance didn't have build ups and breakdowns untill 1999. Incidently, this is also when trance catagoricly became . And every song every released after the year 1999 labeled "trance" is , by definition. Every. Single. One.
Trance is supposed to be a loop that lasts 10 minutes, not a song with ups and downs and other that is placed purposely to you up. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by sixofour.604
Trance didn't have build ups and breakdowns untill 1999. Incidently, this is also when trance catagoricly became . And every song every released after the year 1999 labeled "trance" is , by definition. Every. Single. One.
Trance is supposed to be a loop that lasts 10 minutes, not a song with ups and downs and other that is placed purposely to you up. |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUHkssf5iSs (released 2007)
;) |
|
|
| Mr.Mystery |
| quote: | Originally posted by owien
trance was ment for big build ups and breakdowns and techno is just floor to the foor dancing agait its built that way |
| quote: | Originally posted by sixofour.604
Trance didn't have build ups and breakdowns untill 1999. Incidently, this is also when trance catagoricly became . And every song every released after the year 1999 labeled "trance" is , by definition. Every. Single. One.
Trance is supposed to be a loop that lasts 10 minutes, not a song with ups and downs and other that is placed purposely to you up. |
Is there some sort of competition where people are trying to one-up each other in stupidity and I wasn't informed? |
|
|
| sixofour.604 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
Is there some sort of competition where people are trying to one-up each other in stupidity and I wasn't informed? |
No, I'm telling you the opinions I have about trance, opinions that many many many others share.
When ever the word "trance" is mentioned anywhere, if there is anyone in the room who has been around since atleast the early 90's, then the first thing that comes to mind when they hear the word "trance", is how it got killed.
Anyone who joined the game after 2000 is oblivious and likely thinks crap like tiesto is how trance has always been, and they are the ones who always come in with some asanine comment like "some of its good, you have to dig". And of course when they say "dig" they meant go listen to ASOT.
In 2000ish, in that era, it started being possiable to make music with an extremely low income. What happened is that people who hated trance, but liked the "eventfulness" [for lack of a better word] of pop and other short catchy crappy songs, decided it would be a nice idea to release this formulaic pop music that lacked words, and just call it trance [later to be called progressive trance]. As a result those long monotonous tracks were not the "fad" anymore and promptly died out in the mainstream.
There will never been another "We Came In Peace" or "Amorph"
Atleast, that's the history according to me. :P |
|
|
| mfitterer1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by sixofour.604
No, I'm telling you the opinions I have about trance, opinions that many many many others share.
When ever the word "trance" is mentioned anywhere, if there is anyone in the room who has been around since atleast the early 90's, then the first thing that comes to mind when they hear the word "trance", is how it got killed.
Anyone who joined the game after 2000 is oblivious and likely thinks crap like tiesto is how trance has always been, and they are the ones who always come in with some asanine comment like "some of its good, you have to dig". And of course when they say "dig" they meant go listen to ASOT.
In 2000ish, in that era, it started being possiable to make music with an extremely low income. What happened is that people who hated trance, but liked the "eventfulness" [for lack of a better word] of pop and other short catchy crappy songs, decided it would be a nice idea to release this formulaic pop music that lacked words, and just call it trance [later to be called progressive trance]. As a result those long monotonous tracks were not the "fad" anymore and promptly died out in the mainstream.
There will never been another "We Came In Peace" or "Amorph"
Atleast, that's the history according to me. :P |
You're so wrong it's not even funny! With all of the stupid things you've said that could be the most dumb. |
|
|
| Mr.Mystery |
| quote: | Originally posted by sixofour.604
No, I'm telling you the opinions I have about trance, opinions that many many many others share.
When ever the word "trance" is mentioned anywhere, if there is anyone in the room who has been around since atleast the early 90's, then the first thing that comes to mind when they hear the word "trance", is how it got killed.
Anyone who joined the game after 2000 is oblivious and likely thinks crap like tiesto is how trance has always been, and they are the ones who always come in with some asanine comment like "some of its good, you have to dig". And of course when they say "dig" they meant go listen to ASOT.
In 2000ish, in that era, it started being possiable to make music with an extremely low income. What happened is that people who hated trance, but liked the "eventfulness" [for lack of a better word] of pop and other short catchy crappy songs, decided it would be a nice idea to release this formulaic pop music that lacked words, and just call it trance [later to be called progressive trance]. As a result those long monotonous tracks were not the "fad" anymore and promptly died out in the mainstream.
There will never been another "We Came In Peace" or "Amorph"
Atleast, that's the history according to me. :P |
Ignorant opinion is an opinion too, I suppose. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
There is definitely truth to what he wrote. Trance did change a lot in a pretty short time period. Go listen to this mix and then tell me that trance did not undergo a massive transformation in the late 1990s:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=536248
^ sixofour should love this oldschool stuff. ;) |
|
|
| Mr.Mystery |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
There is definitely truth to what he wrote. Trance did change a lot in a pretty short time period. Go listen to this mix and then tell me that trance did not undergo a massive transformation in the late 1990s:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=536248
^ sixofour should love this oldschool stuff. ;) |
Hey, I'm not defending this modern bastardization of trance. There's just this:
| quote: | Originally posted by sixofour.604
And every song every released after the year 1999 labeled "trance" is , by definition. Every. Single. One.
|
|
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| I agree, that is too big of a generalization. But then hyperbole is sixofour's usual shtick... |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
Is there some sort of competition where people are trying to one-up each other in stupidity and I wasn't informed? |
To be fair, he's actually right about the build-break-drop formula not really becoming the norm until '99 or late '98. If I flip back to Essential Mixes from the mid '90s, the typical "breakdown" in a track, if there even is one, is maybe 10 seconds long. Also, they're almost invariably near the beginning of the track as part of the intro and are normally followed by gradual layering (the typical "progressive trance" style of the time), not a quick drop.
The rest of what you quoted was pretty moronic though, I'll agree. |
|
|
| owien |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
Is there some sort of competition where people are trying to one-up each other in stupidity and I wasn't informed? |
eh? |
|
|
| Subtle |
| Im sure Trance would have sounded great by now if it sounded like it did 15 years ago. :wtf: |
|
|
|
|
