|
What is happening to Trance music? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| EddieZilker |
Look at music in the past fifty years. From 1960, already riding several different waves, various styles have advanced, retreated, or are close to comatose. Only foolish people are lamenting, "Whatever happened to Rock n' Roll? In the Sixties, we had bands like Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin. Elvis Presley was still alive. Look at it now! Sound-garden? Greenday? Metalica?"
Personally, I don't particularly want to listen to most trance that's ten years old, anymore. There are records I have purchased which are just horrible by today's standards and while they might not have been that great, back when I bought them, I still considered them gold.
The things which made it an innovative sound now make it archaic. No doubt, there will be fools who want to hold onto everything about the past which gave them fond memories. I'm almost certain that there will be groups of people who find themselves on the internet or in larger cities to spin old records and think back to the time they met that girl on MDMA during the break and something cosmic happened - then and there - and now they're wondering what she's up to and if they'll ever meet up, again.
It is sentimental nostalgia for nostalgia sake. It is useless and irrelevant. It is something to cling to, at best, in order to remember a time when there was hope and things aren't as rough as they are, right now.
Don't get me wrong. There are quite a few old songs which I love and would happily hear, again, given a few moments of spare time. There are forms to songs which still inspire my creative process and ideas I still incorporate. There are always techniques to borrow and/or steal and kick drums to sample.
If you're hanging your hat on one artist to keep to whatever your norms are, you're setting yourself up for failure. Most producers I've met get bored of doing the same . Personally, I've explored about five different styles including Hip Hop and Ambient.
Griping about the trends you perceive is as close to a wet paper sack of broken hammers as useless can get. It's also lazy. Go look for new music. No one in a position to address your grievance is going to - ever. |
|
|
| weymouth |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
Look at music in the past fifty years. From 1960, already riding several different waves, various styles have advanced, retreated, or are close to comatose. Only foolish people are lamenting, "Whatever happened to Rock n' Roll? In the Sixties, we had bands like Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin. Elvis Presley was still alive. Look at it now! Sound-garden? Greenday? Metalica?"
|
This has to be a troll. There is no way you think that Soundgarden, Greenday, and Metallica are better than Hendrix, Zeppelin, or the Beatles. Almost every person I know agrees that rock n roll was better in the late 60's early 70's. |
|
|
| Rodri Santos |
i like some tracks like imagine from the beatles but the rest are boring for me, i think this can be applyed to trance too.
-If you liked old trance or the beatles what you hear now may not be of your taste.
-And if you like the current stuff and listen to the old one you may think that it's too hard in trance case or too soft in rock case. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by weymouth
This has to be a troll. There is no way you think that Soundgarden, Greenday, and Metallica are better than Hendrix, Zeppelin, or the Beatles. Almost every person I know agrees that rock n roll was better in the late 60's early 70's. |
It's not a troll. Personally, I agree. The 60's was the shiznat. Still, it's absolutely pointless to bemoan the current state of things - that was the point I was trying to make with that sentence. |
|
|
| shaminii |
| quote: | Originally posted by hachiroku
well as to say most of your comments are not completely unfounded. if you look at all the electro/house/dubstep etc...the ones that ARE GOOD could be essentially classified as Trance.
you see mainstream trance taking a step towards a continuous beat and rythem with no real difference between track one and track two. then you see these new classifications that have the trance tempo, beat, and build up then everybody loves those tracks.
trance is moving to somewhere we don't care for, where as everything else is moving to where trance was. why because they are sounding more and more like trance. trance music once was layered music with many different layers. now it is muttled and monotone.
sure tiesto's NEW album was good, but it is a step in another direction than his music 3 years ago. his instrumental tracks are mono tone in comparison to his older stuff. lately i've been searching for less mainstream artists that give it the way we like it.
if you even listen to regular pop or top 40's music. how many tracks could be considered trance or have a trance beat? LMFAO, Black Eyed Pea's, Lady GAGA. they all are using trace beats for their HIT music.
maybe Trance artists/composers today are getting tunnel vision, but everybody else seems to have found what they had all along. |
May 2010. Whatever you just said is not valid. |
|
|
| idoru |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
Look at music in the past fifty years. From 1960, already riding several different waves, various styles have advanced, retreated, or are close to comatose. Only foolish people are lamenting, "Whatever happened to Rock n' Roll? In the Sixties, we had bands like Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin. Elvis Presley was still alive. Look at it now! Sound-garden? Greenday? Metalica?"
Personally, I don't particularly want to listen to most trance that's ten years old, anymore. There are records I have purchased which are just horrible by today's standards and while they might not have been that great, back when I bought them, I still considered them gold.
The things which made it an innovative sound now make it archaic. No doubt, there will be fools who want to hold onto everything about the past which gave them fond memories. I'm almost certain that there will be groups of people who find themselves on the internet or in larger cities to spin old records and think back to the time they met that girl on MDMA during the break and something cosmic happened - then and there - and now they're wondering what she's up to and if they'll ever meet up, again.
It is sentimental nostalgia for nostalgia sake. It is useless and irrelevant. It is something to cling to, at best, in order to remember a time when there was hope and things aren't as rough as they are, right now.
Don't get me wrong. There are quite a few old songs which I love and would happily hear, again, given a few moments of spare time. There are forms to songs which still inspire my creative process and ideas I still incorporate. There are always techniques to borrow and/or steal and kick drums to sample.
If you're hanging your hat on one artist to keep to whatever your norms are, you're setting yourself up for failure. Most producers I've met get bored of doing the same . Personally, I've explored about five different styles including Hip Hop and Ambient.
Griping about the trends you perceive is as close to a wet paper sack of broken hammers as useless can get. It's also lazy. Go look for new music. No one in a position to address your grievance is going to - ever. |
ing perfect.  |
|
|
| RebeL9 |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
It's not a troll. Personally, I agree. The 60's was the shiznat. Still, it's absolutely pointless to bemoan the current state of things - that was the point I was trying to make with that sentence. |
If you think that the 60s rock was better than the todays rock then your entire point is useless. |
|
|
| trancedanne |
| quote: | Originally posted by weymouth
This has to be a troll. There is no way you think that Soundgarden, Greenday, and Metallica are better than Hendrix, Zeppelin, or the Beatles. Almost every person I know agrees that rock n roll was better in the late 60's early 70's. |
Metallica is better then any band mentioned here and who the hell listens to "rock n roll" anyway? Its a dead genre for a reason |
|
|
| hachiroku |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
There are records I have purchased which are just horrible by today's standards and while they might not have been that great, back when I bought them, I still considered them gold.
The things which made it an innovative sound now make it archaic. |
thats not the point...trust me there are some songs i have that i cannot listen to because they sound OLD and outdated. where as there are others that are just utter classics. what gives of the old songs that are remixed by good DJ's? they sound great. its like putting a new shine on an old mahogany nightstand you used to have. the essense of beauty is there but you just gave it new life.
all of you who say whatever whatever you're all tools for holding onto the past. . please get real. you have NO appreciation for good music. why do you think Ozzy Ozbourne, KISS, and ACDC still sell out SOLD OUT shows when these guys are pushing 60 years of age? because they were pushing something that was great and still is great. for all the people who started a new and went with fad's died with fad's. there are only a few greats, but a lot of one hit wonders.
you people are all about the one hit wonders. |
|
|
| Trance-MB |
| quote: | Originally posted by hachiroku
why do you think Ozzy Ozbourne, KISS, and ACDC still sell out SOLD OUT shows when these guys are pushing 60 years of age? |
I would think that's just because the same people who went to listen their shows 20 years ago, go listen them now. Same for the average age at a Rolling Stones or Alice Cooper concert of which I know some people who visited those recently.
Bet the average age at Pinkpop Classic is about twice that of normal Pinkpop (next week), which is about in line with the bands who play.... |
|
|
| Rodri Santos |
As for the rolling stones my father was a huge fan and on the rarely case that they drop here he attends his concerts so i think they'll be sucessful until the previous generations fade.
People who are crazy and loyal to a band are loyal till some of them dies. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by RebeL9
If you think that the 60s rock was better than the todays rock then your entire point is useless. |
Are you a moron or are you just trolling or are you just a trolling moron? I'm not even going to indulge in answering that question because it's ing stupid!
| quote: | Originally posted by hachiroku
thats not the point...trust me there are some songs i have that i cannot listen to because they sound OLD and outdated. where as there are others that are just utter classics. what gives of the old songs that are remixed by good DJ's? they sound great. its like putting a new shine on an old mahogany nightstand you used to have. the essense of beauty is there but you just gave it new life.
all of you who say whatever whatever you're all tools for holding onto the past. . please get real. you have NO appreciation for good music. why do you think Ozzy Ozbourne, KISS, and ACDC still sell out SOLD OUT shows when these guys are pushing 60 years of age? because they were pushing something that was great and still is great. for all the people who started a new and went with fad's died with fad's. there are only a few greats, but a lot of one hit wonders.
you people are all about the one hit wonders. |
I watched an interview with Gene Simmons on Shatner's Raw Nerve. When He asked Gene what his favorite song was Gene said it was "Rock and Roll All Night". It was his favorite because that song's made him the most money.
That song is my ing musical nightmare. It is the ing sound-track to a suicidal over-dose, blaring out of the one working speaker on a boom-box purchased at a dollar store three years ago while a combination of heroin and methamphetamine course through your system and your eyes flutter to the back of your drug-addled skull. You'd have been too high to remember it so it's just as well it was your intention to have your heart explode or stop from the ill-suited combination of opiates and amphetamine plus the massively corrosive stepping ingredients your third-tier dealer added to maximize his profit margin, never-minding the speed wasn't properly filtered when it was being titrated and you'd be retarded from mercury poisoning.
Sort of like the line of you're trying to sell, right now. What you just said about those old geezers pushing their left-over crap and selling out shows isn't any antithesis to my point. It is EXACTLY my point.
"Rock and Roll All Night" still sucks donkey nuts. It doesn't matter that people love it or any of the other pap littering thrift fairs held at a local dilapidated hanger on an old air-force base. Among the other white-trash paraphernalia, like Dokken concert T-shirts and unsent mix-tapes made for girls who were so far above the station of the sender, he could have set himself on fire and she still would never have remembered his name, that song is nothing more or less than detritus littering the cultural milieu like a Coors beer can in a collection of beer-bottles in a frat-boy's dorm room.
I have appreciation for good music. What you and I consider good music is, however, radically different. It doesn't matter how many people love that song they lost their virginity to after a romantic date involving a fondling during Cannonball Run II, liberal amounts of a horrible drink which ambitiously combined peach-schnaps and Ripple White Zinfandel with dinner in the car near the local Dairy Queen. 80's music will always suck.
It sucked then and it still sucks. It doesn't seem to matter who it was made by, but 90% of it was garbage. Using an appeal to populace logical fallacy just won't make it better. It had nothing to do with one-hit wonders or established bands. It was still absolutely horrid and the only reason people glob into concert stadiums to see the washed-up, has-been, drug addled Ozzy Osbourne is because of a combination of saccharine sentimentality, a cloying desperation to hold onto their youth, and otherwise ossified thinking resultant from one too many re-runs of MacGyver and Night Rider. |
|
|
|
|
