|
What's so great about classic trance?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| osterzone |
Ok I'm finally bored of current trance. I still enjoy all the "cracker trance" tunes I bought this year, but I haven't purchased a new trance song since August.
So I've been looking more into the pre-2002 trance sound that all of you have been raving about on here. What is so great about it? It's basically a primitive, watered-down version of current trance with fewer melodies and rougher production qualities.
For example, Paul Van Dyk's most famous tracks sound like the stuff that beginners post in the music production forum. They're very, very basic. I'm not expecting Andy Blueman orchestral breakdowns and supersaw, but I can't believe trance got so popular with the classic sound.
Aside from the simplicity and nostalgic factor, what is so good about classic trance? |
|
|
| jenga |
| Creativity. Originality. Unpredictability. |
|
|
| osterzone |
| quote: | Originally posted by jenga
Creativity. Originality. Unpredictability. |
I don't see how originality makes music good over time.
So they were the first to do it...now others have done it and it sounds much better. "Originality" is a musical trait that doesn't age well. |
|
|
| JEO |
| I don't think anyone will even bother anymore, so.. Your time here is over. |
|
|
| RapidFire |
music doesn't have to be overly complex to sound good. sometimes the simplest, most bared structures are the best. the older songs were a lot more inspired... you could just hear it. the sounds were original, more versatile and creative, and quality melodies weren't traded in for sleek production techniques like today.
but its normal. that was the birth of a genre and artists were excited by the notion of something new, they were driven to create and pioneer an entirely original form of dance music. you can't expect that kind of adulation to last forever, at least not on such a broad scope. |
|
|
| Scoops |
 |
|
|
| KilldaDJ |
| its classic thats why. |
|
|
| Kenny Rogers |
| because it was minimal. mnml 4ever!! :whip: |
|
|
| DreambreaX |
| Classic Trance have good melody |
|
|
| Mattinsanity |
| quote: | Originally posted by osterzone
Ok I'm finally bored of current trance. I still enjoy all the "cracker trance" tunes I bought this year, but I haven't purchased a new trance song since August.
So I've been looking more into the pre-2002 trance sound that all of you have been raving about on here. What is so great about it? It's basically a primitive, watered-down version of current trance with fewer melodies and rougher production qualities.
For example, Paul Van Dyk's most famous tracks sound like the stuff that beginners post in the music production forum. They're very, very basic. I'm not expecting Andy Blueman orchestral breakdowns and supersaw, but I can't believe trance got so popular with the classic sound.
Aside from the simplicity and nostalgic factor, what is so good about classic trance? |
I understand what you mean because DJ Pauly O put trance in critical condition and sent it to the ER with his infamous mixes in the late 90's. however, you cant diss my label Harthouse. |
|
|
| Christian Zade |
| the same thing with other classical things. Present sounds nice but sometimes it's good to look back at origins to mix things up a bit |
|
|
|
|
