|
In my opinion, 1999 will always be the greatest year for trance (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| RapidFire |
| 96 / 97 for me. that sound was bliss |
|
|
| narcism |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sykonee
It was also a great year because Above & Beyond didn't exist yet! :gsmile: |
:haha: |
|
|
| Zharen |
| You know what else was great about 1999? There wasn't retarded threads praising it every week. |
|
|
| dj christian |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sykonee
It was also a great year because Above & Beyond didn't exist yet! :gsmile: |
They formed the year after if im not mistaken. |
|
|
| jvs |
| quote: | | jvs is making me curious about those tracks that are making trance good only now! |
Airwave dude. Airwave.
But if you want "fluffy" trance, that is to say, something more melodic, then I already mentioned Andy Blueman, who, despite being boring to me, is far more interesting than anything from the list. (and for me, it's enough to stop here, since that's enough to make my point)
But if you want something better than that then Super8's Alba (2004) and Suru (2007) would do it.
But if you want something even better than that then Adam Szabo's remix of Feel (2009) would do it.
Suffice to say (and this should be given) that one can still not enjoy any of these tracks -- that's perfectly normal, though I have no idea why people wouldn't, as I find Adam Szabo quite engaging -- but the point I'm making here is that if you like Gouryella there is no reason not to like Feel, unless of course, the reasons you liked Gouryella were rather different (in which case, you're probably better off getting into another genre, like for example, pop music, or New Age, or perhaps even classical music). The point is that Feel is billions of lightyears ahead in terms of complexity, and since rise in complexity is how any style, musical or not, progresses, this is clearly a progress. Any retardation such as "1999 was the best year" is thus exposed for what it is.
Of course, this would still be baffling to those who do not value complexity, that is to say, to simpletons, to people who spout such non-sense as "less is more", though I have no respect for them so they can simply off (since simplicity, my friends, due to having very low possibility space, leads to a quick exhaustion of a style). |
|
|
| TranceElevation |
| quote: | Originally posted by jvs
Airwave dude. Airwave.
But if you want "fluffy" trance, that is to say, something more melodic, then I already mentioned Andy Blueman, who, despite being boring to me, is far more interesting than anything from the list. (and for me, it's enough to stop here, since that's enough to make my point)
But if you want something better than that then Super8's Alba (2004) and Suru (2007) would do it.
But if you want something even better than that then Adam Szabo's remix of Feel (2009) would do it.
Suffice to say (and this should be given) that one can still not enjoy any of these tracks -- that's perfectly normal, though I have no idea why people wouldn't, as I find Adam Szabo quite engaging -- but the point I'm making here is that if you like Gouryella there is no reason not to like Feel, unless of course, the reasons you liked Gouryella were rather different (in which case, you're probably better off getting into another genre, like for example, pop music, or New Age, or perhaps even classical music). The point is that Feel is billions of lightyears ahead in terms of complexity, and since rise in complexity is how any style, musical or not, progresses, this is clearly a progress. Any retardation such as "1999 was the best year" is thus exposed for what it is.
Of course, this would still be baffling to those who do not value complexity, that is to say, to simpletons, to people who spout such non-sense as "less is more", though I have no respect for them so they can simply off (since simplicity, my friends, due to having very low possibility space, leads to a quick exhaustion of a style). |
Ok, let me follow for a second your smart logic "complex = good".
Now would you explain me where is the complex part in Andy's or Super8's productions? |
|
|
| TranceElevation |
| Even with this argument "complex = better" you're still failing cause productions from the 90's were superior in any aspect. |
|
|
| jvs |
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceElevation
Ok, let me follow for a second your smart logic "complex = good".
Now would you explain me where is the complex part in Andy's or Super8's productions? |
WHAT, OH WHAT did I do to get such an inattentive reader and such a lazy response?
And this, my dear readers, this is exactly why I cannot approach this subject in a serious, friendly manner -- for the rabble is incapable of LISTENING and UNDERSTANDING, for the rabble is incapable of putting their INSECURITIES aside and paying attention to what A GREAT MAN is saying! -- for the rabble is simply incapable of respecting those who are FAR ABOVE them.
Listen to what this guy is saying: smart logic "complex = good" lol. He's trying to make fun of me! Retard! He does not even realize that he completely misinterpreted everything I said! So, at the end of the day, the only thing he's making fun of is his own poor interpretation, his own inability to read -- he's making fun of HIMSELF.
So you, TranceElevation guy, listen now! Listen carefully to what I'm going to say for I'm going to say it only once!
There is a difference between apparent and real complexity. When we engage with things, before we realize how truly complex they are (and whether they are MEANINGFUL at all) we form an idea of how complex they might be. This is apparent complexity. Now, as we spend more time with them we realize whether they are meaningful at all, and if they are, we discover their true, their real complexity. The reason I'm separating these two impressions is because a thing can appear to be complex but in reality be simple or even meaningless.
So while I do claim that complexity is good, I'm not saying what you think I'm saying -- that is that ANYTHING THAT APPEARS COMPLEX IS NECESSARILY TRULY COMPLEX AND THEREFORE GOOD lol. And this enrages me because it's such a common mistake.
When I talk about complexity I presume MEANING. If something is meaningless it cannot even be SIMPLE let alone ing COMPLEX lol. Do you get that? Jackson Pollock's paintings appear to be meaningful and complex (at least to the rabble, for an intelligent human can see through the bull immediately) but in reality they are meaningless. The same applies to Stockhausen's music, for example.
So next time you wanna talk to me ASK ME instead of disrespecting me! And since you already made that mistake be sure to preface every single ing post that is directed at me with "Dear Great Man,"! |
|
|
| Lews |
| You're such a boring troll. |
|
|
| jvs |
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceElevation
Even with this argument "complex = better" you're still failing cause productions from the 90's were superior in any aspect. |
Lol yeah. Not only are you disrespectful lazy bum who cannot bother to read my post and check the examples that I provided, but you also want me to spell it out all for you! Yeah right, you ing deserve it man, you deserve all the help in the world!
This is all I'm going to say (that is to say repeat): Gouryella is simpler than Feel. Now if you have any shred of decency, you would first DISAGREE with that. If you're truly decent, you would explain why. AND ONLY THEN WOULD I BOTHER TO EXPLAIN WHY GOURYELLA IS RIDICULOUS.
So until you do that, off. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| Baudrillard, Pollock and Stockhausen? We've got ourselves an intellectual here, guys. Or rather, someone who appears to be in the second year of a humanities degree and is letting it go to his head. |
|
|
| Mattsanity. |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I think you should go and make some friends in the real world, rather than constantly seeking attention on an online music forum. |
sounds good. I take this as an advice and not an insult.
jvs, I respect your opinions mate. |
|
|
|
|
