Originally posted by Dj Pluviose
Man, you're right actually. When I'm with friends and family I feel like sometimes they kind of shy away sometimes when I used to boast about this music. Yeah, matter of fact, you're right. The more I consider it to be sophisticated, complex, better, deeper, or in any description that implies superiority than other genres, it just makes me look bad, and that alone will make people get kind of :nervous: or :stongue:
There is nothing wrong with letting your passion spill over to other areas of life, no matter what the SIGN-VALUE of it is, and, in fact, no matter how simple it is. If you're truly passionate about something YOU ARE ADMIRABLE, PERIOD. You get that? Don't let the slave morality and democracy DOMINATE you. Don't be a weakling! Be a strong man, for 's sake!
Now, of course, if you never gave a thorough listen to other genres of music but you are nevertheless comparing trance music to them -- now that's something you should be ashamed of. But boasting about what you truly like IS NOT BAD, GET IT? Even if it's about ing Britney Spears.
What's bad is pretending to have pleasure when you actually don't. Now that's the very definition of being a hipster.
Dj Pluviose
^
I never really did what those hipsters did though. It always seemed like common courtesy to enjoy what other people feel is personally theirs and special to them. So when people show me their music, I get into their music too. And I force myself to enjoy it. But seriously, if their music is absolutely horrible and I can't like it no matter how hard I try, then I usually just be modest about it.
The thread has gone terribly offtopic, and that's all because of my fault when I was introducing comparisons with Classic Trance vs Modern Trance.
I beg all your forgiveness.
Quazar
I like all of it. There is good stuff and bad stuff from every era.
All music evolves and changes, though, and it's silly to expect any genre to remain the same for a decade.
Sykonee
quote:
Originally posted by Quazar
I like all of it. There is good stuff and bad stuff from every era.
All music evolves and changes, though, and it's silly to expect any genre to remain the same for a decade.
Tell that to deep house.
DJSoulstone
There's quite a simple answer. "Trance music" was and is litterally meant to put you into trance by a constant rhythm. This is the fundamental goal and judging by that the old stuff is way better than the new stuff.
Rhythm, drums, constant repetition, simple and subtle changes... That's necessary. The further you go away from that the less the music is Trance!
MSZ
I feel sorry for trance, its hits a brick wall, same thing happening with progressive house. So hard to get excited. Ultimately gets doomed, such is life. Timewave came out and was doing pretty fresh things, he needs more applause! Deep soul duo are also doing some nice things, they seem dedicated; also solar fields come to mind. I dont really follow much trance anymore, I lost care. Hopefully someone will shed more fresh here in the future I can get into.
Mattsanity.
Trance-MB
quote:
Originally posted by DJSoulstone
There's quite a simple answer. "Trance music" was and is litterally meant to put you into trance by a constant rhythm.
I always saw trance as synthesizer music with a disco beat and think that description fits from early 90's till today.
Maybe they just should have called it Synthidance or Synthidisco.
pointPi
quote:
Originally posted by DJSoulstone
thinking kills trance
My honest reaction:
Well, that does not sound good. Here I thought trance was THE thinking genre.
InnerReflection
In terms of non psytrance, I only really like 92-95 trance much. There's 10-20 decent 97-2001 era songs but that's really not many and I haven't heard a single good album from that era. Modern trance I've found so boring that pop music tends to be better.
Also as for what "trance" was meant to do. According to who exactly? Chances are people were just making a type of music they liked, thought would be interesting to dance to and etc. I doubt there was ever much of a conscious goal (apart from maybe, "I want this music to be good to dance to"). Unless you can find quotes from 5 or even one famous producer(s) of insert year from 92 to 2012 saying what trance is "meant" to do is total bull.
As for the complexity of trance, here's my opinion:
How complex a piece of music, or let alone a whole genre is is a very complicated and subjective thing. Complexity is most definitely not linked to how many different sounds there are in music. There's also rhythmic complexity (for the record classical music has very very little rhythmic complexity), how complex the melodic and harmonic progressions are etc. It's certainly possible that despite 95 trance having less things going on at once the types of chords and progressions they used were far more complicated than I'm gonna press random buttons on my keyboard and put in whatever sounds ok 2012 trance.
It's most certainly possible for minimal techno to be more complicated than regular techno for instance despite having far less elements due to a lot more thought being put into the arrangement of those few elements.
Regardless, it's subjective as hell and unless someone wants to plot out the rhythms and chord progressions of 3 93-95 trance songs vs 3 modern trance songs the discussion isn't really gonna progress much past "well vaguely that sounds more complex than this does".
Also, anyone who is interested in this subject and doesn't know much about music theory (which would definitely include me) you should watch this doco. It's very interesting and informative. There are 4 roughly 1 hour long parts which have been split into sub parts for youtube.
quote:
Originally posted by jvs
The question therefore was: is the complex version of the same thing better than the simpler version of the same thing? As far as artforms are concerned (and pets aren't an artform, I'm sorry, but they aren't, unless we talk about digital pets that is to say..) this is a question of progress -- what would you like to see in the future? What is MORE EXCITING to see in the future? Would you like to see another unexplored possibility within the same level of complexity? Or would you rather prefer a higher complexity, a wider realm of possibilities, possibilities that reside beyond what can currently be easily imagined/predicted?
I'd prefer both. It's not like there's only one song being made. It can vary by artist. It can vary by which song they make. It'll be good to have some artists that have lots of elements, some that focus on getting a melody that's of an interesting emotion and lots that do music that's in between or varies in other ways. It's not like you can only have one of those two things you mentioned.
As for actually answering the question though, modern trance is simple as hell, regardless of what happens I'd only bother with it if it was far more complex.
jvs
Complexity is basically how many changes there are in a song, but remember -- not every change is meaningful. There is such a thing as real (meaningful) and fake (meaningless) complexity. For example, Eternal Light (2011) is a track that has a lot of changes in it but most of which are unfortunately meaningless, rendering it at best mediocre. That's why simpler tracks, such as The Orange Theme (1994), often give more pleasure than seemingly complex ones.
That said, the far more important question is whether a good complex track is better than a good simple track, or in other words, whether a complex track is better than a simple track GIVEN THAT ALL ELSE IS EQUAL. Get it?
As for subjectivity, EVERYTHING is subjective. There is no such thing as "objectivity" -- that's merely our dear scientists' prejudice. So now you may ask how do people reach agreement? And the answer is very simple: agreement is only possible among people of the same level of intelligence, that is to say, among equals. This is, of course, speaking of real, honest agreement. As for reaching the so-called universal agreement, the way that works is through force -- basically, the people with power shove their opinions down the throats of the weak, that is to say, rabble. That's what scientists do after all. I mean what else is the claim of "objectivity" used for?
And that's why everyone is yapping about how classical music is good even though they don't really enjoy it themselves -- because it was forced upon them by the stronger. And that's why everyone is yapping about how "classic trance" is better than modern trance even though they don't really enjoy it themselves -- because it was forced upon them. And that's why everyone is going to be yapping everything I'm saying right now in next 10 years -- because I will force it upon them.
