Hi all,
Whilst this subject has become a hot topic within the Trance scene of late and has been the cause of much heated debate and angry disapproval of many negative opinions, i dont intend for this post to be as such.
Reading through these boards i have noticed the term "Trance 2.0", "Farty", "140bpm" etc. as people's definitions of different styles of trance.
Whenever I hear the word Trance immediately my mind conjures up the sound of pumping beats and uplifting melodies that flow and progress beautifully, with or without vocals. Such as Luminary - Amsterdam (Smith & Pledger Remix), Helsinki Scorchin' etc.
But more frequently these days I find tracks like this labelled as Trance. Is this what people regard as Trance 2.0?
I'm not so keen on this sound but understand how it can be used in a Trance set.
If so... what type of trance is this? This is different from the above two in my opinion and it's a great sound but not the stereotypical trance sound.
Sorry to pigeonhole. Unfortunately, whether you like it or not, pigeonholing is inevitable within such a diverse genre as Trance.
Cheers guys and girls.
Page 1 of 1
Defining the different styles of Trance
#3
Posted 09 August 2011 - 02:58 PM
i would quote Klaneer and call it 'psychohardcore old school trance'
words of a master
words of a master
#4
Posted 09 August 2011 - 02:59 PM
All styles of Trance of lovely bubbley.
Sorted.
Sorted.
This post has been edited by DJ Vulpus: 09 August 2011 - 02:59 PM
#7
Posted 09 August 2011 - 03:18 PM
The Renegade, on 09 August 2011 - 03:13 PM, said:
Huh.
So Trance has been shit since '96.
#8
Posted 09 August 2011 - 03:45 PM
The Renegade, on 09 August 2011 - 03:13 PM, said:
this is cool :-)
#10
Posted 09 August 2011 - 04:22 PM
capt. steve, on 09 August 2011 - 02:58 PM, said:
i would quote Klaneer and call it 'psychohardcore old school trance'
words of a master
words of a master
#11
Posted 09 August 2011 - 07:08 PM
The Renegade, on 09 August 2011 - 03:13 PM, said:
It's cool but I have to say the trance that I listen to now doesn't fall under any of those present categories.. So will wait for an update.
#12
Posted 09 August 2011 - 07:17 PM
AdrianGFX, on 09 August 2011 - 07:08 PM, said:
It's cool but I have to say the trance that I listen to now doesn't fall under any of those present categories.. So will wait for an update.
Yeah that thing has been around for a while now,it needs an update.
#13
Posted 10 August 2011 - 02:26 PM
Auruz, on 09 August 2011 - 07:17 PM, said:
Yeah that thing has been around for a while now,it needs an update.
My thoughts exactly when I looked at it years ago. No longer applicable.
#14
Posted 10 August 2011 - 04:38 PM
Ocram, on 10 August 2011 - 02:26 PM, said:
My thoughts exactly when I looked at it years ago. No longer applicable.
Well, I absolutely disagree that it's not applicable to this topic, and it's definitely relevant to the subject of where Trance comes from and what it was.
The truth is that most of the trance we know has evolved over the years into something that is hardly recognizable to what it originally was... Classic trance was released to an exclusive number of people back then who were enthusiastic enough about this underground genre.
If we want to understand the styles today you need to understand the styles of yesterday. And then you have to realize how little they all have in common. Take for instance one of my favorites:
Have any of you ever heard anything like this? I bet if you did the only place you have ever heard it or will ever hear it is in your bedroom on the computer... Nobody listens to anything close to this at the club anymore, yet this is essentially the DEFINITION OF TRANCE. Stuff like that^ besides most artists today have diverged so much that anything the labels call Trance might as well have been inspired by something completely different.
This post has been edited by GrandPrix: 10 August 2011 - 04:43 PM
#15
Posted 10 August 2011 - 04:57 PM
GrandPrix, on 10 August 2011 - 04:38 PM, said:
Well, I absolutely disagree that it's not applicable to this topic, and it's definitely relevant to the subject of where Trance comes from and what it was.
So is that guide accurate?
If so, then does that mean what we consider Uplifting Trance nowadays, was actually called Progressive Trance in 1995-6?
Mind = blown
Looks like I've had this genre all wrong since the beginning, better got down to some serious learning.
This post has been edited by DJ Vulpus: 10 August 2011 - 04:58 PM
#16
Posted 10 August 2011 - 05:00 PM
GrandPrix, on 10 August 2011 - 04:38 PM, said:
Well, I absolutely disagree that it's not applicable to this topic, and it's definitely relevant to the subject of where Trance comes from and what it was.
ya.. i understand that this is a classic trance tune but this just sound boring to me, maybe thats the why tracks like that doesnt get released anymore. because sounds boring.
This post has been edited by Marcioz Pollack: 10 August 2011 - 05:08 PM
#17
Posted 10 August 2011 - 05:04 PM
GrandPrix, on 10 August 2011 - 04:38 PM, said:
Well, I absolutely disagree that it's not applicable to this topic, and it's definitely relevant to the subject of where Trance comes from and what it was.
The truth is that most of the trance we know has evolved over the years into something that is hardly recognizable to what it originally was... Classic trance was released to an exclusive number of people back then who were enthusiastic enough about this underground genre.
If we want to understand the styles today you need to understand the styles of yesterday. And then you have to realize how little they all have in common. Take for instance one of my favorites:
Have any of you ever heard anything like this? I bet if you did the only place you have ever heard it or will ever hear it is in your bedroom on the computer... Nobody listens to anything close to this at the club anymore, yet this is essentially the DEFINITION OF TRANCE. Stuff like that^ besides most artists today have diverged so much that anything the labels call Trance might as well have been inspired by something completely different.
The truth is that most of the trance we know has evolved over the years into something that is hardly recognizable to what it originally was... Classic trance was released to an exclusive number of people back then who were enthusiastic enough about this underground genre.
If we want to understand the styles today you need to understand the styles of yesterday. And then you have to realize how little they all have in common. Take for instance one of my favorites:
Have any of you ever heard anything like this? I bet if you did the only place you have ever heard it or will ever hear it is in your bedroom on the computer... Nobody listens to anything close to this at the club anymore, yet this is essentially the DEFINITION OF TRANCE. Stuff like that^ besides most artists today have diverged so much that anything the labels call Trance might as well have been inspired by something completely different.
full moon party , anjuna beach , shiva valley bar. march ... the music went everywhere it was a journey of trance , starting with the above style turning to goa and psychadelic totally weird and awesome.
good classice tune ...
160bpms on the other side , man brain melting stuf!
#18
Posted 10 August 2011 - 05:15 PM
DJ Vulpus, on 10 August 2011 - 04:57 PM, said:
So is that guide accurate?
If so, then does that mean what we consider Uplifting Trance nowadays, was actually called Progressive Trance in 1995-6?
Mind = blown
Looks like I've had this genre all wrong since the beginning, better got down to some serious learning.
If so, then does that mean what we consider Uplifting Trance nowadays, was actually called Progressive Trance in 1995-6?
Mind = blown
Looks like I've had this genre all wrong since the beginning, better got down to some serious learning.
From what I know yes... the simple format of intro, breakdown, anthem, outro that we all have heard in Uplifting trance stems from the original idea in progressive trance tunes of slowly and meticulously introducing different characteristics to the track. Progressive has different meanings in EDM, but the definition that we give it now is that tracks are slower, groovier, and are given the name progressive to signify that they are contemporary with today's public. I like to think that back then progressive trance was the beginning of DJ oriented club music, Ready made to spin thanks to it's "progression" over 7-10 minutes.
Edit: For an example just take a look at the track by Humate called Bedrock 3.2
This post has been edited by GrandPrix: 10 August 2011 - 05:22 PM
#19
Posted 10 August 2011 - 05:20 PM
Marcioz Pollack, on 10 August 2011 - 05:00 PM, said:
ya.. i understand that this is a classic trance tune but this just sound boring to me, maybe thats the why tracks like that doesnt get released anymore. because sounds boring.
Obviously sound synthesis has come a long way. The synthesizers within any DAW are more advanced than any hardware was that you could get back then, but musically speaking this is what people thought of as rave music. The problem people have with uplifting trance is the generic cheese laid on top of it's format and all that stuff and back then there wasn't quite as much of it as today. It's one of the reasons some people enjoy Arty - Around The World, and other people would prefer a track by Andy Blueman.
#20
Posted 10 August 2011 - 05:32 PM
GrandPrix, on 10 August 2011 - 05:20 PM, said:
Obviously sound synthesis has come a long way. The synthesizers within any DAW are more advanced than any hardware was that you could get back then, but musically speaking this is what people thought of as rave music. The problem people have with uplifting trance is the generic cheese laid on top of it's format and all that stuff and back then there wasn't quite as much of it as today. It's one of the reasons some people enjoy Arty - Around The World, and other people would prefer a track by Andy Blueman.
i think theres no way to compare arty - around the world with blueman tracks
is like comparing Metalica with beatles
#21
Posted 10 August 2011 - 05:39 PM
GrandPrix, on 10 August 2011 - 04:38 PM, said:
Well, I absolutely disagree that it's not applicable to this topic, and it's definitely relevant to the subject of where Trance comes from and what it was.
I probably should have specified that most trance I listen to these days does not really fit into any of those categories imo or deserves its own category. For me it is not really applicable to music I listen to these days. But then again, I don't really care if the music I listen to would be considered Eurotrance, Ibiza Trance or whatever. So maybe I shouldn't judge.
The chart in itself may be fine for up to x years ago and if you are interested in the history of whatever style you like today, you may find some useful info in it. No doubt there. However, the example clips are all old, which not only gives it an old feel, but also gives the listener the impression that trance is dead.
Most importantly, Trance 2.0 is not on the list!
#22
Posted 10 August 2011 - 05:48 PM
Ocram, on 10 August 2011 - 05:39 PM, said:
I probably should have specified that most trance I listen to these days does not really fit into any of those categories imo or deserves its own category. For me it is not really applicable to music I listen to these days. But then again, I don't really care if the music I listen to would be considered Eurotrance, Ibiza Trance or whatever. So maybe I shouldn't judge.
The chart in itself may be fine for up to x years ago and if you are interested in the history of whatever style you like today, you may find some useful info in it. No doubt there. However, the example clips are all old, which not only gives it an old feel, but also gives the listener the impression that trance is dead.
Most importantly, Trance 2.0 is not on the list!
The chart in itself may be fine for up to x years ago and if you are interested in the history of whatever style you like today, you may find some useful info in it. No doubt there. However, the example clips are all old, which not only gives it an old feel, but also gives the listener the impression that trance is dead.
Most importantly, Trance 2.0 is not on the list!
I definitely agree there. Also the guide is VERY pretentious towards listeners of contemporary trance music, which doesn't help....
Marcioz Pollack, on 10 August 2011 - 05:32 PM, said:
i think theres no way to compare arty - around the world with blueman tracks
is like comparing Metalica with beatles
is like comparing Metalica with beatles
I do NOT agree with this... Andy Blueman and Arty tracks, for instance, may not be very similar in terms of sound, but you go to the club to dance to both don't you???? They're just two sides of the same coin.
But you listen to the beatles for completely different reasons than you would listen to Metallica. It's like two completely different coins all together.
#23
Posted 10 August 2011 - 06:14 PM
DJ Vulpus, on 10 August 2011 - 04:57 PM, said:
So is that guide accurate?
If so, then does that mean what we consider Uplifting Trance nowadays, was actually called Progressive Trance in 1995-6?
Mind = blown public/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif
Looks like I've had this genre all wrong since the beginning, better got down to some serious learning.
If so, then does that mean what we consider Uplifting Trance nowadays, was actually called Progressive Trance in 1995-6?
Mind = blown public/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif
Looks like I've had this genre all wrong since the beginning, better got down to some serious learning.
Its accurate for releases well say from 90s-2004... anything afterwards would be further divided if he kept it going (which he is supposedly updating). So we will wait and see how accurate the newly updated on will be like!
#24
Posted 10 August 2011 - 06:21 PM
GrandPrix, on 10 August 2011 - 05:48 PM, said:
I definitely agree there. Also the guide is VERY pretentious towards listeners of contemporary trance music, which doesn't help....
I do NOT agree with this... Andy Blueman and Arty tracks, for instance, may not be very similar in terms of sound, but you go to the club to dance to both don't you???? They're just two sides of the same coin.
I do NOT agree with this... Andy Blueman and Arty tracks, for instance, may not be very similar in terms of sound, but you go to the club to dance to both don't you???? They're just two sides of the same coin.
ah, I get it now
This post has been edited by Marcioz Pollack: 10 August 2011 - 06:21 PM
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1