Recomendar
THE TRANCE JOURNAL - PART 1 - HOW TRANCE WORKS
Abr 28 2008, 19h58
THE TRANCE JOURNAL (PART 1)
HOW TRANCE WORKS
Few genres are more misunderstood by so-called "outsiders" than the genre of trance. For those that listen to it religiously, it's warming, uplifting and energizing, as beautifully crafted as a picturesque painting or piece of fine furniture, and, in some cases, as moving as a classical symphony – a wonderful mesh of rolling, flowing basslines, smooth melodies and, in some instances, poignant vocal hooks. Furthermore, it has carefully evolved to produce diverse and interesting musical hybrids. Yet, for outsiders, trance is a repetitive, noisy series of thuds and bleeps – music that doesn't get to the point. For them, it's music that is created in a few hours by a chimp-like figure pressing buttons on a computer and can only be enjoyed while high on drugs.
Of course, the simple response is to say: "well, one man's meat is another's poison". To an extent, that's absolutely true. When it comes to the absolute crunch, we are talking about different brains responding differently to exactly the same musical input. What gets the synapses firing, the endorphins flowing, for one person may never do the same for another person. However, what I think some people fail to appreciate, aside from all the mindless generalisations about "chimps on computers" and drugs, is just how trance is intended to work. Now, I'm not saying that explaining how trance really works to someone will suddenly, in some kind of "road to Damascus" moment, make them love the genre. But it might make some people a little less hostile and maybe more appreciative of why so many people out there just can't get enough of the stuff.
I think the best place to begin is the actual name: TRANCE. This name isn't arbitrary. Or at least, it does not seem so to me. The main underlying purpose of trance music is to induce some kind of trance. This may seem like an obvious point, but it requires a bit more explanation. Hypnosis and mental "states of trance" are, whatever the perceptions of them produced by popular culture, careful and important sciences. And the most fundamental point arising from such sciences is that:
...People get pleasure when they are in a trance. - Dennis R. Wier, The Trance Institute, Bruetten
Many claim that trance is repetitive, and, to an extent, it is, but with very good reason. It is the repetition of subtle and underlying rhythms (or loops), with slight modulations and variations, that produces a "trance". The notion of "trance-inducing repetitions" is not, it is important to say, exclusive to trance music; nor was it born out of trance music. The rhythmic drumming in African tribal music is well documented, for example. Such repetitions are also a feature in nature:
There are many nature sounds, such as birds, frogs, crickets which fundamentally repeat, but which contain slight variations within each repetition. The fundamental repetition is the trance generating loop (TGL) and the variations in each repetition results in the modulation of the dissociated trance plane. -Dennis R. Wier, The Trance Institute, Bruetten
And a loud or heavy beat is by no means necessary to produce such trances. So to say that people only listen to trance because its "loud" or "noisy" is well wide of the mark.
Having got to this point, it might be tempting for some "outsiders" to misinterpret what is being said here and go on to see trance music as the musical equivalent of Paul McKenna - as people being totally duped or transfixed by a mere method of sinister hypnosis. This, of course, would be taking it too far. There are various levels, or states, of "trance", affected by all sorts of circumstances and conditions. Furthermore, the loops and repetitions almost never continue for long enough to induce the deepest states of trance. That's why radio edits of trance songs don't work as well as the full tracks and why mixing songs into continious sets does work so well. Radio edits of trance songs in particular start to sound much more like pop songs when they are shortened and forced to "build up" much more quickly. They start to lose those genre defining elements of progression and anticipation.
Most instances of trance music do not allow sufficient time for deeper trances to develop, as complexities are introduced too quickly. Remember, in shamanistic trances, drumming would go on for days. Subtle changes in the rhythm and melodic structures over time will produce deep trances because it is the 'subtly' which is engaging. Commercial trance music should continue for a minimum of 20 minutes to induce deep trance. Perhaps we are all fortunate that such long trance music riffs almost never happen. -Dennis R. Wier, The Trance Institute, Bruetten
The loops in most trance tracks are eventually cut short by what is called the "break down" and, usually, a much more obviously melodic sequence is introduced. And these sequences are made more effective by the "engaged state" of the listener and the anticipated return of the rhythmic loops, or the "kick back" as it is often called. In much of melodic trance, this melodic sequence is highly comparable to the melodic style of classical music, something that is rarely noticed by the so-called "outsider". At the "kick back", the return of the TGL, and its combination with the melodic sequence, brings the track to a crescendo, a crescendo that many people just don't have the patience to wait for.
So, what is trance, put simply then? I would argue it is a modern, electronically produced hybrid of hypnotic tribal and melodic classical music. The fact that it is electronic tends to mask this quite sophisticated hybridization to "outsiders", but this hybridization isn’t necessarily a mimicking of instrumental sound or even style, but a mimicking of purpose; the intention to produce a degree of hypnosis through rhythmic repetition and emotional warmth or euphoria through highly distinctive melodic elements. Some trance leans more obviously to the former, some to latter, but it’s that combination of purpose that truly defines trance music. Thus, trance fans, often without consciously acknowledging so, are patient, understand the value of anticipation, expectation and repetition and are as appreciative of the subtleties of the music as much as they are of its most glaringly obvious traits. Certain people may disagree with my definition of trance. I'm not saying it's a 100%, set in stone, objective definition. But if you do accept my definiton, or one similar to it, trance becomes so much more than mere "brain dead music for brain dead people", as one last.fm user once so eloquently put it. On the contrary, in its own way, it's actually highly sophisticated music, especially in terms of how it sets about achieving what it does.
The fact that trance is electronically produced tends to be a major bugbear for some people. It is commonly assumed that producing electronic music requires very little musical skill. To be quite honest, there is very little I can say to people who cling longingly to their guitars and drum kits that could persuade them that it does require as much skill as playing a "traditional" musical instrument. The fact is, very few people who actually write music for bands using "traditional" musical instruments also produce music using a computer, a copy of the relevant software and some midi sequencers and, in truth, only they can say which genuinely requires more talent. What I wish people would appreciate though is that it does require some level of skill, expertise and, moreover, practice to truly master. But the key point is that the making of electronic music is DIFFERENT, not necessarily easy. Tracks are not what you would call "written and recorded", rather they are carefully "built and engineered". And even then, it still takes talent to come up with a new musical concept, a new idea, regardless of how that idea is turned into a reality. You can be the most talented player of instruments in the world, but no new idea, no new music. Makers of electronic music don't have the music made for them by the computers. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule, as with any genre of music there are artists with less talent and skill than others, but there are still a highly significant number of producers within electronic music who are very talented engineers, understand their music down to the last details and, in many cases, can play keyboards, synthesizers and even classic instruments like guitars and pianos.
But people also have to appreciate, that many trance fans love the fact that it is electronically produced. The programming of trance through computers gives many tracks in the genre a "cleanness", "clarity", "sharpness" and "flow", or even a better sense of order or obscure "rationality of placement", that music on "traditional" instruments cannot really replicate.
Another thing that I think maybe confuses, and puts off, people from outside trance from paying it more attention is the seemingly never-ending lists of sub-genres, labels and names that get banded about by trance fans. You only have to look at Ishkur's Guide To Electronic Music to see how pointlessly complex some people's boxing off of genres can be. (And even then people fail to realise that this guide itself reminds us in its disclaimer that it is specifically a "non technical guide" with the "purpose to entertain before it informs".) If you break it down, there only really needs to be 5 sub-genres:
Uplifting (epic or melodic, if you prefer those terms), Progressive (the old style and the newer style influenced by house), Tech Trance (influenced by techno and partly by electro), Psychedelic (growing out of goa) and Ambient (downtempo, belearic influenced material). For the newcomer as much as the seasoned listener, it need not be anymore complicated than that. All these elaborate separations of "uplifting" from "epic", or "symphonic" from "classic", or "Ibizan" from "dream dance" just aren't helpful in the slightest, however certain any particular trance fan is that he has them clearly defined in his head.
But, having said all that, what point do we come back to? Where are we left? Well, while I will always accept that trance is never going to take over the world (like many trance fans wish it would) and that it simply isn't everyone's bag by any stretch of the imagination, it doesn't stop me being infuriated by some of the crap that is continuously written about it as a genre. Even the most supposedly "academic" and "intelligent" attempts at getting to grips with it amount to nothing more than a combination of gross generalisation and dogmatised scorn. (One example being the hilariously titled article, 'The intelligent person's guide to trance'.) But that's the point – these commentaries just don't really engage with what trance is for the people who actually love it, at least not on a level playing field or without culturally reinforced prejudices based on drugs, the cold hearted use of technology and the absence of intelligence. Most people only look at what the music means in relation to themselves, rather than the actual mechanics of it in terms of aim, purpose and methods, leaving them as far away from understanding trance as ever. What I want people to realise is that you don't have to like the music to appreciate why other people do like it. In terms of approach this isn't really a massive leap of faith, just a case of being open-minded or being willing to put your prejudices aside, if only for a brief moment.
Some trance links: Above & Beyond, Armin van Buuren, Tiësto, OceanLab, Nitrous Oxide, Jonas Steur, Vibrasphere, John O'Callaghan, Chicane, Signum, Paul van Dyk, Sean Tyas, Marco V, Ferry Corsten, Marcel Woods, Nu NRG, Aly & Fila, Super8, ICONE, Ronski Speed, Stoneface & Terminal, David West, Matt Darey, Filo & Peri, DJ Shah, Tilt, Michael Dow, Lange, Solar Stone, Orjan, M.I.K.E.
HOW TRANCE WORKS
Few genres are more misunderstood by so-called "outsiders" than the genre of trance. For those that listen to it religiously, it's warming, uplifting and energizing, as beautifully crafted as a picturesque painting or piece of fine furniture, and, in some cases, as moving as a classical symphony – a wonderful mesh of rolling, flowing basslines, smooth melodies and, in some instances, poignant vocal hooks. Furthermore, it has carefully evolved to produce diverse and interesting musical hybrids. Yet, for outsiders, trance is a repetitive, noisy series of thuds and bleeps – music that doesn't get to the point. For them, it's music that is created in a few hours by a chimp-like figure pressing buttons on a computer and can only be enjoyed while high on drugs.
Of course, the simple response is to say: "well, one man's meat is another's poison". To an extent, that's absolutely true. When it comes to the absolute crunch, we are talking about different brains responding differently to exactly the same musical input. What gets the synapses firing, the endorphins flowing, for one person may never do the same for another person. However, what I think some people fail to appreciate, aside from all the mindless generalisations about "chimps on computers" and drugs, is just how trance is intended to work. Now, I'm not saying that explaining how trance really works to someone will suddenly, in some kind of "road to Damascus" moment, make them love the genre. But it might make some people a little less hostile and maybe more appreciative of why so many people out there just can't get enough of the stuff.
I think the best place to begin is the actual name: TRANCE. This name isn't arbitrary. Or at least, it does not seem so to me. The main underlying purpose of trance music is to induce some kind of trance. This may seem like an obvious point, but it requires a bit more explanation. Hypnosis and mental "states of trance" are, whatever the perceptions of them produced by popular culture, careful and important sciences. And the most fundamental point arising from such sciences is that:
...People get pleasure when they are in a trance. - Dennis R. Wier, The Trance Institute, Bruetten
Many claim that trance is repetitive, and, to an extent, it is, but with very good reason. It is the repetition of subtle and underlying rhythms (or loops), with slight modulations and variations, that produces a "trance". The notion of "trance-inducing repetitions" is not, it is important to say, exclusive to trance music; nor was it born out of trance music. The rhythmic drumming in African tribal music is well documented, for example. Such repetitions are also a feature in nature:
There are many nature sounds, such as birds, frogs, crickets which fundamentally repeat, but which contain slight variations within each repetition. The fundamental repetition is the trance generating loop (TGL) and the variations in each repetition results in the modulation of the dissociated trance plane. -Dennis R. Wier, The Trance Institute, Bruetten
And a loud or heavy beat is by no means necessary to produce such trances. So to say that people only listen to trance because its "loud" or "noisy" is well wide of the mark.
Having got to this point, it might be tempting for some "outsiders" to misinterpret what is being said here and go on to see trance music as the musical equivalent of Paul McKenna - as people being totally duped or transfixed by a mere method of sinister hypnosis. This, of course, would be taking it too far. There are various levels, or states, of "trance", affected by all sorts of circumstances and conditions. Furthermore, the loops and repetitions almost never continue for long enough to induce the deepest states of trance. That's why radio edits of trance songs don't work as well as the full tracks and why mixing songs into continious sets does work so well. Radio edits of trance songs in particular start to sound much more like pop songs when they are shortened and forced to "build up" much more quickly. They start to lose those genre defining elements of progression and anticipation.
Most instances of trance music do not allow sufficient time for deeper trances to develop, as complexities are introduced too quickly. Remember, in shamanistic trances, drumming would go on for days. Subtle changes in the rhythm and melodic structures over time will produce deep trances because it is the 'subtly' which is engaging. Commercial trance music should continue for a minimum of 20 minutes to induce deep trance. Perhaps we are all fortunate that such long trance music riffs almost never happen. -Dennis R. Wier, The Trance Institute, Bruetten
The loops in most trance tracks are eventually cut short by what is called the "break down" and, usually, a much more obviously melodic sequence is introduced. And these sequences are made more effective by the "engaged state" of the listener and the anticipated return of the rhythmic loops, or the "kick back" as it is often called. In much of melodic trance, this melodic sequence is highly comparable to the melodic style of classical music, something that is rarely noticed by the so-called "outsider". At the "kick back", the return of the TGL, and its combination with the melodic sequence, brings the track to a crescendo, a crescendo that many people just don't have the patience to wait for.
So, what is trance, put simply then? I would argue it is a modern, electronically produced hybrid of hypnotic tribal and melodic classical music. The fact that it is electronic tends to mask this quite sophisticated hybridization to "outsiders", but this hybridization isn’t necessarily a mimicking of instrumental sound or even style, but a mimicking of purpose; the intention to produce a degree of hypnosis through rhythmic repetition and emotional warmth or euphoria through highly distinctive melodic elements. Some trance leans more obviously to the former, some to latter, but it’s that combination of purpose that truly defines trance music. Thus, trance fans, often without consciously acknowledging so, are patient, understand the value of anticipation, expectation and repetition and are as appreciative of the subtleties of the music as much as they are of its most glaringly obvious traits. Certain people may disagree with my definition of trance. I'm not saying it's a 100%, set in stone, objective definition. But if you do accept my definiton, or one similar to it, trance becomes so much more than mere "brain dead music for brain dead people", as one last.fm user once so eloquently put it. On the contrary, in its own way, it's actually highly sophisticated music, especially in terms of how it sets about achieving what it does.
The fact that trance is electronically produced tends to be a major bugbear for some people. It is commonly assumed that producing electronic music requires very little musical skill. To be quite honest, there is very little I can say to people who cling longingly to their guitars and drum kits that could persuade them that it does require as much skill as playing a "traditional" musical instrument. The fact is, very few people who actually write music for bands using "traditional" musical instruments also produce music using a computer, a copy of the relevant software and some midi sequencers and, in truth, only they can say which genuinely requires more talent. What I wish people would appreciate though is that it does require some level of skill, expertise and, moreover, practice to truly master. But the key point is that the making of electronic music is DIFFERENT, not necessarily easy. Tracks are not what you would call "written and recorded", rather they are carefully "built and engineered". And even then, it still takes talent to come up with a new musical concept, a new idea, regardless of how that idea is turned into a reality. You can be the most talented player of instruments in the world, but no new idea, no new music. Makers of electronic music don't have the music made for them by the computers. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule, as with any genre of music there are artists with less talent and skill than others, but there are still a highly significant number of producers within electronic music who are very talented engineers, understand their music down to the last details and, in many cases, can play keyboards, synthesizers and even classic instruments like guitars and pianos.
But people also have to appreciate, that many trance fans love the fact that it is electronically produced. The programming of trance through computers gives many tracks in the genre a "cleanness", "clarity", "sharpness" and "flow", or even a better sense of order or obscure "rationality of placement", that music on "traditional" instruments cannot really replicate.
Another thing that I think maybe confuses, and puts off, people from outside trance from paying it more attention is the seemingly never-ending lists of sub-genres, labels and names that get banded about by trance fans. You only have to look at Ishkur's Guide To Electronic Music to see how pointlessly complex some people's boxing off of genres can be. (And even then people fail to realise that this guide itself reminds us in its disclaimer that it is specifically a "non technical guide" with the "purpose to entertain before it informs".) If you break it down, there only really needs to be 5 sub-genres:
Uplifting (epic or melodic, if you prefer those terms), Progressive (the old style and the newer style influenced by house), Tech Trance (influenced by techno and partly by electro), Psychedelic (growing out of goa) and Ambient (downtempo, belearic influenced material). For the newcomer as much as the seasoned listener, it need not be anymore complicated than that. All these elaborate separations of "uplifting" from "epic", or "symphonic" from "classic", or "Ibizan" from "dream dance" just aren't helpful in the slightest, however certain any particular trance fan is that he has them clearly defined in his head.
But, having said all that, what point do we come back to? Where are we left? Well, while I will always accept that trance is never going to take over the world (like many trance fans wish it would) and that it simply isn't everyone's bag by any stretch of the imagination, it doesn't stop me being infuriated by some of the crap that is continuously written about it as a genre. Even the most supposedly "academic" and "intelligent" attempts at getting to grips with it amount to nothing more than a combination of gross generalisation and dogmatised scorn. (One example being the hilariously titled article, 'The intelligent person's guide to trance'.) But that's the point – these commentaries just don't really engage with what trance is for the people who actually love it, at least not on a level playing field or without culturally reinforced prejudices based on drugs, the cold hearted use of technology and the absence of intelligence. Most people only look at what the music means in relation to themselves, rather than the actual mechanics of it in terms of aim, purpose and methods, leaving them as far away from understanding trance as ever. What I want people to realise is that you don't have to like the music to appreciate why other people do like it. In terms of approach this isn't really a massive leap of faith, just a case of being open-minded or being willing to put your prejudices aside, if only for a brief moment.
Some trance links: Above & Beyond, Armin van Buuren, Tiësto, OceanLab, Nitrous Oxide, Jonas Steur, Vibrasphere, John O'Callaghan, Chicane, Signum, Paul van Dyk, Sean Tyas, Marco V, Ferry Corsten, Marcel Woods, Nu NRG, Aly & Fila, Super8, ICONE, Ronski Speed, Stoneface & Terminal, David West, Matt Darey, Filo & Peri, DJ Shah, Tilt, Michael Dow, Lange, Solar Stone, Orjan, M.I.K.E.
Comentários
-
MC_Goner escreveu:
Very well said. Find it very hard to explain to my mates why I listen to trance as they don't understand it the way I do. Nothing beats the feeling of euphoria flowing through your body and putting you into a trance like state :)! Listen to all sorts of music but nothing gives me the same feeling as trance.
Personally I think most people just think its easy to make because its repetitive and unfortunately a lot of electronic tracks that reach the charts get labelled trance when there not.
I remember the days when I used to hate trance, in my opinion its not a style of genre you get into overnight. Always reassuring there are others out there who understand why we listen to trance :)! Hope to get that spine tingling sensation for many more decades before I get bored of it :)! -
TheShadowstorm escreveu:
Nice entry.
-
evanreyes escreveu:
wow, this is amazing. I finally have something meaningful to say when my roommate makes the same tired claim that all they're doing is pressing play.
I especially like your point at the end about only being able to evaluate something in terms of how it relates to one's self. it doesn't even occur to most people that a work of art is not made to entertain you, specifically.
What I want people to realise is that you don't have to like the music to appreciate why other people do like it.
amen! I don't like it does not equal this is bad!! -
evanreyes escreveu:
p.s. I'll make sure to mention where I read this. I'm not about to go biting your ideas.
-
Addicted2Melody escreveu:
Thanks, guys. Your comments are very much appreciated.
And don't worry about borrowing my ideas to make a point elsewhere, Evan. To be honest, the majority of the credit for this entry should go to Dennis R. Wier. I've just brought his ideas to last.fm, filled in the gaps and joined the dots. -
Firsh escreveu:
cool :) should show this to some friends :)
btw armin said it very well too:
http://www.trance.nu/v4/news/armin-van-buuren-releases-imagine -
VxE escreveu:
Thanks!
-
djfilitico escreveu:
he does it again!
wonderful post mate! I'm afraid I will have to pass this one around as reference ;) -
Jatup escreveu:
Great journal! I agree on all points. All trance haters should read this before they make another ignorant comment about something they have no idea about.
-
wordherd escreveu:
Terrific post - especially for me, new to trance.
-
Arcus28 escreveu:
Like i told you earlier this is very well written. Trance and music in it self is very hard to describe. Most time it is either a person does like or a person doesn´t! This happens to me a lot of times when i think a girl is incredibly hot and some other dude doesnt think it is his cup of tea. I guess it depends on taste while taste can´t be discussed because everyone has got his own.
So there we see that statements like cheap produced music are just plain dumb! Also even if the music is really that cheap produced ain´t it even cool that such cheap music does move that many souls in an almost ecstasy? I did the same myself a lot of times when beeing younger to use weak arguments against music i just didn´t liked. The Fact that i realised in years of growin in age as in open mind is that i missed a lot of really great music. Once one has realised this he will be open for every kind of music (with partial exceptions) and i myself sometimes push myself to listen to completely different music to find out about artists like Deine Lakaien. Thats a completely different Genre but may one have his own opinion about darkwave music. I have my opinion...
One one hand i am also really sick about genres where music has to be put into a drawer. On the other hand i really tend to use them myself because it really helps to describe a certain music or to find new artists with similar styles. So for me the whole Electronic Music Genre has the Label Techno on top! May it be goa, acid, trance, minimal or house music you are listening to (this list could be endless). Thats also the reason imho why the use of the term EDM has become that popular in the last years. EDM = Electronic Dance Music...refer the way you want to...
I also stopped to introduce my music to everyone while it is a very urgent thing in my life! I learned myself that it won´t work to force someone to listen to something he doesnt want to listen. The Focus has to be kept on open minded people who will drive home from work with you and will ask you what type of music you are listening there. It happened myself with some people i work with together when they´ve asked me to borrow them my Ulrich Schnauss or Astral Projection Cds. May it sound cheesy but i think this reference does fit.
3 A man went out to put seed in the earth:
4 And while he was doing it, some was dropped by the wayside, and the birds came and took it for food.
5 And some went on the stones, where it had not much earth; and it came up straight away, because the earth was not deep:
6 And when the sun was high, it was burned; and because it had no root, it became dry and dead.
7 And some went among the thorns, and the thorns came up, and it had no room for growth and gave no fruit.
8 And some, falling on good earth, gave fruit, coming up and increasing, and giving thirty, sixty, and a hundred times as much.
There is one more point i want to focus at with my reply. Drugs are often referred to as a part of electronic music. Sure they have always been with us and almost belong to the party life! Some use it and want to have a good time and so it is completely fine with me since they don´t hurt anyone with it and are often the most peacefull people there are. Don´t look at the exceptions since they are brainless morons with and without drugs. Still i have observed that these people imho miss a lot of the main point of the music it self. It is their trip they do enjoy and music is only a side part anymore.
Before i slide again from the topic i would say enjoy the music. Enjoy the feeling the music can give you, be alive and in Inner-Peace! -
Addicted2Melody escreveu:
Thanks again, guys. Nice to know fellow trance fans feel I've got this about right.
As for the question of drugs and trance, Arcus28 - It's simple really. If you need drugs to enjoy trance you aren't a genuine fan of trance music. The fact that a lot of people do take drugs when listening to trance (or any other type of electronic music) is not a reflection of how bad the music is. It is a common misconception that listening to trance music is merely the by-product of an artifical high; in order words, that drugs come first over the music - which is completely false. The fact is, drugs are just part of western music culture. Some people choose to take them, some people choose not to. That's a personal decision. Regardless, the vast majority of trance fans love trance for what it is as a type of music. Those that choose to take drugs take them for the same reason that any music fan might take drugs, to enhance the music listening experience. Put simply, some might say that without MDMA there would be no trance scene. On the contrary, without the trance scene a lot less MDMA would taken. Think about it; those two statements are fundamentally different. Nine times out of ten, it is the fact that people love trance in the first place that drives them to reach for the increased level or state of trance that MDMA provides for them. -
augustlilly escreveu:
I totally agree with this.
My dad sometimes insists that trance music (and other electronic music) isn't real music but I've been listening to enough of it that he's starting to appreciate it. My friends still don't get it though.
And despite liking/getting into other kinds of music, trance will probably always be my favorite kind of music. Perhaps that is because, well, it's trance. :) -
RoverTheOctopus escreveu:
Fortunately, enough of my friends like trance that I feel I can talk about it with them. Often, they got into trance before I started playing it when they were around, so to find out they liked the music too was a great surprise. Trance isn't necessarily popular where I live, but I think it has gained enough acceptance that you can play it in almost situation and attract people to the music.
Trance is generally perceived as repetitive by those who only listen to it casually or are otherwise too impatient or haven't listened to enough of it to notice its incredible nuances. Trance may lull you with similar sounds, keeping you tethered so when it makes a dramatic turn in another direction, you especially feel it. Kubik by Perry O'Neil is a good example of this. While you're busy listening to the dark progressive melody and beats, there's a point late in the song where the song takes you in an unexpected direction. It gives me the chills each time I hear it. Too many other songs, in their own ways, do this.
I've also noticed that the lack of frequency in the number of trance songs produced relative to most other genres is a testament to how carefully crafted these songs are. There are only a few songs by each artist, but I love each and every one of them. Few of today's pop artists infesting the radio can claim such achievement, as many of their albums are 90% garbage and 10% cheese (albeit catchy) that rips off another song's melody or style.
But I've listened to enough of this music to easily identify my songs just based on the first second or two (I have a couple hundred trance tracks, for what it's worth.) Wherever this repetition is, I have yet to truly witness it. I have grown to appreciate trance for its nuances. Again, this genre lifts you up and, when you let it, it takes you on an incredible trip (and no, I'm not talking about drugs, but the songs themselves in a completely sober state of mind.) That is the essence of trance. Few genres can do this for a person, though that's not to say my hair doesn't stand when I hear songs of other genres. Trance is a wonderful secret, accessible to anyone who can transcend what is perceived as the obvious (i.e. such superficial, more noticeable traits such as beats.) -
Addicted2Melody escreveu:
Trance may lull you with similar sounds, keeping you tethered so when it makes a dramatic turn in another direction, you especially feel it.
That's exactly it! Repitition > Anticipation > Impact
And that's where we get the build up-break down-kick back structure/dynamic from. Until an outsider appreciates that dynamic, they'll never truly appreciate why people love trance. -
Parasence escreveu:
What a thread! I share same points of view and ideas. Thanks for keepin' trance up. Cheers! ;)
-
psyvox escreveu:
As for me, I can't really stand the "simpler" lighter genres of trance, Uplifting/Vocal/Tech. I have always been strongly attracted to Psy-Trance/Goa. Though like many of you I do not participate in the drug consumption culture. I find that I enjoy trance just enough while sober. And for me Psychedelic Trance puts me into a "thought trance" that makes me wonder how many others share this experience. The structure and characteristic sounds of Psy-Trance are already engineered to be abstract and out of the ordinary, combining sound clips from eerie sci-fi movies and other strange but fitting sources. I love the feeling of mystery and adventure I experience in Psy-Trance.
Favorite Artists:
Ticon, GMS, Astrix, Sub 6 -
TowerU escreveu:
Wonderful entry. Thanks for that.
Does this mean [track artist=Kraftwerk]Autobahn is a trance track near perfection? (Seeing as it is more repetitive than your average trance track) 8]
I don't agree entirely on the trance subgenres, but then again, I'm probably one of those terrible "overboxers".
@psyvox - why are these genres "simpler"? Probably because you only know the commercial surface. A lot of psychedelic is "simpler" too, generally meaning shorter, with less modulations, with more blunt modulations (rather than slight ones), with the always the same sounding female vocal,... Any other subgenre of trance can evoke the same feelings you described on psy.
Someone once asked me how I could stand one trance track to last six, eight, eleven minutes. I told her that anything below five minutes is probably (probably, not certainly) poorly executed. And probably to be tagged dance anyway. -
Solstice- escreveu:
Nice entry, I don't think you can group trance into 5 genres though (although I do agree that Ishkur's guide is a bit silly and people new to trance like to quote it as gospel).
Your 5 genres are adjectives (with the possible exception of psychedelic), which can be applied to vastly different sounding music. Take psyvox above, for example: If he suddenly got into progressive psytrance, he wouldn't want to hear progressive trance. Looking at your own charts, do you think that Infected Mushroom's first album can be classified the same as their last? Only at a very high level, the same kind of level that a non trance listener would say that all trance is a "repetitive, noisy series of thuds and bleeps."
Genres and sub genres are not made up for shits and giggles, and I wish that they had been more defined when I first got into trance - so that I didn't listen to hours of music that I didn't enjoy. -
Addicted2Melody escreveu:
Cheers for the comments, mate.
As for the genres thing - I think it's important to be careful with genres and subgenres. There are problems involved with under defining and under-separating, just as there are in over defining and over-separating. I think if you over-separate you end up getting those endless and pointless arguments that seasoned listeners get into all the time, where the slight subtitles and variations in people's language emphasise the differences in people's thinking when in reality they actually agree with each other to a much larger extent than they realise. And then you have the other side of the coin, where people neglect accepted genre definitions so much that they end up tagging Sean Tyas as "progressive trance" or Sander Van Doorn as "house".
To be quite honest, the paragraph about the genres was a relative after thought. The main purpose of the journal was to explain the mechanics of all 'real' trance music. But I do still feel that over complication and endless separation of genres is more of a problem for newcomers. But as long as someone can recognise Quivver as progressive, Aly & Fila as melodic or Marcel Woods as tech trance, I have no qualms. Beyond that, I see no need for getting overly concerned.
Of course, in terms of separating trance into 5 areas, the problem does come when genres blur and when certain artists experiment. You are right to flag up Infected Mushroom and make a good point about their newest album. I would argue that, if you go by the definitions I outline in this journal, a significant amount of the material on Vicious Delicious is definitely not trance. Orbital are another classic example. Large parts of their discography fall into the "trance" bracket under my definitions, but so much of it ventures into breaks, big beat, ambient, idm and even house.
Now, by saying that trance can be broken down into 5 sub-genres, I'm not saying that those 5 sub-genres could not be broken down into further groups for more complex labelling and boxing off. I'm just questioning how useful that is. I'm just saying that it is by staying with those 5, generally speaking, that we stay clear, that people don't get bogged down and that newcomers aren't left feeling as though seasoned listeners are being deliberately pedantic or losing site of the actual music amongst all the labels. -
AlienDisco escreveu:
what a fantastic thread. for me, it's great that you've managed to put my thoughts into perfectly structured paragraphs. my interest in electronic music has grown massively over the past few years, with a strong emphasis on psytrance... and i've never been able to put my finger on why. i always just figured trance "does something" to me.. but you've managed to put it more eloquently than my jumbled thoughts in my brain can so thankyou for that.
-
AnbroK escreveu:
Great article mate! Keep them coming for outsiders and old Trance listeners and DJs like myself. Cheers!
-
Vinnie_NL escreveu:
What I want people to realise is that you don't have to like the music to appreciate why other people do like it. In terms of approach this isn't really a massive leap of faith, just a case of being open-minded or being willing to put your prejudices aside, if only for a brief moment. I've find this part the most appealing to myself. I've discovered a whole new musical world besides trance because of Last.fm and I don't love all of it, but there's still lots of music left I really like now. And genres like futurepop and new age share some similarities with trance. And now I can hear a metal song and think: hey that sounds pretty good (or not). And 5 years ago all metal sounded like the same disturbing noise and grunting vocals.
I found some really obscure genres like doom metal (I prefer to call it drone metal) which is so slow and repetitive that it doesn't remind much to regular metal at all.But the repetitive part appeals to me. In this genre tracks of 20 minutes are common so you may get more into a trance than with trance music itself. But I didn't became one of those elitist types who want to dislike some music because it's too popular. My listening charts of the last 7 days shows:
1 Scooter
2 Conjure One
3 Laibach
I know Scooter is despised by the more elitist music listeners, both from the rock and trance community. But I don't mind that it's so high in my charts. Same with Aqua and Eiffel 65. I enjoy listening to it, and I want my charts to show that. I know some people turn of their last.fm plugin while listening to cheesy stuff but I won't do that. You shouldn't be ashamed of what you enjoy listening to.
Besides, what many trance listeners don't know is that Rhys Fulber and Bill Leeb from Delerium, well known among most people because of "Silence", were also Front Line Assembly, an industrial/EBM project. Something which is less surprising if you know the early Delerium stuff which was much darker. Rhys Fulber also has the project Conjure One, that's the reason I was reminded to Delerium while writing this.
I also tried introducing my friends to the music I like, which is not only trance, but also futurepop, industrial, ambient. But that doesn't work if that person isn't interested in music enough and wants to discover new things. I can let them listen to a song from my collection and they may like it a bit. But after that the person just continuous to listen to to the small area of music called pop music because that's promoted on mainstream radio and tv so that doesn't require any effort to keep up to date with. That's why I like Last.fm, the place where you can talk with people who are as fanatic with music as I am.
I think after reading your journal I'll enjoy trance even more :) -
Addicted2Melody escreveu:
You make some interesting points, Vinnie, all of which are more than relevant to what I was trying to get across in this journal.
Someone else made an excellent point in another journal I was reading the other day, that people often confuse being open-minded with having an eclectic taste. I think that's absolutely true. One is being open to giving other things a try even if it turns out you don't like them in the end and at least attempting to appreciate that every genre of music has a "way of working" that either works for you or doesn't; Whereas the other is just happening to like a lot of genres. The former of the two is actually much more "important" than the latter.
And I think that because people confuse the two, some people get defensive and hostile to open-mindedness and giving other things a try. It's almost as if they think that because they only like a few genres they have to justify that to people and have to really nail their colours to the mast, trampling everything left in their wake. Having an eclectic taste makes your taste no better than anyone else’s. For a start, you can't really chose or "learn" to have an eclectic taste. It’s not your fault if you only like metal. But you can, more or less, chose or "learn" to be open-minded. And that's a crucial difference.
I have read so much bullshit about electronic music in my time, and in particular about trance. Some people are so confused and deluded about what it consists of, how it is made and the kinds of people that love it. And such things are so unnecessary. Because the simple fact is, you can hate trance but still have the intelligence and/or open-mindedness to either attempt to appreciate its dynamics or simply accept that you know little or nothing about it. A lot of people open their mouths to talk about electronic music when they haven’t the first idea what they are talking about. I’m not saying I know everything there is to know, but I’m sure even the most enthusiastic trance-hating music lover would acknowledge (even if only to themselves privately) that there are things in this journal they hadn’t the faintest idea of. And this journal was only a brief outline of those details.
Right here, right now - I'm happy to admit that I am completely ignorant when it comes to metal - But I don't go around bashing it as a type of music and appreciate that it has a way of working that is different to trance. And I certainly don't parade around last.fm pretending that I know metal better than the people who listen to it or using the way trance works as the benchmark for how all music should always be made and always work.
Different isn’t always wrong. There is no wrong. You don’t have to have an eclectic taste to appreciate that.
