Yeah indeed, and I also prefer the remix.

 

However, take a look at this. Its the first part of an album by Klaus Schulze called Trancefer. Would you consider it trance?

 

 

Obviously the further back you go, the more ambiguous the genre gets, and harder it is to identify. But i think there are definitely trance elements in this, and this is way back in 1981.

cant tell. at my mums, no sound on... lol

Yeah indeed, and I also prefer the remix.

 

However, take a look at this. Its the first part of an album by Klaus Schulze called Trancefer. Would you consider it trance?

 

 

Obviously the further back you go, the more ambiguous the genre gets, and harder it is to identify. But i think there are definitely trance elements in this, and this is way back in 1981.

 

You could easily go back to the 60s too, a lot of Psychedelic bands were making music which would inspire altered states of consciousness (which is what a trance effectively is...), if you listen to Pink Floyd circa '66/67, tracks like Astronomy Domine or Interstellar Overdrive, incredibly hypnotic and trippy, bands like Gong as well..... A lot of the old hippies were instrumental in creating Rave/Trance, Alex Patterson/Bill Drummond/Jimmy Cauty of KLF and The Orb were a bunch of old hippies basically, Steve Hillage of System 7 was in Gong, and then you have bands like Ozric Tentacles, who were totally tripped-out, 100% instrumental, trancey Space Rock (who were such total hippies they even printed their album and CD covers using Hemp paper.. :lol: ), and they had a Trance Techno side project called Eat Static.....

 

I know Rock aint your thing, but try the Ozrics with a few spliffs and just chill maaaaaaaaaaaan...... B) Even one of my mates who was a total Raver/House fanatic back in the day, was well into the Ozrics....

well perhaps, but music is all connected in some form, and if we just pick one element of trance that existed back in the day, I guess we can even go further than that. However I dont think the genre itself started to stand on its own, with a seperate identity until the late 80s at the earliest. There were mentions here and there before that, especially concerning the word trance, but it didnt all assimilate into its own form until sometime in the late 80s/early 90s, becoming a genuine genre.

well perhaps, but music is all connected in some form, and if we just pick one element of trance that existed back in the day, I guess we can even go further than that. However I dont think the genre itself started to stand on its own, with a seperate identity until the late 80s at the earliest. There were mentions here and there before that, especially concerning the word trance, but it didnt all assimilate into its own form until sometime in the late 80s/early 90s, becoming a genuine genre.

 

Could arguably be a technology argument as well.... I'm pretty sure if the 60s Hippies had synths, sequencers, laptops, loops, stuff like Cubase and so on, then they'd've created music pretty damn similar to what we had in the 90s and 00s.... That's kind of what happened anyway when the likes of Patterson and Hillage moved into creating music in the manner they did.... King Crimson guitarist Robert Thripp worked a lot with Ambient/Trance acts (including FSOL and The Orb) during the 90s.... So, there is a definite connection between 60s Psychedelia and Trance...

 

Can this thread be closed? I'm so bored of people thinking they're opinions are always right when in the end of the day it's all just subjective. Bringing a fair and constructive argument to the table (the likes of Rob and myself) make this place a vibrant and cool place to share opinions... others just sounds agreesive and derogatory and it zaps the spirit out of the forum.

 

P.S. If your view of 99-era trance goes as far as ATB, maybe you should dig a little deeper and discover the beauties independent labels like HOOJ contributed towards a very vibrant and healthy era.

Can this thread be closed? I'm so bored of people thinking they're opinions are always right when in the end of the day it's all just subjective.

 

Oh look, another one from the "let's close this thread because......." school.... Did you actually read the posts...? Did you not see that a pretty vibrant discussion DID come out of it....?

 

I'm so bored with the likes of you p!ssing and moaning to Mods to close topics down, it's a real bugbear of mine tbh, and I think that sort of thing just poisons the site..... <_< Just DONT contribute to the topic if you dont like what's coming out of it......

 

And if you bother to read anything I was even writing, my objections are not so much to the stuff coming out of the underground, independent labels who were experimenting more, it's more to do with the absolute PAP that was advertising itself as Trance, when it was just bad Europop....

no im not going to close it....

 

however

 

scotty does have a point, and that is that you scott(grimly) does come across as aggressive which sometimes aint needed. the basis of all these arguments about trance seems to be that grimly and russ are using it to knock the europop that was at the very commercial end of the trance spectrum..ok fair enough, but i fully agree with what scotty says "P.S. If your view of 99-era trance goes as far as ATB, maybe you should dig a little deeper and discover the beauties independent labels like HOOJ contributed towards a very vibrant and healthy era. " .... WE ARE NOT DEFENDING EUROPOP, we know what it is, but scotty is right, trance DID peak in 99, real trance, not the europop.

scotty does have a point, and that is that you scott(grimly) does come across as aggressive which sometimes aint needed.

 

No worse than you on Saturdays or Jacko threads though mate..... :rolleyes:

 

.... WE ARE NOT DEFENDING EUROPOP, we know what it is, but scotty is right, trance DID peak in 99, real trance, not the europop.

 

Fair enough.... Cool.... And when people stop referring to these bad Europop pieces of cr@p by using the term "trance" in anyway, shape or form, and just call it what it IS, then I'll cease to have a problem..... At the end of the day, I dont like things being mislabelled or "passed off" as something else just to make it sound 'cool'.....

 

In the creative sense, you're probably right, proper TRANCE (without the inverted commas) perhaps did peak, but, unfortunately, the absolute cr@p that got incorrectly lumped in with it, and the stuff that makes up the majority of these bloody "trance" compilations, detracted from this fact, imo.... This is why, when it comes to ascribing terms and genres, we need to be absolutely clear what we're talking about, as a lot of bad stuff gets mixed in with the good, and then it just ends up dragging the genre, as a whole, down into the creative sewer.....

 

No worse than you on Saturdays or Jacko threads though mate..... :rolleyes:

 

in my quote you missed the bit that read "WHICH SOMETIMES AINT NEEDED" .... in this thread it aint, in those threads it was.

 

Fair enough.... Cool.... And when people stop referring to these bad Europop pieces of cr@p by using the term "trance" in anyway, shape or form, and just call it what it IS, then I'll cease to have a problem..... At the end of the day, I dont like things being mislabelled or "passed off" as something else just to make it sound 'cool'.....

 

In the creative sense, you're probably right, proper TRANCE (without the inverted commas) perhaps did peak, but, unfortunately, the absolute cr@p that got incorrectly lumped in with it, and the stuff that makes up the majority of these bloody "trance" compilations, detracted from this fact, imo.... This is why, when it comes to ascribing terms and genres, we need to be absolutely clear what we're talking about, as a lot of bad stuff gets mixed in with the good, and then it just ends up dragging the genre, as a whole, down into the creative sewer.....

 

AT LAST! the penny has finally dropped! you now see what we are saying! that 2 or is it 3? long winded argumentitive threads that could have been drastically reduced if you had understood this point earlier on! :lol:

 

AT LAST! the penny has finally dropped! you now see what we are saying! that 2 or is it 3? long winded argumentitive threads that could have been drastically reduced if you had understood this point earlier on! :lol:

 

Well, I do believe that one or two people (not yourself I hasten to add) actually were describing the cheesy, Eurobeat cr@p that was in your chart as being "trance"..... So, the argument was still valid....

 

The more proper TRANCE stuff didn't tend to get into the Top 30.....

and I still argue that it was. It became its own subgenre of eurotrance/trancepop, it was just the commercial output that came out of the genre. Mushy did agree with me after I argued that point, he just said it was from the commercial end of the trance spectrum which is true. But while I did say both were under the main category of trance, they are clearly in different subgenres and I can easily seperate both of them. The problem with your point was that everything was cheesy, it wasnt until later on that you made a distinction between the two.

 

But i'm not gonna debate this all over again, so i'll stop here.

and I still argue that it was. It became its own subgenre of eurotrance/trancepop, it was just the commercial output that came out of the genre. Mushy did agree with me after I argued that point. But while I did say both were under the main category of trance, they are clearly in different subgenres and I can easily seperate both of them. The problem with your point was that everything was cheesy, it wasnt until later on that you made a distinction between the two.

 

But i'm not gonna debate this all over again, so i'll stop here.

 

i agreed that the euro cheese was called 'trance' and that it was at the commercial end of the trance spectrum...but it wasnt real trance, it was contemporary pop done in the contemporary style.

It was pop done in a trance way aka trance done in a pop way. That's what happens when a genre gets popular, a commercial side always eventually comes out. Whether by real you mean proper, then yes, but it was still part of the trance spectrum at the end of the day. House music has that side too.

 

But, i'll respect other points of view.

and I still argue that it was. It became its own subgenre of eurotrance/trancepop, it was just the commercial output that came out of the genre. Mushy did agree with me after I argued that point, he just said it was from the commercial end of the trance spectrum which is true. But while I did say both were under the main category of trance, they are clearly in different subgenres and I can easily seperate both of them. The problem with your point was that everything was cheesy, it wasnt until later on that you made a distinction between the two.

 

But i'm not gonna debate this all over again, so i'll stop here.

 

Which is where the misunderstanding came in.... I dont regard that stuff as "trance" anymore than I regard the likes of Linkin Park, Limp Bizkit or My Comical Romance as being "Metal" bands tbh, they just dumb things down, IMO..... I dont believe that the cheesy, commercial stuff did anything to "evolve" the trance genre, musical evolutions dont happen in the commerical sides, they happen in the underground, the non-popular where you have people committed to improving the music as opposed to people just in it for the money.....

it was contemporary pop done in the contemporary style.

 

Spot on.... If you just call it pop, and market it as pop, then I have no beef, because it IS pop.... It's when you ascribe a false label to it in an attempt to make it sound edgy and all "underground", and then try to obfuscate and confuse the issue, then that's where I get off the boat tbh..... I think that's just opportunism tbh... "Oh, what cool other label can we give this Pop Tune......?". It's a bit like Britney Spears sellling tickets for a live show, then miming..... False pretences, innit...? False labelling....

come on, ATB and Britney Spears are NOT the same genre. That's not how I see it anyway. I'd class him and the likes of him under trance, eurotrance subgenre. Yes its more poppified, but that's the nature of that subgenre, not the genre itself.

 

I guess we just dont see things the same way.

come on, ATB and Britney Spears are NOT the same genre.

 

Er, that wasn't meant in the music sense, more in the general sort of 'pretending to do something that you're not' sense... IE, Britney pretends to be singing at her gigs, but isn't....

 

And besides, they may have different approaches, but it's still very much 'Pop'. Definitely more pop than trance.... Do you know one of the reasons why the Brits actually did away with the Dance award...? Because the two genres had become virtually indistinguishable from each other.... That's the problem when you have too much crossover and too much watering down of specialist genres, and too many c/unts in the Industry trying to sell 'Pop' or 'Guitar Pop' music as 'Dance', 'Rock/Metal', 'Alternative' or 'Indie' or whatever.... Genres should be kept pure, imo, or they just become meaningless terms.....

Spot on.... If you just call it pop, and market it as pop, then I have no beef, because it IS pop.... It's when you ascribe a false label to it in an attempt to make it sound edgy and all "underground", and then try to obfuscate and confuse the issue, then that's where I get off the boat tbh..... I think that's just opportunism tbh... "Oh, what cool other label can we give this Pop Tune......?". It's a bit like Britney Spears sellling tickets for a live show, then miming..... False pretences, innit...? False labelling....

 

...... but the contemporary style was trance.... so it was pop influenced by trance, trance in a pop style... albeit a VERY watered down version of it.