on 2/20/03 12:29 PM, Ploegmakers, Joost at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In my view, the main characteristic difference between trance and techno has > always been: melody. In techno generally the only real melody (if you follow > the pure definition of what a melody is) you are going to find is in the > bassline (if even). For the rest the music is composed of layer on top of > layer of different rhythms of sounds at one or two pitches. (ok, ok, > basically a rhythm of two tones is already a melody, but you will understand > what I'm getting at) In a lot of cases these layers create a melody of it's > own, but that's not what I mean with a "real" melody. Trance (and to a > lesser extend house!) doesn't have that. The music is much more traditional > to the extend that there is mostly a clear melody in the mid range.
Not only can you make a distinction in the melody but the type of sounds being used. on 2/20/03 12:29 PM, Ploegmakers, Joost at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > That's also why techno was so different from other western music, when it > originated. The only music where you find a similar way of composing, is > ethnic music. I disagree early Detroit techno sounds like a fusion of Kraftwerk/ Euro dance with Chicago house. It wasn't revolutionary to Western music. It's music that came from the drum machine era, the drum machine and sequencer more or less influenced the techno sound. on 2/20/03 12:29 PM, Ploegmakers, Joost at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Another big aspect of techno (and early Chicago house/acid) and as such very > often different from trance, is that techno tries to evolve, tries to bring > something new, tries to bring something that has never been heard before, > tries to trigger strong emotions in people by surprising them. > Now for a time, snare rolls, big breakdowns, 303 lines and such were new and > triggered these strong emotions in people and were part of real techno. > Trance is much more oriented towards pleasing the audience, trying to bring > something that people already like to hear, trying to produce sounds that > the majority of the people perceive as beautiful, dreamy soundscapes. Techno > has evolved on and moved to several newer levels. Trance still uses the > snare rolls, 'cause they work. Trance and progressive is basically an update to the 80's Euro dance/ Hi-NRG music although you do hear the influence of techno and house with the use of the TR-909. Take the vocals out of Erasure, the music Vince Clarke pioneered and you hear the similarities. on 2/20/03 12:29 PM, Ploegmakers, Joost at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Now of course it's all still music and not exact science, so there will be > plenty of examples of techno with melodies and trance without, and "good" > and revolutionary trance and "bad" boring techno. But generally speaking you > can (I at least) see the broader distinctions. That's also why I don't want > to stick to one genre and I really like certain trance records (although not > recently ;-) )and dislike certain techno records. As the music evolved I > evolved with it. I used to love the stuff from Misjah, later that of the > Liberators, again later that of Adam Beyer, Gaetek, Marco Carola. But that's > all in the past. When I listen to it at home, I still like the sound in a > nostalgic kind of way. I would never play it out again though (or it should > be some revival thing). Now, I'm more into deephouse, Detroit house and > electro (as so many old F*cks like me), no idea if that will stay forever. this seems to be a common trend. I still enjoy the occasional hard banging techno track with innovative elements like Switched On Blades. Techno is like an outcast amongst the dance genres a lot of people fall back on 'house' or retro dance music like electro or Italo-disco conforming to trend and conventionalism because they lack vision when it comes to futuristic abstract music. on 2/20/03 12:29 PM, Ploegmakers, Joost at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> What are these guys now? They're trance DJs. > > Basically there are two kinds of DJ's. The DJ that purely wants to please > the audience and give them what they want to hear and what they like best. > The DJ that has the clear need to be loved and the need to be popular. > And the DJ who wants to bring the audience something new and surprising. > > Again, of course we are all a combination of these two profiles, but we are > either on one side or the other. We all like to be on stage and get the > cheers, but that is different from needing it. The first kind will not take > any risks when playing and go with the flow of whichever is hot at the time. > The second kind will explore the boundaries and set the new trends, but will > never be as popular as the first kind. > > Trance DJ's tend to be more of the first kind, techno DJ's you'll find in > both. Although there are enough trance dj's like Tiësto who genuinely love > that music (whom I consider a good dj, although I totally gag on his taste > in music) and who have not jumped on the bandwagon like Pete Tong and such > who will just hop on the next one when it comes along . Trance is basically disco pop culture for x-gens, it's not techno and techno is not anything that sounds 'electronic' it has a definitive sound associated with certain artist.
