[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruckus /img/forum/go_quote.gif And if you ever think what people did in the 70s was precise. I'm sorry but current producers and DJs will drop dead from laughing. Laughing so hard their throats will collapse. Ask any modern DJ, anyone that uses the equipment used in the 70s or even the best midi system today is imprecise. Using hardware is no longer considered precise enough. Its down to software and programming. Like I said, everything is timed to absolute precision. Nothing is left to automation by hardware.

Dude, what are you smoking??

Even synthesizers from the 60s get the player "precision" in the sense that they get the note that they intended. Oscillations might have been slower....but I don't think any composer is thinking of nanosecond beats. A composer is just like a painter who takes a set of physical properties to assemble a work of art. With a painter, they've got to use a paintbrush, paints, and canvas. With a composer, they have to use an instrument and be sure the acoustics match their intention.

Go ask real record producers and DJs if they think "what people did in the 70s was precise". They'll give you blank stares because that doesn't make sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruckus /img/forum/go_quote.gif While other music genres are trying to create new sound, and most times, just create what has already been done.

I'm speechless at how close minded and unobservant that statement is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruckus /img/forum/go_quote.gif But like classical music and other genres, because of the equipment used, the music hasn't changed much.

Is that what made you "ROTFL" with my first post? That classical music is "not precise" or "hasn't changed" because you think it always uses the same instruments? More evidence that you don't listen to all genres to make these sweeping generalizations. Even one of my interests in classical guitar is always changing. LAGQ is known for adding all sorts of objects and techniques to make the guitar sound totally different and new.

And anyway, most musicians think that progression has to do with the music and maturation of a genre, musician, or composer.....not how fast a sound card's processor can get. I don't know why you keep using Eric Clapton as your one example of a genre other then electronica/rock....other then the evidence of a sheltered music experience. No, he wouldn't be an epitome of an artist that I think evolves. My two previous examples of composers/ artists are way better. Listen to Herbie Hancock from the 1970s, 80s, 90s, and now.....and tell me there's no change. Never mind the fact that both rock and electronica are influenced by him...when he's also a jazz and classical pianist. Well he does use synthesizers...so by your definition he would "progress" and be "precise"

John Williams, the guitarist, would not fit your definition....as he only uses a measly classical guitar.....though he did start off with a different luthier. But he started with regular classical pieces, and has transitioned to also using world music as well as his new compositions....but I guess that doesn't mean "progression" because it's not the latest and greatest computer

So maybe instead of getting answers from my previous questions, I should smoke the same dope...maybe then I'll get "a clue"

Playing and listening to all sorts of music certainly doesn't do it

 

[Ruckus]

ROFL. You're kidding me. Adding new stuff to guitars. Whatever. Even the new seven string guitar and people changing octaves and new techniques. Still not that different than the experimentation from the 70s. Your guitars are pretty still the same.

Being able to use completely new concepts is totally different from adding some mod to guitar. You really think those mods are original ideas anyways? Good chance they have already been done, ideas gotten from others.

And artist changing his style from classical to progressive rock. Just changing genres of music. Hasn't changed the genre of the music itself.

Trance has changed. Its not just changing genres. While beginning it was a lot of synth. Now its become more complex incorporating aspects from other genres of music, its still Trance.

You have yet to say anything that prove otherwise from what I have said. Just mentioning obscure artists just for the sake of arguing. I don't see how these artists are using the precision in sound and changing their genre of music as trance artists have.

This is my last post on this because you have yet to actually say anything convincing that other music use the precision in sound and progressively changing as Trance has since early 90s.

And also, Trance artists are in fact moving away from midi for that exact reason I said, its not precise enough, doesn't do exactly what these artists want to do.

 

[wower]

I have to agree with the classical group on this one. Once you stepped into the realm of saying trance is perfection or some such combination; I rolled my eyes. I even love trance and I still don't agree with you! You really need to rethink your arguments. Trance by numbers, no matter how well timed, comes close to something like Bach's solo cello suites which have hundreds of years behind them and no matter how many metal bands you've seen or how many years of piano you've had will make the completely subjective statement you pulled out of thin air look realistic or definitive.

my $0.02

 

[Davesrose]

Dude....just answer the questions I keep asking. WHAT IS PRECISION??? WHAT IS PROGRESSION??? Because it certainly seems like your ideas and arguments go all over the map.

Quote:

Being able to use completely new concepts is totally different from adding some mod to guitar. You really think those mods are original ideas anyways? Good chance they have already been done, ideas gotten from others.

OK wonder of information.....what modifications has LAGQ done with their guitar strings, guitars, and fingers that has been done before?? Give me specifics now.

Quote:

And artist changing his style from classical to progressive rock. Just changing genres of music. Hasn't changed the genre of the music itself.

Dude...read my post over again. I never said "progressive rock". If you're refering to John Williams, I said we went from regular classical repertoire (from the early 20th century) to incorporating WORLD music as well as his own classical compositions.

Quote:

You have yet to say anything that prove otherwise from what I have said. Just mentioning obscure artists just for the sake of arguing. I don't see how these artists are using the precision in sound and changing their genre of music as trance artists have.

NOW THAT'S ROTFL!!!!!!! You think Herbie Hancock is obscure.....ROTFL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbie_Hancock

Obviously you don't know "how these artists are using the precision in sound and changing their genre of music" because you have never heard them. Now go listen to some more music other then Trance before dissing it!!!


This might be your last post because you have yet to give any coherent arguments on what makes Trance "more precise" or "more progressive" Now instead of leaving in a huff....please go out and listen to some other genres before generalizing them.

 

[Ruckus]

While you are right Bach did amazing works.

But he is dead. His music is being played by others with their own interpretation. His music is not played the way he would have wanted it exactly.

And like someone said before, the human element with instruments.

Talking about precision of sound, not complexity. And precision according to that artist. Unfortunately they did not have recording devices during Bach's time

 

[Davesrose]

So classical is not "progressing" or "precise" because there are dead composers and the music you've heard from it is only from traditional orchestras. Is this what I understand your limited view of classical music is??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruckus /img/forum/go_quote.gif And like someone said before, the human element with instruments.

Yeah....a musician. How is that different then any other genre???

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruckus /img/forum/go_quote.gif Talking about precision of sound, not complexity. And precision according to that artist. Unfortunately they did not have recording devices during Bach's time

Don't avoid the question.....what is "precision" to your eyes? At least from what I gather from this thread.....you think it's some magic frequency that only a computer can reach at a split nanosecond. It would have been less ridiculous if you had tried to maintain that it was tempo, rhythm, or something musical....instead of some magic sound that only some hypothetical "Trance only" computer in the future can make. Precision of an instrument usually means how well it sustains its resonance for the artist using it....but apparently it only applies to synthesized music geared especially for Trance.


This would be a more interesting thread if we were to talk about the influence and compliments that Electronica has with Jazz.....but you've made it a diatribe about how you think Trance is off in its own world.

If your only argument that Trance is "more precise" or "more progressive" is because it has an artist who can compose their own arrangement and play it the way they intend to......you have yet to say how that's different then other modern artists/composers. We are all ears in hearing some specific examples of how other genres are not as precise as Trance.....me, wower, and b0dhi

....well maybe we'll just be too bored by then.....

 

[b0dhi]

Ruckus' argument is an affront against all other genres, not just classical. I think it's pretty clear that the only reason he's still arguing (if you can call it argument) is either 1. ego or 2. troll. His argument is very clearly absurd and he hasn't been able to justify a single one of his claims, so I guess we should stop kicking that dead horse.

Back to the OP - when I'm listening to trance, the quality I'm looking for most in headphones is that the bass kicks don't interfere with the mids. So far I haven't found a single dynamic headphone that can do strong, punchy bass without causing intermodulation distortion in the mids. Compared to multi-way speakers, this is where headphones fail miserably IMO.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ruckus' argument is an affront against all other genres, not just classical. I think it's pretty clear that the only reason he's still arguing (if you can call it argument) is either 1. ego or 2. troll. His argument is very clearly absurd and he hasn't been able to justify a single one of his claims, so I guess we should stop kicking that dead horse.

True....I only stuck with classical because Ruckus suposedly didn't "need a lecture" about classical as he's played some piano.

So I was having some fun just finding out what his own theory of music is. I think because he thinks the only "progression" for all guitarists is "progressive rock", that's just evidence enough that he's just being a zeolot for Trance.

But if we do want to talk about headphones and Trance....yeah, I find that's true for all electronica: why I like it with the exact setup I have for jazz and classical....I like full resolution. A good artist/ recording for me is one that utilizes a full range. Even genres that go for basslines....I like them to have more then just one beat.

 

[hardstyler]

I like A900, px100 and KSC75 for Trance. DT770pro don't provide enough soundstage and recessed mids don't help either. I believe mids are very important for Trance. Also I agree with people who say Trance sounds better on energetic headphones rather than laidback/warm ones.

UPDATE: Right now I'm listening to a classic track by Sasha - Xpander and it sounds fantastic on DT770pro, px100 and KSC75. Well I guess I like the track so much it will sound good anything