lundi 28 Avr 2008, 15h58m

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, Tiesto, 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, Solarstone, Orjan, M.I.K.E.