Hitler really hates the new Infected Mushroom album

[Ormion]

This is my last reply in this thread because there's not use to continue this discussion.

 

After the ''creation'' of a music genre onc in a while an artist/group releases an album that differs so much from the norm.

This is what IM did IMO<-See? I wrote IMO.

 

Back in 1998 (the year bwhale was born) when the Psycho track was released it was something so fresh and original that no other (at least known) goa track sounded similar.

When the Gathering was released more of the tracks in there were something new.

Not because of the 'IM sound'. Every artist back then had his own sound. But because it changed so much the goa formula that most ppl (including me) don't classify Gathering as goa. Its melodies didn't have the oriental feeling of most goa tracks, but they had a more classical sound in them (check out the whole Montoya (remix) track) or the final part of Return Of The Shadows.

 

One year later they released Classical Mushroom, which it was something out of the blue.

Not because they added some classical samples in th tracks. Big deal. But how they created a new Classical psy theme.

Check out Dracul for example which is the closest I can think of a Classical psytrance without adding any real organs! (Except some symphonic synths in the start).

 

 

bwhale dislikes IM, which I completelly understand and that he believes that IM are copycats.

Just because I dislike some albums that doesn't change the fact that these albums created their own unique sound, leaving behind the classic goa formula.

 

Planet BEN-Trippy Future Garden is one revolutionary album, but I never really liked it THAT much.

Xenomorph-Cassandra's Nightmare is one revolutionary album, but I know many ppl who hate this kind of dark stuff. Does that change the fact that is revolutionary?

 

Just my 2 cents, bye bye now, enjoy fighting with the troll

[bwhale]

I think the whole discussion is interesting on a meta-level. Not just about Infected Mushroom, but how one defines music as revolutionary. I do think that some people would agree on some artists being revolutionary (however, is Elvis really the first one to start rock 'n roll? Don't think so? Was he revolutionary? What does it depend on?) but it seems that opinions about a lot of other artists, albums, styles, influences etc. go both ways.

That's nice you think it's interesting. As I've already said it's like discussing how one decides if a tower is tall or not. I hope your philosophical abilities extend a little deeper than this (though I suspect you're probably limited to saying nothing of substance, playing the relativistic card at all opportunities, and reciting latin names for fallacies).

[Snapinho]

That's nice you think it's interesting. As I've already said it's like discussing how one decides if a tower is tall or not. I hope your philosophical abilities extend a little deeper than this (though I suspect you're probably limited to saying nothing of substance, playing the relativistic card at all opportunities, and reciting latin names for fallacies).

You're doing it again.

 

No arguments whatsoever.

[Snapinho]

Against better judgment here goes...

 

If you really think that deciding which music is more revolutionary (and that's not even the discussion... the only thing we're talking about is whether Infected Mushroom were revolutionary or not, something I have no opinion on) is like deciding which tower is taller, then please be so kind as to provide us with some standards, so all of us can understand where you're coming from, and decide together with you.

 

Give us that measuring tape, please.

[bwhale]

You're doing it again.

 

No arguments whatsoever.

I don't call myself a philosopher since modern society has confused the term with pussy. Yes I made an argument and I presented it sandwiched between several ad hominems which pussy philosophers these days cry about but aren't really fallacies. This is one of my favorite styles to use.

[bwhale]

Against better judgment here goes...

 

If you really think that deciding which music is more revolutionary (and that's not even the discussion... the only thing we're talking about is whether Infected Mushroom were revolutionary or not, something I have no opinion on) is like deciding which tower is taller, then please be so kind as to provide us with some standards, so all of us can understand where you're coming from, and decide together with you.

 

Give us that measuring tape, please.

This is no secret, I've already told you.

 

rev⋅o⋅lu⋅tion⋅ar⋅y

–adjective

1. of, pertaining to, characterized by, or of the nature of a revolution, or a sudden, complete, or marked change: a revolutionary junta.

2. radically new or innovative; outside or beyond established procedure, principles, etc.: a revolutionary discovery.

It's a little more difficult than comparing two towers, but if you understand the established procedures at the time and then compare them to a new album you should be able to judge how revolutionary it was or wasn't.

[Ormion]

rev⋅o⋅lu⋅tion⋅ar⋅y

–adjective

1. of, pertaining to, characterized by, or of the nature of a revolution, or a sudden, complete, or marked change: a revolutionary junta.

2. radically new or innovative; outside or beyond established procedure, principles, etc.: a revolutionary discovery.

You just described Classical Mushroom.

[Snapinho]

It's a little more difficult than comparing two towers, but if you understand the established procedures at the time and then compare them to a new album you should be able to judge how revolutionary it was or wasn't.

Alright.

 

Other people have told us exactly this; why, given what they said were established procedures at the time, Infected Mushroom provided something completely new, which changed the way people in that particular scene saw their style.

 

Since I wasn't listening to trance in 2000, I find it hard to decide whether they were really revolutionary. To me it seems they have their own style, which is very recognizable. I'm not a very big trance-fan, but do find it easy to recognize IM's music when I hear it. Now I don't confuse that with being revolutionary, but I do feel you have given no arguments why you disagree. Give some examples why it's not groundbreaking for you.

 

And you can use all the ad hominems you want, I don't really care, cause your taste in music sucks anyway ( ) . But if you want to have a discussion, you better provide some arguments about the subject we're discussing... let me put it simply: "Why is Infected Mushroom's music not revolutionary?"

 

Should be easy to answer for you, right?

[supergroover]

You just described Classical Mushroom.

why is it revolutionary? give some examples...

fe 1: they were the first to use hihats

fe 2: they were the first to use sudden stops

fe 3: they were the first to sing out of tune

[bwhale]

Elysium already provided a really good basis a page or two ago.

 

Listen to Sandman and you can't really tell the tracks apart from IM, except maybe IM has slightly better production. Throw in some of the others he mentioned like GNOTR, Tandu and MFG, maybe Tarsis, and you pretty much have discovered the roots of their music. Suddenly it doesn't seem all that new and original after all. If you've never heard these other earlier artists you might otherwise arrive at the wrong conclusions.

[Ormion]

why is it revolutionary? give some examples...

fe 1: they were the first to use hihats

fe 2: they were the first to use sudden stops

fe 3: they were the first to sing out of tune

 

So for you revolutonary is the album that first used hi hats?

Cause according to that theory NONE goa artist is.

 

Goa/psy trance is a specific genre. Diversed sure, yet specific. What is revolutionary psy or not, is what is revolutionary inside this genre.

 

I guess for you revolutionary is only:

 

1)The first artists that are responsible for the creation of goa trance (which I agree)

 

2) An album so revolutionary that changes every given psy formula.

Have you ever thought then that this album won't be psytrance anymore then?

 

 

And to answer your question.

 

Classical Mushroom is revolutionary cause it adapted classical elements (elements not samples) in it, without changing the fact that it remained a psytrance album.

 

No one did that before, yet many did (or tried to do it) after.

This is what is revolutionary for me.

[Ormion]

Elysium already provided a really good basis a page or two ago.

 

Listen to Sandman and you can't really tell the tracks apart from IM, except maybe IM has slightly better production. Throw in some of the others he mentioned like GNOTR, Tandu and MFG, maybe Tarsis, and you pretty much have discovered the roots of their music. Suddenly it doesn't seem all that new and original after all. If you've never heard these other earlier artists you might otherwise arrive at the wrong conclusions.

You know what? That's right.

 

IM only had better production.

Oh yes their music is similar to MFG or Tarsis. How didn't I see that before?

 

And GNOTR. Yes GNOTR and IM are one and the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOT! :wank:

[supergroover]

I gave example examples so you could fill it in with examples from the album

You can make em as genre specific as you want like: they were the first to raise the pitch in hihats over the total length of the sample. But i see you are saying:

 

they are revolutionary because:

1) it adapted classical elements (elements not samples) in it, without changing the fact that it remained a psytrance album.

[Ormion]

I gave example examples so you could fill it in with examples from the album

You can make em as genre specific as you want like: they were the first to raise the pitch in hihats over the total length of the sample. But i see you are saying:

 

they are revolutionary because:

1) it adapted classical elements (elements not samples) in it, without changing the fact that it remained a psytrance album.

I don't see any reason to break down Classical Mushroom into details. Because details never been revolutionary.

What do you expect me to say?

That CM is revolutionary because it used a different hi-hats pattern or because it had flawless mastering or something like that?

 

No, I already said why CM is revolutionary for me and it's a pretty strong statement.

 

Can you give me some examples of revolutionary albums according to you?

[supergroover]

ormion, i am not attacking you here. just trying to clear up the argument that is going on. It's not about my opinions or views at the moment

[Ormion]

ormion, i am not attacking you here. just trying to clear up the argument that is going on. It's not about my opinions or views at the moment

I know that man, don't worry.

I'm not attacking you either.

Sorry If I sounded harsh.

 

The reason I'm asking which are your revolutionary albums is to trying to understand what's the definition of revolutionary psytrance album according to you.

[mike.54]

they play Disco Mushroom @Warehouse St.Pölten 2009

[bwhale]

Here's an album I consider revolutionary... totally pioneering goa/psy trance (more so in other tracks lol), cited as the inspiration for AP (who in turn inspired IM 8 years later)... and look... they integrated classical (and opera) sounds in some tracks! (More heavily than IM, granted.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2G7zZc3v6c

 

But anyways, I hypothesize most artists didn't use so many direct classical sounds because it's actually not as creative as creating their own sounds and atmospheres for tracks, rather than using something that's been around already for hundreds of years. So I really struggle to call such seeming relapses revolutionary. Either way, I think you will find IM extremely similar to Sandman if you listen to both, though Sandman doesn't use any direct classical sounds. I refuse to count IM as some great revolutionaries because I can point very easily at their influences: Sandman's style + synths from a popular genre of music hundreds of years old. Brilliant! Absolute genius! How could they ever come up with that?!?! :wank:

[Ormion]

Here's an album I consider revolutionary... totally pioneering goa/psy trance (more so in other tracks lol), cited as the inspiration for AP (who in turn inspired IM 8 years later)... and look... they integrated classical (and opera) sounds in some tracks! (More heavily than IM, granted.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2G7zZc3v6c

 

But anyways, I hypothesize most artists didn't use so many direct classical sounds because it's actually not as creative as creating their own sounds and atmospheres for tracks, rather than using something that's been around already for hundreds of years. So I really struggle to call such seeming relapses revolutionary. Either way, I think you will find IM extremely similar to Sandman if you listen to both, though Sandman doesn't use any direct classical sounds. I refuse to count IM as some great revolutionaries because I can point very easily at their influences: Sandman's style + synths from a popular genre of music hundreds of years old. Brilliant! Absolute genius! How could they ever come up with that?!?! :wank:

1) Trilithon indeed are revolutionary, but I can't see what their style have to do with CM.

 

2) Sandman music is and remains revolutionary, but apart some metalic/dark sounds I don't see any resemblance with IM.

 

3) I already told you like a million of times that ther reason CM is revolutionary isn't because they added synths from a popular genre of music hundreds of years old.

Dracul doesn't even have any piano line or other classical organ in it, except some symphonic synths in the start, yet it's the only real classical psy I have ever listened.

 

 

Bye , bye now.

[Psyvox]

This is so stupid. The whole approach is flawed, pointless and inappropriate.

 

Exactly HOW is it relevant how revolutionary Classical Mushroom was, from the point of view of music as an ARTFORM (NOT as a form of entertainment, in the sense of Hollywood movies, TV Shows and all the other stuff people mentally jerk off to, always demanding a new wave of innovative, concentrated, low-level ideas)?

 

"Using hihats for the first time?" Are you guys serious??

 

Alright, then: Beethoven was a copy cat too, 'cause he used violins in his symphonies. Does that make his work any less genius?

 

You know what. If this thread reflects the views of most psytrance listeners, then maybe it's not that bad that Infected Mushroom are making psychedelic pop now. Their current music is not far from the intellectual development of the public; anything of more quality than that would be a waste, an over-kill -- it will reach very few, and it will probably be shamelessly thrown mud at once again by the always-so-self-confident mediocrity.

 

Perhaps.. after a few years.. more people will get to understand the genius that was required for the synth solo at the middle of "Nothing Comes Easy".

 

Let's release the guilt from Duvdev, and instead orient the target of the tragic accident remark towards bwhale.

[bwhale]

Exactly HOW is it relevant how revolutionary Classical Mushroom was, from the point of view of music as an ARTFORM (NOT as a form of entertainment, in the sense of Hollywood movies, TV Shows and all the other stuff people mentally jerk off to, always demanding a new wave of innovative, concentrated, low-level ideas)?

This music is not only about arrangement though, but about making the instruments as well.

 

"Using hihats for the first time?" Are you guys serious??

Nope, it was a joke. :wank:

[reger]

some get Etnica but refuse to acknowledge Chrome's undisputable superiority, blasphemy & delusion!

You and your Chrome again NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !

[Elysium]

Elysium already provided a really good basis a page or two ago.

 

Listen to Sandman and you can't really tell the tracks apart from IM, except maybe IM has slightly better production. Throw in some of the others he mentioned like GNOTR, Tandu and MFG, maybe Tarsis, and you pretty much have discovered the roots of their music. Suddenly it doesn't seem all that new and original after all. If you've never heard these other earlier artists you might otherwise arrive at the wrong conclusions.

Not exactly what I wrote. I wrote that I could hear certain elements in IM's music which I had heard before in example Sandman and MFG among other artists. I never said I could not tell them apart from Sandman & Co.

 

This debate has really gone lost in the Woods with a lot of assuming and people not really respecting or accepting other people’s views and opinions.

 

My first and only point was that maybe people should move on instead of keep complaining about IM not making the same music anymore. As I wrote I don't think they really care and your complaints on an underground forum won’t change a thing

 

And then I peacefully wrote what I think about IM (IMO they are not that special and not at all pioneers) and how I believe they have been heavily inspired by some pioneers from (especially Israel and UK) who IM grew up with and how I personally can hear it in their music and the sounds they used as well as the way they made the melodies. This was also based on some knowledge about Erez's favorites and huge inspiration source prior to his own debut release with IM.

 

It's nice to debate but both sides in this debate have a hard time listening to each other’s points I think

[mephistopheles]

That's possible too.

 

But since he's the one who sings, then he's the one we hate too.

 

sad but true....

[Otto Matta]

LOL at including Tarsis.

 

Stupid argument in a thread about a funny video.