The Psychedelic Trance, in its entirety

[Celaripo]

Lightforce

this is what i was trying to explain on the bottome of page 5

your definition of experimental is confusing and for me what you mean is hybrid - or crossover - in the case of man with no name

experimental is something else like ubar tmar macrometasomakosmos

 

i am no expert but as far as i know artists like man with no name who combine several styles are very common

for example california sunshine also combine classic trance and goa trance in some of their tracks

no one would ever call california sunshine experimental

i think you understand my point

[Celaripo]

I understand your point of view, but if I create 2 categories, for example "Experimental" and "Uncategorized", what are the elements that allows you to differentiate them ? I mean, you'll always have albums where you'll not never know where to place them too much because it will rely more on subjective judgment. While the fact to merge these two categories into one eliminates these problems because their differentiation method then becomes much more objective in the sense that it is from a technical point of view that they are distinguished. This helps avoid endless debates and identify more easily the demarcation lines.

a very late reply to this

but i think the distinction comes with experience

experience of listening

the term experimental usually refers to music that sounds very weird and unusual that brings odd elements into classic psychedelic trance

 

i guess early on the first tracks of infected mushroom could have been refered as experimental

but then their style was copied by other artists - talpa and some others - so i guess their style became kind of popular so it was strange to call it experimental

in my opinion experimental can not sound commercial - more like the opposite of commercial

 

i think the album of quirk machina electrica could be called experimental

again i am no expert so i could be wrong

[Starkraver]

Aavepyora experiments with his sound and also the production techniques.

[Lightforce]

Ok, I understand what each of you said. The reason to regroup "true" Experimental with blends in the same category was because of the definitions. Celaripo, as you said before, you "think the distinction comes with experience, experience of listening". So its a subjective point of view, you can't prove it, you can't defend it with technical arguments, you feel it. But a definition is not a "feel", it's a technical explainations. If you take this way to write the definitions, you'll see a lot of people debate again and again endlessly on the definitions because you'll not be able to prove that these definitions are made from a logical gait, almost a scientific way of thinking that demonstrate.

The actual definition of the Experimental in the PDF avoid all of this debates because, as I said before, if I split the definition about blends side and the one from experimental side, you'll always see, for example, people challenge the presence of albums in the first category rather than in the other one ; and you'll can't reject these debates because your definitions will be based on subjective point of view. Why you're subjective point of view will be truer than theirs ? Endless debates incoming, trust me.

So, the actual definition of the Experimental can't be split. Perhaps you don't like it. But at least, it's incontestable

the over categorization of music is one of it's more destructive forces

The categorization is for listeners, not producers

Edited May 3, 2016 by Lightforce

[the goa constrictor]

It pleases me to wake up and see more people comment on the absurdity of categorizing Man With No Name as experimental.

 

Nearly all old classic Goa albums would have one or two downtempo tracks at the end of the disk. Since those albums span more than one genre are they all now experimental?

 

It's not that one subjective point of view is more accurate than another, it's that your definition is inherently wrong and too ambiguous if it leads to these discussions.

 

There is an aspect of education called Curriculum Framing Questions

They should be fact based, have a narrow set of correct answers, promote higher-level thinking

 

Here is a good introduction into it:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1_swtVK4X_2D0jxcmz4TSXx3ovA0TzjztyK2AdYzxuhE/embed?slide=id.i0

 

While I admire your work and efforts in trying to create this document, there are errors.

 

Experimental, by your definition, is:

 

A style whose origins and birth remain undetermined. it is characterized by an absence of established rules except the presence of a certain research of psychedelism in the music to be considered as part of this style. However, unlike this latter, the Experimental may be entirely free of trance elements or, on the contrary, simply consist in a mixture of various Psychedelic Trance styles.

 

His influences, musical blends and ambiences are highly variable and often unique to each artist, or even each music on each

album of one and single artist

 

Man With No Name has rules. His music is very structured and defined.

Man With No Name is not experimental.

I can ignore some of the other disagreements within the context of this article, but this one is just too much to let pass without commenting on.

[trancedigital]

And Erpland is even less of a psybient album than Arborescence. An influence on psybient, yeah. But trance as a genre didn't even exist when it was recorded, much less psytrance or psybient.

Simon Posford was heavily influenced by Erpland, so it has to be included. Please read post 185 in this thread for further clarification.

[Paul Eye]

Simon Posford was heavily influenced by Erpland, so it has to be included. Please read post 185 in this thread for further clarification.

Having an influence on a genre doesn't necessarily mean being a part of it.

 

For example, Ott was heavily influenced by artists such as King Tubby, The Orb, FSOL and Kraftwerk. Does that suddenly make them "psybient"?

What about the industrial and metal influences on (some of) early goa? Is Front242 (was actually thinking Front Line Assembly but typed that out instead) and Dream Theater suddenly "goa trance"? Or all the acid house and EBM and so on.

 

Yes, I know, it's quite oversimplified but I guess you see what I'm getting at?

[Lightforce]

Man With No Name has rules. His music is very structured and defined.

 

I've never said that the tracks produced within this genre (the Experimental) was unstructered. I said that the genre has no rules, not the tracks. It can seems blurry but for example, "The Golden Sun of the Great East" by Juno Reactor is Experimental, not because the album has no structures but because of blends and unconventional way to make it.

 

Nearly all old classic Goa albums would have one or two downtempo tracks at the end of the disk. Since those albums span more than one genre are they all now experimental?

 

I already know that and no, because if I specify in the definition of Goa Trance that it can sometimes have some Downtempo tracks at the end of the album then it's ok. The albums put in example of the definitions must follow these ones.

 

So, I have a solution to our problem : I'll add in the definition of Goa Trance that sometimes we can found some blends with "classic" Trance, move MWNN in Goa Trance section and then it will be ok because it will follow the rules

[trancedigital]

Having an influence on a genre doesn't necessarily mean being a part of it.

 

For example, Ott was heavily influenced by artists such as King Tubby, The Orb, FSOL and Kraftwerk. Does that suddenly make them "psybient"?

What about the industrial and metal influences on (some of) early goa? Is Front242 (was actually thinking Front Line Assembly but typed that out instead) and Dream Theater suddenly "goa trance"? Or all the acid house and EBM and so on.

 

Yes, I know, it's quite oversimplified but I guess you see what I'm getting at?

I agree with you when you say Ozric Tentacles is not psybient. We are only mentioning that Ozric was as an influential group in the origin of psybient music. For example: Kraftwerk is not techno but they laid the foundations for hip-hop, synth-pop, techno and house.

[abasio]

Agreed. While I think it's interesting I prefer it to be as simple as possible. I stick with just a few genres:

 

Goa

Prog

Fullon

Chill

World

Ambient

 

While I might classify things a bit more carefully in these groups, these are how my CDs and music files are organized.

[psylophyta]

First of all, let me express my appreciation to the author for the idea and the talented execution.
I love the style and the background pictures!

Now, I have some experience as an editor, so I took the liberty to provide some suggestions to the text in the LibreOffice "Changes" mode, and you can see them here:
Psytrance EN_edit.doc

 

====================================================================================

Secondly, my professional background happens to be that of botanist, and Classification being the central feature of classical botany (as well as of other classical biological sciences, such as zoology), I've become sensitive to certain philosophical aspects of it.

 

One of the first things one faces exploring the natural world is that there may be infinite variations, and they don't always fit into square boxes, as much as we would like them to. Yet there are certain natural clusters, and classification is useful to understand this basic structure, although it always needs to be remembered that it is an artificial frame of mind, and its applicability sometimes needs to be questioned.

 

So, the first thing one needs to learn when trying to create a classification is to tell the signal apart from the noise, that is to focus on significant peaks, while "allowing" individual variations to exist. I can see how one could try to give a specific style name to every particular track, nay, even every bar of music, but that would go contrary to the purpose of classification, i.e. it will create confusion rather than clarity.

 

At certain times, the variations become especially blurry on the borders. This calls for a slightly different approach. If there is a real continuum of features, the existence of independent species (in biology), or styles (in music), becomes equivocal, and the way biology deals with it is by distinguishing "subspecies" or "varieties" (sub-styles) within the larger species (style), with some individual elements not necessarily belonging to either of the "subspecies" or "varieties" but just being members of the species in the broad sense. Thus, for example, the discussion of Nitzhonot, being very confusing already with the same word meaning different things in 2 different cases, becomes almost completely useless when the splitting of hairs begins between "Nitzhonot" and "Nitzhogoa." That, in my opinion, is a perfect example of the continuum I was referring to above, and it would be, perhaps, better to distinguish "Nitzhonot" as a substyle of Goa in the sense of "subspecies" or "variety", which will allow for recognition of any number of variations between the substyle and the style proper.

 

Just my own 5 kopecks. I hope this is not too confusing. Apologies for the somewhat generic blabber, but in my opinion it is germane to the subject.

[Lightforce]

Thanks a lot psylophyta, you greatly help me to improve the english version

Anyway, I don't agree with everything you said in your version. I'll take the time to explain you about all of that.

I'll post as soon I'll be free of my work

Edited May 18, 2016 by Lightforce

[Agneton]

First of all, let me express my appreciation to the author for the idea and the talented execution.

I love the style and the background pictures!

 

Now, I have some experience as an editor, so I took the liberty to provide some suggestions to the text in the LibreOffice "Changes" mode, and you can see them here:

Psytrance EN_edit.doc

 

====================================================================================

Secondly, my professional background happens to be that of botanist, and Classification being the central feature of classical botany (as well as of other classical biological sciences, such as zoology), I've become sensitive to certain philosophical aspects of it.

 

One of the first things one faces exploring the natural world is that there may be infinite variations, and they don't always fit into square boxes, as much as we would like them to. Yet there are certain natural clusters, and classification is useful to understand this basic structure, although it always needs to be remembered that it is an artificial frame of mind, and its applicability sometimes needs to be questioned.

 

So, the first thing one needs to learn when trying to create a classification is to tell the signal apart from the noise, that is to focus on significant peaks, while "allowing" individual variations to exist. I can see how one could try to give a specific style name to every particular track, nay, even every bar of music, but that would go contrary to the purpose of classification, i.e. it will create confusion rather than clarity.

 

At certain times, the variations become especially blurry on the borders. This calls for a slightly different approach. If there is a real continuum of features, the existence of independent species (in biology), or styles (in music), becomes equivocal, and the way biology deals with it is by distinguishing "subspecies" or "varieties" (sub-styles) within the larger species (style), with some individual elements not necessarily belonging to either of the "subspecies" or "varieties" but just being members of the species in the broad sense. Thus, for example, the discussion of Nitzhonot, being very confusing already with the same word meaning different things in 2 different cases, becomes almost completely useless when the splitting of hairs begins between "Nitzhonot" and "Nitzhogoa." That, in my opinion, is a perfect example of the continuum I was referring to above, and it would be, perhaps, better to distinguish "Nitzhonot" as a substyle of Goa in the sense of "subspecies" or "variety", which will allow for recognition of any number of variations between the substyle and the style proper.

 

Just my own 5 kopecks. I hope this is not too confusing. Apologies for the somewhat generic blabber, but in my opinion it is germane to the subject.

Please listen Holymen - Last Universe (Nitzhonot) and compare it to something like Goalien - Agressor (Nitzhogoa). That should make the distinguishment clear. Difference is huge on all levels.

[Lightforce]

Apart from the majority of your english language corrections, I think we can debate about some things.
Ok, let's begin :

- about Acid Trance, it's a style of Trance, the term is correct. Here are some examples of what is Acid Trance :

- about sonorities : I already have explained this at page 63 of the PDF but what I call "sonorities" is whether it sound "organic" or "metallic/synthetic"

- about Buddhism references : why did you striked them ? You have a lot of references to Buddhism too. Just look at the names of many artists such as "Amithaba Buddha", "Lost Buddha", "Space Buddha", "Battle of the Future Buddhas", "Laughing Buddha",... and even many tracks names like "Ganesha Pramana" (Corolle by Khetzal),...etc. In fact I've caught your drift but you can't tell "Hindu mythology and mysticism" in general because India is composed from several other religions or widespread sects. 95% of the time you'll don't see references to one of them. Maybe I should pay more attention to that but I only know Afgin for including some Islamic prayers in his tracks like these ones :

- about Transhumanism : I know it well, you'll not say that current progress allow us to reach the level of Cyberpunk creations like Deus Ex - Human revolution ? So, in many case, it's still science-fiction

- about Old School Goa Trance : why only "early-mid of 90's" ? Old School one didn't hands over to New School one until 2003. But maybe it's because of our perception of what is Old School/New School. For me it's a matter of something between complexity, blends with psytrance sub-styles and production technics.

- about the "Neo Goa" term : I maintain it. It's still often used to designate New School Goa Trance. What will you do if tomorrow, someone build a label called "Goa Trance" ? You'll stop using this term because it will now be used by a label ? The "Neo Goa" term already exists before the "Neogoa" label appeared

That's all, and again thanks for your help Edited May 19, 2016 by Lightforce

[psylophyta]

Damn, just lost a huge reply that I typed in. Fucking Chrome.

 

So, to keep it short now:

 

1) Ganesha is not a Buddhist term, it's a Hindu deity. For a basic intro to Hinduism, see this.

FYI, Buddha is recognized in Hinduism as an incarnation of Lord Vishnu. So, it's safe to refer to elements of Hinduism in psytrance that even include some Buddhist concepts, but, perhaps, not the other way around. I know some basics of Buddhism from personal study, and most people seem to misunderstand it.

Besides, perhaps, the most recognized symbol of psytrance is the TIP Records' logo, e.g.:

which is the face of Lord Shiva, a Hindu deity.

 

The symbol "Om", used in so much of the cover art:

 

is a Hindu symbol.

 

So much just for that one sentence!

 

I appreciate all your other explanations.

 

2) One other thing I would like to discuss is why Transmissions (by Juno Reactor) was put into Proto-Goa? In my mind, it is the essential classic goa album, which largely originated the genre (apart from a few EPs and the Dragonfly's Project II Trance compilation, which was released just a few months earlier but is much less listenable, IMO).

[abasio]

Project II Trance unlistenable?

I still love this compilation

[Lightforce]

 

Ganesha is not a Buddhist term, it's a Hindu deity.

 

What an idiot am I, you're right. Yet I knew it but I wrote too fast

[psylophyta]

What an idiot am I, you're right. Yet I knew it but I wrote too fast

Ha-ha! No worries, but the truth is I've heard many people refer to the TIP Records' Shiva image as a "Buddha." Many terms and ideas can be found both in Buddhism and Hinduism (e.g. reincarnation, etc.), but in general, IMO, Buddhism is a much more austere religion that does not include much of the flowery and psychedelic type of stuff one sees in Hinduism (except, perhaps, for some shamanic references, which are, yet again, rather shamanic than Buddhist).

[psylophyta]

How about replacing the term "Buddhist" with the term "occult"? Much more proper, and all-inclusive, in my opinion. Also, some of the things you list under "science fiction" are rather that (occult) than sci-fi. In fact, they are not sci-fi at all. But I've said that already.

[Lightforce]

How about replacing the term "Buddhist" with the term "occult"? Much more proper, and all-inclusive, in my opinion. Also, some of the things you list under "science fiction" are rather that (occult) than sci-fi. In fact, they are not sci-fi at all. But I've said that already.

 

For me, these styles which you speak belong rather to Fantasy (and I've already mention this term in the definition) than "Occultism" because behind this latter there is the idea that it would be only maleficent.

[psylophyta]

For me, these styles which you speak belong rather to Fantasy (and I've already mention this term in the definition) than "Occultism" because behind this latter there is the idea that it would be only maleficent.

Really? That is a very limited view of occultism, in my opinion. So, I would like to move on, if you don't mind. Let's leave Buddhism in (I've remembered the Goa-Head compilations). I would like to change your views that such things as mysticism and occultism belong only to the area of fiction, but perhaps I will do it another time!

[psylophyta]

Hi Lightforce, I would like to do some more editing on the file. Hope you don't mind? Do you know how to read in the "Changes" mode? (Sorry if it is a dumb question.) You can basically go change-by-change (note that some deletes and replacements can get very boring), or you can switch between the new and old versions (you could also, I guess, save them as different files, and compare next to each other). Or you could just Approve All Changes, and paste the new text into your PDF (<-- best way ). You can typically find all the necessary commands in the Edit menu.

 

Note that I've done some more changes in the first few pages. Let's wait a bit more before the final version. You are welcome to edit the file. It will be great to collaborate.

[Lightforce]

Thanks for your work, I've updated the PDF next to your modifications, don't hesitate to check it again

 

To the others : I'll notify officially about an update when this work of translation will be finished.

 

EDIT : there is a misunderstand about the words put next to the parentheses. The elements under parentheses are about "fantastic", "fantasy" and "science-fiction", not only "science-fiction" (and I maintain "transhumanism" as science-fiction because it's still partially fiction).

 

EDIT 2 : "Goa Trance is a sub-style that is not encumbered from the throes of creating more derivatives to present different ambiences" => I'd like to keep a sentence that ressemble more to this one, have you any idea ?

Edited May 22, 2016 by Lightforce

[psylophyta]

Thanks for your work, I've updated the PDF next to your modifications, don't hesitate to check it again

 

To the others : I'll notify officially about an update when this work of translation will be finished.

 

EDIT : there is a misunderstand about the words put next to the parentheses. The elements under parentheses are about "fantastic", "fantasy" and "science-fiction", not only "science-fiction" (and I maintain "transhumanism" as science-fiction because it's still partially fiction.

 

EDIT 2 : "Goa Trance is a sub-style that is not encumbered from the throes of creating more derivatives to present different ambiences" => I'd like to keep a sentence that ressemble more to this one, have you any idea ?

Ok, thanks!

 

1) I don't want to focus on such hair-splitting details too much, but in my opinion, mysticism and shamanism do not belong in any of these categories. I suggest adding the word "occult" in addition to the fictional categories you mention.

 

2) "Encumbered by the throes", I believe, is the correct expression. It sounds ok otherwise.

 

[Lightforce]

OK, I've updated it. Go check again, I've also added the "occultism" word in the definition