Again, maybe there is no objective definition of trance. There are new tracks I call trance & like. Same with progressive.What i meant with that was actually about the labelling. It's a play on words and meaning, like saying the referee is always right even when he's wrong.
And yeah, if you dislike the newer "Trance" styles, it has more to do with that than the labelling, if you ask me. Trance has evolved. If you listen to older rock from the 60's, it'll also sound different from todays rock music. And where generally people would call everything older than the 20th century "classical" music, I actually distinguish between arte antica, arte nova, gregorian, baroque, romance, impressionism etc. But that doesn't mean I enjoy each one less or more just because of their labels.
My local classic FM radio plays them all, and you won't hear me ***** at them for playing baroque even tho it's a classical music radio channel.
Just listen to it if you like it, if you don't, let it go and let others enjoy it.
Again, maybe there is no objective definition of trance. There are new tracks I call trance & like. Same with progressive.
I doubt you would say I should be quiet if Hardwell or Skrillex played in this even though there is no provable difference than these tracks.
& baroque is a classical genre!
Don't know what else to say...
Yes that is one sense of the word, for a subgenre of Classical (another sense). Classic essentially means old. If stuff from ancient Greece is called classical & stuff from 19th century is, stuff between is.No. Baroque (1600-1750) came before Classic (19th century).
I don't accept all of that, but we can continue this later. Must go now. I think most of that could only be called "semitrance" at most.But yeah I'll complain when they start playing Skrillex's dubstep or Garrix's Big Room shizz on a trance channel. But not this, because this is just trance evolved into something new. Call it trance 2.0 if you will.