Psyreviews RIP?

General Discussion about the PsyTrance scene, way of life, etc.
70 posts Page 3 of 3

 

FeralBrown
Posts: 5944
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 2:26 pm


Pure__Ignorance wrote :
I don't make any sense even to myself. Today must be going to be a happy day.

:lol: :lol: :)


Nah, I "get it", and agree completely... I think you were definately on the right track by saying "PSYCHOACTIVE" rather than "PSYCHEDELIC", too...

 

ATREYU
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 2:07 pm


simon wrote :
FRACAS wrote :
Psychedelic is whatever you perceive it to be....one persons version of psychedelic may be far different from anothers. Just because a genre doesn't have "psy" infront of it does not mean its not psychedelic...


so that begs the question, why do we put psy infront of trance for the music we listen to?. obviously psy trance is different to tiesto trance... but what makes it different? if there is no common set of things that make something psy then every form of music is psychedelic. Like rog quoted, we might as well just prefix life with "psy". But there is a difference between trance and psytrance, or nu-nrg and psytrance that warrants the prefix. So that means that there must be something that the majority of people can agree on makes this music 'psychedelic'. simply adhering to the definition "mind manifesting" is not enough, as all music fits this, to a degree.

Just like techno music... if we went by the definition of the word 'techno', all electronic music is techno. But techno music has a definition, which doesnt strictly adhere to the dictionary meaning of techno. Its the same with psytrance.


Tiesto trance uses arpegiators and key changes in the melodies but the frequency and resonance is not tweaked much if at all. Psy trance has a lot more Tweaking and effect action happening. A lot of the new Shit trance like the new "Wet and Wild" compilation is music with a psy bassline , euro trance/electro melodies and cheesy barbie girl vocals over the top.
Ironically enough these cheesy releases sell much more than the quality psy.

Psy- to me is the mind expanding factor- the aspect that "Tweaks" my mind. Stuff that Trips u out. The best Psy induces out of body experiences, brings tears to my eyes, gives me energy that goes straight through me into my heart and explodes out reassuring me of the amazing magic that exists inside life itself.

It is hard to find new good Mornng psy these days. There is shit loads of supa psychedelic Night music. Artists like "Furious, Ocelot, the russian night sound, Illuminati, Vertigo etc are expanding the boundaries soo much that its hard to keep up.


My fav cd lately is the new "TRYAMBAKA" album. It has a bit of everything, sick rolling basslines tweaked night synth lines, twinklin melodies, sorta similar to Dark Soho. + The "CALAMAR AUDIO" album from Antiscarp rec is supa funky mind twisting melodic yummyness.

Wyrd to your mother. :thumb:

On another note. I think that as people get older they get more lazy and dance less. The less you DANCE, the less u TRANCE. U have to give the music your all, body and mind to experience the music to its fullest. The trance experience is heightened by pushing the boundaries of your own movement. Let the music flow through u. Feel the force.

 

brainstorma
Posts: 3626
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2002 5:22 pm


venatrix wrote :
FeralBrown wrote :
politicians voice their minds


They don't have minds, they are devil dog alien scum who toe the party line. Except for that hot bitch Julia Gillard.


you been listening to to much gwar again havent you

 

Gora
Posts: 466
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:40 am


My fav cd lately is the new "TRYAMBAKA" album. It has a bit of everything, sick rolling basslines tweaked night synth lines, twinklin melodies, sorta similar to Dark Soho. + The "CALAMAR AUDIO" album from Antiscarp rec is supa funky mind twisting melodic yummyness.



He's got the taste! 8)

 

reik
Posts: 672
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 12:22 pm


Being not too current with the latest music I can't say if the golden age of psytrance is actually over but for me I still love the music, particularly the older music and festivals (1997-2002) and the feeling from the music will live on within me for life, with nothing else coming close so far. It is music for everyday no matter what you are doing!

Highlights were Miko from 1997 or '98 (Redfern warehouse), Koxbox from 2000 (Sydney uni), early IM (SD Festivals), Atmos (old Greater Union cinemas), Sesto Sento, Astrix, Alien Project, GMS (various SD festivals), Earthdance by Trancendance, Trancendance itself and parties under Moonee Moonee Bridge to name a few. 5 Weeks in Goa in 1998 was pretty rad as well.

After the Yahel, Protoculture and Sirius Isness music I lost interest in parties, they became an occassional release which soon wore thin and disappeared from my life. These days it would be hard to find one in this part of the world anyway.

I also feel that unless a person has some involvement in the scene I see few reasons why they would continually go to parties and mess up their mind and body, listening to and enjoying the music are a different story.

The best experiences I have had from psytrance were standing on the dance floor and feeling the various levels of the music going through my body at its different levels.

House, DnB, HipHop, Rap, Pop or Rock don't do that for me so I would say that psytrance and the feelings that it invokes will live on.

Classic music didn't die with Ludwig Van so why should psy?

 

silly the kid
Posts: 555
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 4:26 pm


It's the "grrrrrr" and the "shwing shwing" and the "yee.....HAH!" and the....how do you say it?

 

venatrix
Posts: 2795
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:43 pm


this thread needs more lance

 

raptor
Posts: 1483
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 4:51 am


eat static was psychedelic as all fuck (not just my manifestation and experience of it but alot of people also manifested this)

im suprised alot of people who responded in this thread didnt show up seeing how theythinkpsychedelic music is elusive..eat static not psychedelic enough for you or does lucy in the sky with diamonds have to pour out of the speakers aswell and straight into your bloodstream via your ears? That said..im not suprised at all they didnt show up

:roll:

 

itchytriggerniggerfingers
Posts: 2288
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 9:39 pm


Raptor wrote :
eat static was psychedelic as all fuck (not just my manifestation and experience of it but alot of people also manifested this)

im suprised alot of people who responded in this thread didnt show up seeing how theythinkpsychedelic music is elusive..eat static not psychedelic enough for you or does lucy in the sky with diamonds have to pour out of the speakers aswell and straight into your bloodstream via your ears? That said..im not suprised at all they didnt show up

:roll:



I wouldn't take it to heart, remember we have just come out of the silly season (does it ever end?) People are pretty broke - especially if they have been to 1 or more festivals over the summer (monsoon?) season.

Also there could be any number of other reasons they didn't turn up - maybe they didn't like the other dj's on the lineup, maybe because it was in a club, the weather... The only thing I would take from it is that you can't please 100% of the people all the time. Just keep doing what you believe in :)

 

raptor
Posts: 1483
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 4:51 am


itchytriggerniggerfingers wrote :
Raptor wrote :
eat static was psychedelic as all fuck (not just my manifestation and experience of it but alot of people also manifested this)

im suprised alot of people who responded in this thread didnt show up seeing how theythinkpsychedelic music is elusive..eat static not psychedelic enough for you or does lucy in the sky with diamonds have to pour out of the speakers aswell and straight into your bloodstream via your ears? That said..im not suprised at all they didnt show up

:roll:



I wouldn't take it to heart, remember we have just come out of the silly season (does it ever end?) People are pretty broke - especially if they have been to 1 or more festivals over the summer (monsoon?) season.

Also there could be any number of other reasons they didn't turn up - maybe they didn't like the other dj's on the lineup, maybe because it was in a club, the weather... The only thing I would take from it is that you can't please 100% of the people all the time. Just keep doing what you believe in :)


I dont take it to heart! ive been producing parties for over 12 years now and im used to it all.. 8)
pillarmarie
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 5:36 pm


One of the best set's of Rainbow.......

Congratulation's you did good, what can we say!!!!!!!

How Proud yOu must feel,

seven@pillarvalley.com

 

itchytriggerniggerfingers
Posts: 2288
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 9:39 pm


Raptor wrote :
I dont take it to heart! ive been producing parties for over 12 years now and im used to it all.. 8)



I know bro, still when you put your heart & soul into promoting a gig it would be nice to get a full house 8)

 

brainstorma
Posts: 3626
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2002 5:22 pm


Raptor wrote :
eat static was psychedelic as all fuck (not just my manifestation and experience of it but alot of people also manifested this)

im suprised alot of people who responded in this thread didnt show up seeing how theythinkpsychedelic music is elusive..eat static not psychedelic enough for you or does lucy in the sky with diamonds have to pour out of the speakers aswell and straight into your bloodstream via your ears? That said..im not suprised at all they didnt show up

:roll:


if i was passed out in the back of my car in atruck stop in teh hume high way trying ot get back to sydney form melbourne i would have been there

and yes they are one of the most psycodelic life acts i have ever seen

 

FeralBrown
Posts: 5944
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 2:26 pm


Lui- Yeah, Eat Static are one of the acts I'd still label as the "real thing"... but that kinda brings me onto a point... I don't party too much anymore, so it's not like I've overexposed myself to psy and it's therefore lost its magic or whatever... If anything when I do get to a psy party/doof I'm keen as fuck to have my mind affected musically... it just doesn't seem to be as PSYCHOACTIVE anymore...
I also noticed you didn't say what "psychedelic music" is to you, you just pulled out the semantics (which are vague- no one has answered my question about "what" manifests in "whose" mind for music (or art) to be defined "psychedelic")

Saying what "psychedelic music" is is a tricky thing... I guess a summary of psychedelic dance music is "subtly dynamic danceable soundscapes" (to me)- a definite prerequisite is that it has to mentally captivating/enchanting... I guess the thing I've noticed is that the art of subtlety has (largely) been lost somewhere along the way... this loss seems to make the underlying formulas stick out like a sore thumb, generally. I like a massive array of musical styles, so it's not that I'm overly against what gets produced these days, it's just that I don't believe it to be particularly captivating/psychedelic.

 

simon
Posts: 2944
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2001 8:33 pm


Raptor wrote :
eat static was psychedelic as all fuck (not just my manifestation and experience of it but alot of people also manifested this)

im suprised alot of people who responded in this thread didnt show up seeing how theythinkpsychedelic music is elusive..eat static not psychedelic enough for you or does lucy in the sky with diamonds have to pour out of the speakers aswell and straight into your bloodstream via your ears? That said..im not suprised at all they didnt show up

:roll:


well if you're referring to me i would of loved to have come as i love eat static and do think they are right on the money. yes, i would say they know what makes psy trance psy trance. But seeing as i provide for 3 people off a tiny wage and like to spend my weekend with my daughter rather than being too tired or asleep, i had to pass. if it wasnt for the rain the whole fam would of been at RS6 as it would let me be with the fam. I cannot take my 2 year old to a club, she would never pass for 18 :(

I agree totally with feral brown and Pure__Ignorance (i totally undersand what you're trying to say man) re the psychedelic issue. Please note that im not saying the music sucks, just that the signal to noise ratio is reveresed from what it was in the past. and i believe it to be this way because many producers dont understand what made psy trance different from normal trance music.

 

boondocksaint
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:37 am


Definitely agree with Simon. To say that music is ‘psychedelic’ because it manifests in the mind as psychedelic completely begs the question. One can still ask the question: what about the music’s manifestation made it ‘psychedelic’ in your view? It cannot just be that the music sounds great to your ears (‘manifest in your mind’) – plenty of music sounds great without one calling it ‘psychedelic’. There is a reason people call Pink Floyd psychedelic but don’t call Neil Young psychedelic, although you might appreciate and realise musical brilliance in both. We are talking about a unique property of the music that is present in some of Artifakt’s stuff and not present in most (all?!) of Skazi.

I think the problem here is reducing a property of the music – the property of psychedelicness – to a subjective state of the trancer. If you are listening to psychedelic music – take Artifakt II – and you appreciate that the music is psychedelic, you tap into a quality of the music. Your tapping in does not create the quality. And you might think something is psychedelic but be completely wrong about it. Also, if you left a psychedelic album on in your room, and there was no one there to hear it, the music playing would still be psychedelic. This is the same for music appreciation in general: Some people find Mozart brilliant, others may not. Mozart’s work would be brilliant even if no one ever heard it but him.

Still, I realise that the concepts of ‘psychedelic’ or ‘musical brilliance’ are themselves dependent on human minds in one sense. And that is the sense in which these aesthetic properties would not exist without humans – dogs or lions, for example, cannot write or appreciate music. The ability to appreciate or create art for art’s sake is a uniquely human ability, so without humans these properties of ‘psychedelic’ or ‘musical brilliance’ would admittedly not exist. This does not mean the concepts are subjective things or ‘manifest in the mind’. Art can be understood or it can be misunderstood. If someone doesn’t ‘get’ what makes Artifakt’s music so good, they just don’t ‘get it’. Artistic properties can be noticed and understood, or missed and misunderstood.

As for the question ‘what is psychedelic’? (artifakt’s track under this name probably attempts to stand as a musical answer to this question).. it certainly seems like a very hard quality to explain! FeralBrown has made some definite headway with ‘I guess a summary of psychedelic dance music is "subtly dynamic danceable soundscapes" (to me)- a definite prerequisite is that it has to mentally captivating/enchanting... I guess the thing I've noticed is that the art of subtlety has (largely) been lost somewhere along the way... this loss seems to make the underlying formulas stick out like a sore thumb, generally. I like a massive array of musical styles, so it's not that I'm overly against what gets produced these days, it's just that I don't believe it to be particularly captivating/psychedelic.’

The words ‘psychedelic’ and ‘trippy’ often seem interchangeable. Psychedelic music sometimes seems to have the quality of playing tricks on your mind in some way. The truly psychedelic takes your mind on a journey that can sometimes seem overwhelming or hard to fully take in. I think uniqueness or the ‘unexpectedness’ of psychedelic music is important. If something sounds hackneyed it is probably not psychedelic. Also with electronic music there is the possibility of producing completely fresh sounds – and I think trance that is psychedelic is often trance that is throwing the trancer into completely unchartered soundscapes. Features of brilliant music generally often also seem bound up with making psychedelic music psychedelic. Eg’s:
- An emotional landscape that really ‘resonates’ with the trancer. As the music takes us through different moods and feelings and varying levels of energy.
- Structure: there might be a brilliance in the way a specific buildup leads into a drop, or there might be a particularly mesmerizing breakdown, swirling around you and bending your mind.

With this all in mind, obviously a lot of the music that falls under the heading ‘psytrance’ is not at all psychedelic. But it still seems to me that non-psychedelic ‘psytrance’ is different from your average ‘trance’. Skazi still seems to fit into a different genre from your average commercial UK trance song. All the psytrance formulae – while not necessarily being psychedelic – are indicative of a unique genre. So while it is perhaps lamentable that a lot of psytrance has lost the psychedelic element that spawned the name, there still seems to be sense in differentiating it from ‘trance’.

Blah blah blah… sorry for this, I have really been on a rant.. I hope it has not been too long and boring.

 

MotherShabubu
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2005 11:27 am


boondocksaint wrote :
Definitely agree with Simon. To say that music is ‘psychedelic’ because it manifests in the mind as psychedelic completely begs the question. One can still ask the question: what about the music’s manifestation made it ‘psychedelic’ in your view?

I didn't read Lui as saying that psychedelicness is subjective in the way you seem to take it: that psychedelic just is whatever seems psychedelic to you. Manifests in the mind is the (etymological) definition of psychedelic. Less literally I gather this means mind-altering, or perhaps more usefully consciousness expanding (Neil Diamond alters my mind (makes me think ewww) but I wouldn't say it expands my consciousness). And I don't think this begs the question (at least if you are using 'begging the question' in the more correct sense, sorry, pet peave of mine).
But, as I think Lui was saying, what expands one consciousness may not expand another, if you keep thinking 'that's really cheesy\formulaic' then it's hard to let yourself go and have your consciousness expanded, in this sense I think psychedelic is a 'subjective' concept.
boondocksaint wrote :
I think the problem here is reducing a property of the music – the property of psychedelicness – to a subjective state of the trancer. If you are listening to psychedelic music – take Artifakt II – and you appreciate that the music is psychedelic, you tap into a quality of the music. Your tapping in does not create the quality.

I think what is psychedelic must be a subjective, or perhaps better a contextual property. e.g. that something is a deadly poison to me is an objective fact, but that doesn't mean it will kill you. Being a deadly poison is an objective fact but it is contextual, something isn't a deadly poison simpliciter, it's a deadly poison to a certain set of creatures. Similarly I think being psychedelic must be contextualised to a certain set of listeners.
boondocksaint wrote :
And you might think something is psychedelic but be completely wrong about it.

Don't know about that. I mean you might mistakenly think some music expanded your consciousness when actually it was the drugs you took and off the drugs the music does nothing for you, but I gather that's not what you're talking about. But I think if it does expand your consciousness then it is psychedelic (to you) even if it doesn't work for anyone else.
boondocksaint wrote :
Also, if you left a psychedelic album on in your room, and there was no one there to hear it, the music playing would still be psychedelic. This is the same for music appreciation in general: Some people find Mozart brilliant, others may not. Mozart’s work would be brilliant even if no one ever heard it but him.
Still, I realise that the concepts of ‘psychedelic’ or ‘musical brilliance’ are themselves dependent on human minds in one sense. And that is the sense in which these aesthetic properties would not exist without humans – dogs or lions, for example, cannot write or appreciate music. The ability to appreciate or create art for art’s sake is a uniquely human ability, so without humans these properties of ‘psychedelic’ or ‘musical brilliance’ would admittedly not exist.

I'd argue that they would still exist in that the music would still have the potential to evoke the relevant sort of responses in an organism of an appropriate make-up regardless of whether such an organism ever existed. Mozart would still be (counterfactually) brilliant to you even if you never heard it. But then I've never been very big on the whole primary qualities thing.
boondocksaint wrote :
If someone doesn’t ‘get’ what makes Artifakt’s music so good, they just don’t ‘get it’. Artistic properties can be noticed and understood, or missed and misunderstood.

I'd say if someone doesn't think a certain piece of art is good then it isn't good to them. Whether you can come up with some general, non-contextual notion of good is another issue. The only one I can see much support for is 'meets the artist's goals', but I don't think you're talking about that sort of thing.
boondocksaint wrote :
Blah blah blah… sorry for this, I have really been on a rant.. I hope it has not been too long and boring.

I enjoyed it.

 

boondocksaint
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:37 am


haha well.. those are some thought-provoking responses! excuse me while i go into a period of hibernation while i ponder all that!

 

simon
Posts: 2944
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2001 8:33 pm


I think you're getting confused between labelling a genre of music and interpretation of a piece of music. Drum and bass music isnt just made up of drums and basses. Not all music using technnology is classed as techno. new Classical music is still being made today, rock and roll isnt the sound of a bunch of rocks rolling around on the ground...

The word 'psychedelic' is being used as a label for a bunch of music that share a common set of properties, it is not being used to say "this music manifests the mind" because ALL music has the ability to "manifest the mind". A persons subjective interpretation of the music has little to do with genre classification.

Re:

kathmandu
Posts: 921
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 12:05 pm


kathmandu wrote :
I think Damien is just waiting for the Hallucinogen 3rd album...


oh. I was right. 8)
http://www.psyreviews.net/
70 posts Page 3 of 3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests