Original Mix > Modern Extended Mix

[mwthreex]

 

[trancefan2020]

New Push album is sad in that way

 

[tranceking26]

Must be an attention span thing. I wonder if the song artists also have it low. Seems like they're doing the bare minimum tbh.

I much prefer full length tunes.

Found a tune the other day that was roughly 4 mins for the "extended" version, shame because I think it would have been good as a 6-7 minute tune. But we'll never know.

 

[TJY001]

this whole attention span thing is total BS. Nothing to do with it, its simply laziness. Does every track need to be 10mins? No but some of the sheer laziness I've heard on some productions particularly more recently is laughable.

 

[IZE]

would be funny if tracks these days start of with rolling snare drums. We can thank algorithms for..

*swipe left*

 

[Julian Del Agranda]

its not lazy, its because streaming pays per stream. A listener with 30 minutes time to listen to music can listen 10 times to a 3 minute track. But a huge trance journey of 14 minutes can only be listened to twice.

So as always: it’s about money.

People are also deciding extremely quickly whether or not to hit ‘next’, which is why so many tracks (mainly in pop) start right off with a chorus, or a small part of it. The catchy bit displayed directly in an attempt to hold attention. (So no time for intro sections, which makes pop songs shorter).

So it’s because of streaming and the way they pay.

plus: an artist can share “I’ve got a million plays” sooner with short tracks. More plays means higher chart positions too, and more visibility in streaming playlists. So those are more incentives to make it short.

 

[Narel]

@Julian Del Agranda is right. Another factor in play is that percussive intros and mix outs aren’t as essential now as no one in modern trance world gives a shit about the skill of mixing anymore; it’s as rinse and repeat as most of the tunes on the big labels, some exceptions. This is a positive feedback loop, because as the tunes are all short there is no opportunity for long mixes between them.
Now…. despite the grumpy 40+ guy stuff above, I don’t mind a well crafted ‘streaming edit’ as long as a full length original mix is available. This is because even I (and I’m sure others similar to me) have been somewhat conditioned by streaming and don’t want to listen to 2 mins of percussion either side of the juicy bits when I’m listening while at work/on bike/in car etc

 

[TJY001]

Fair enough however this is why radio edits exist. So keep those 3-4mins and still released proper length. Doesn't have to be crazy long but 5-6mins is fine.

 

[Magdelayna]

its not lazy, its because streaming pays per stream. A listener with 30 minutes time to listen to music can listen 10 times to a 3 minute track. But a huge trance journey of 14 minutes can only be listened to twice.

So as always: it’s about money.

People are also deciding extremely quickly whether or not to hit ‘next’, which is why so many tracks (mainly in pop) start right off with a chorus, or a small part of it. The catchy bit displayed directly in an attempt to hold attention. (So no time for intro sections, which makes pop songs shorter).

So it’s because of streaming and the way they pay.

plus: an artist can share “I’ve got a million plays” sooner with short tracks. More plays means higher chart positions too, and more visibility in streaming playlists. So those are more incentives to make it short.

I think its more the labels than the actual producer demanding that tracks have to be a certain length - but yes,its still about money,but more on the greedy labels side. I always think artists get ripped off revenue wise when they sign with a label.

I dont personally think a producer will make a track of a certain length cos they think they will make a few more pennies...

 

[Jetflag]

Next Avalon 62 conceptual track will be 15 minutes long

because fuck yall, aloya’ll

 

[LostLegend]

*The Digital Blonde has entered the chat*

 

[trancefan2020]

its not lazy, its because streaming pays per stream. A listener with 30 minutes time to listen to music can listen 10 times to a 3 minute track. But a huge trance journey of 14 minutes can only be listened to twice.

So as always: it’s about money.

People are also deciding extremely quickly whether or not to hit ‘next’, which is why so many tracks (mainly in pop) start right off with a chorus, or a small part of it. The catchy bit displayed directly in an attempt to hold attention. (So no time for intro sections, which makes pop songs shorter).

So it’s because of streaming and the way they pay.

plus: an artist can share “I’ve got a million plays” sooner with short tracks. More plays means higher chart positions too, and more visibility in streaming playlists. So those are more incentives to make it short.

I listen to it at night or when I am alone and I don't have a concept of time. More over this type of music requires some sort of attention and when it's cut too soon , it destroys its own foundation. Because of this, I have tried short versions and they are not functional for me. Maybe as a teaser , at most.

 

[afterhourpower]

There hopefully will be an anti short length movement in the future where tracks will be longer because the next generation of music lovers (Gen ZZZ) demands this, because short tracks are for boomers.

Now I am gonna play Planisphere - O (15 minutes)

 

[Magdelayna]

Now I am gonna play Planisphere - O (15 minutes)

I keep meaning to include that beast in a mix hehe. Imagine labels releasing that now...

 

[TRANCEBLASTER]

it’s interesting, almost strange, to see that you view 'Trance' as streaming music, because I think of it strictly as club music.... in my opinion, producers make shorter tracks because nowadays most DJs usually play one-hour sets at festivals or big parties. everyone wants to showcase and mix as much music as possible, and the shorter the tracks are, the more you can fit into a one-hour set. 30 years ago, it was completely normal for just 3 or 4 DJs to play the whole night...

 

[afterhourpower]

it’s interesting, almost strange, to see that you view 'Trance' as streaming music, because I think of it strictly as club music.... in my opinion, producers make shorter tracks because nowadays most DJs usually play one-hour sets at festivals or big parties. everyone wants to showcase and mix as much music as possible, and the shorter the tracks are, the more you can fit into a one-hour set. 30 years ago, it was completely normal for just 3 or 4 DJs to play the whole night...

I go to festivals regularly and I swear the attention span of younger ravers has drastically changed. It’s almost like the constant need for dopamine kicks has translated from social into music.

 

[afterhourpower]

I keep meaning to include that beast in a mix hehe. Imagine labels releasing that now...

I was joking lately, when Luminosity had some DJ’s to cut sets to 30 minutes because of the heatwave. You could play two tracks by Planisphere, do one transition, and earn your money

 

[tranceissomewhatalive]

Must be an attention span thing

not really, it's streaming ad algorithms thing for the most part

 

[erickUO]

They watch movies and Netflix serials. So I doubt attention span is the issue.

The new generation is burned out, they're currently the most stressed generation. They just want to enjoy life and have fun without extra burden. Heavy, serious music doesn't align with this. If it needs time to understand or is an acquired taste, they'll likely pass on it. This could also explain why neo-rave is a rising "genre", and trance responded with those short superfast euro-dancey tracks.

 

[Magdelayna]

I was joking lately, when Luminosity had some DJ’s to cut sets to 30 minutes because of the heatwave. You could play two tracks by Planisphere, do one transition, and earn your money

Yeah i thought that aswell haha.

It also could be to do with DJ's just get 1 hour sets nowadays - so they try and pack as many tracks - they all last about 5 minutes each in sets.