Talk:Trance music/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Female vocals in trance

Also removed:

Early house music was melodic and faster than hip-hop, usually with female vocals having love, hope, dreams, romance and togetherness as the subject matter. It was a predecessor to most of today's modern electronic and rave music.

isn't really about the history of trance and is covered in the house music article in any case. --Lexor|Talk

One common feature of trance that I don't see mentioned: female vocals, usually about intense romantic longing. Perhaps someone could place this in the chronology.

I think the female vocals, usually about intense romantic longing style is rarely referred as 'trace' at least by people in the trance scene (typical for happy-harecore, club music, many other styles), trance is rather the 'vocaless blipy repetetive sound over intense meditation like atmosphere'

I think it would be pushing it to say that trance is 'vocal-less, blippy and repetitive'. The word trance is more of a blanket term for many different types of electronica. Vocal Trance is very popular in Europe and is built solely around female vocals. I think a sub-genre of trance that most closely matches your definition is goa/psychedelic trance, which usually does not have female vocals. My point is that I agree with the original author, I see no harm in discussing Vocal Trance here.

I think having a mention about vocal trance which is predominantly based on female vocals with romance in the general sense (sexual and non-sexual) being the main topic is worth it. Happy hardcore vocals are about anything but romance. --Ghassan 217.78.49.19 (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

A large number (it's hard to define what percentage) of female trance vocals are not about romantic topic, but instead about life, existence, & more abstract or less tangible concerns. Further, even among lyrics about romantic topics, virtual none concern sexual or physical topics or words. The romantic lyrics tend to also be more abstract and discuss intangibles, about love or longing or happiness and contentment. So I would advise against putting mention of sexual themes, and would advise against suggested that most trance lyrics are romantic. The share of lyrics in trance that are romantic is less than for other genres (maybe 50%?), and sex is virtually nonexistent. --Pengowl|Pengowl —Preceding undated comment added 04:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC). To qualify this comment: Now a very large share of trance vocals are about romance, but the share is less than that in other genres, and historically a large share of trance vocals were about the themes listed in the previous paragraph. So even if a large of trance vocals were about romance, the non-romance topics listed above most likely commanded a much greater share in trance than in other genres. Pengowl (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Trance First Created in Belgium or Italy, Not Germany?

This doesn't bother me. It just makes me wonder if there should be any corrections to this. I recently went on YouTube and saw "Age of Love - Age of Love (1990 Original Version - the REAL one!!!)". I thought that maybe someone else was pulling a funny one. Sure enough it sounds different and even has Giuseppe Cherchia singing and there's a trumpet playing here and there every so often.

The video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxE66RJ36zQ

The Discog: http://www.discogs.com/Age-Of-Love-The-Age-Of-Love/release/41526

The info he put: I would like to take a moment and remove some common myths about this track. First of all, THIS is the original version made in 1990. As you can hear, it has much more in common with New Beat than with trance... The one that most people say is the original version is in fact the Watch Out For Stella remix made by Jam&Spoon in 1992 (and it is also true that THAT version is the first "proper" trance version). So when people say that Age of Love invented trance music in 1990... that's not really accurate either...

"Another common myth is to say that Age of Love is either a German or a French project. None of this is true, Bruno Sanchioni (the man behind the project) is from BELGIUM. I think many people supposed this was German simply because most early trance was made by Germans, and the version most people know was remixed by the Germans from Jam&Spoon. The ones who say he's from France do it probably because the town Bruno lived in (Mouscron) is on the French border. Still, I have checked and double-checked and believe me when I say that he is from Belgium :)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Dillinger (talk • contribs) 21:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Records with the Trance sounds came from various scenes. It came from the Rave scene, and it wasn't localized to Germany. In the early rave days in England there were hundreds of records with Trance sounds in it. Technically it came from Disco, but no Trance kid nowadays would want to believe this, so I won't even post exact references to the catalog #'s. Danceking5 (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

To repost what I posted below: a history of a genre should identify as its start when it was actually a distinct genre from other genres. Otherwise everything would trace back to music from 3,000 years ago. Just about everyone would agree that House in Chicago in the early 1980s and from disco. Saying those were trance's origins is just like saying jazz music started in the 1700s with Bach. Trance did not start to differ from existing genres until the 1990s. So to say trance starting in early 80s Chicago or from disco is just as valid as saying trance started in the 1800s with Beethoven. So no, trance didn't come from disco. Any historian will agree House came from disco, but the influence of disco on trance is through house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pengowl (talk • contribs) 03:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I said it came FROM House & Disco. I didn't say those releases were Trance. What I mean is that Trance production TECHNIQUES started in Disco, House, Freestyle, Techno etc...Danceking5 (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Progressive Trance/Progressive House

I'd like to say that this statement is actually false. How does a genre that's already in a category land into both? It's either Trance or House and seeing I listen to a lot of Progressive Trance, I know for sure that it is not House. Progressive House sounds like Trance, yes, but there is a large distinction between the way both genres sound. Thought I'd just get that off my chest. Jon Dillinger 11:49 pm 9/25/06

I agree with it. Prog trance is a defunct now, and it was classic trance with more melodies (notes) added to it, and breakdowns (however not as large breakdowns as dutch trance tracks) + done with better equipment. Prog house was house with more "atmosphere"... Well this one is hard to describe, but it's done by Leftfield, and if you check one of their tracks, you'll see it's not like Sasha: Xpander just for a simple example. Also prog house has some trance elements too, but not the same style. And by the way both prog trance & house are defunct nowdays. I mean what they now call progressive house (or just progressive) is not the same genre that those ones. Plus lot of thoose djs are playing now techhouse-like stuffs. It's interesting now what happened, a lot of new subgenres emerged, and there's not really a name for them, so they call them progressive whatever & techtrance. Techtrance is the funniest, it can be anything from a psytrance influenced progtrance-like track to Marco V. I also noticed everybody now fusing techno elements with some other style, so now we have Techno Body Music, Psytechno, Techtrance, Techhouse & even tech-techtechno, blah! --TaZaR 13:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• "even tech-techtechno" what, like 2Unlimited ;) Cxk271 20:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, genres should be considered guidelines rather than sets of rules. Besides, there is no single entity defining genres and criteria used to define them (or am I mistaken ?). Furthermore, many different criteria for distinguishing genres are used interchangeably (geographical, historical, tempo, instrument families, cultural, etc.). For abovementioned reasons, relations between genres should be regarded contextual rather than hierarchycal. With this bared in mind, each song can be addressed to a multitude of genres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.225.129.117 (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Progressive Trance is a silly invented term that started appearing in the 2000's. I know this because I was there when Progressive House was created, and the word 'Progressive Trance' didn't see the light of day for over 10 yrs. Progressive House too is a silly term. Thus both have fallen out of favor. What most of the next generation think of Trance, as in when Tiesto blew up big in 2000-2001, came from the Progressive House scene. It was overblown dramatic Progressive House really. Danceking5 (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This is wildly incorrect. I was hearing 'progressive trance' being used as early as 1997. You are making the mistake, repeatedly, of assuming that your personal experience is factually true for everyone. → ROUX ₪ 18:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Show me a citation in print from the year 1997 or prior, and i'll consider what your saying. Even then you would have been looked at strange if you used that word. People already in the scene were questioning why people kept trying to re-invent the wheel at the time anyhow. You have to understand that most of these terms are made up terms and used to give new DJs marketing power at the time. It's like someone peddling something new, selling something new, so people buy it. "If it's new, it must be better" :) Take ALL these terms very lightly.Danceking5 (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Which one of us was in the party scene in 1997? Hint: I was. Were you? I suspect not. I no longer have my old flyer collection, but I can guarantee to you that the term was very, very much in use before 2001. In addition, please learn how to format your comments correctly. Don't use horizontal lines, use colons to indent your comments. → ROUX ₪ 03:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Mainstream Popularity?

OK I decided to take a look in this Trance article for it still amazes me. However I noticed a slight change. Trance is mainstream, yes, but pretty much in the UK/Europe. To say that it is mainstream without telling where says that Trance is often played on the radio or in a lot of peoples' cars in every part of the world. Could someone fix this? Odd Faden 3/14/06 10:25 am

agreed, trance is not mainstream, I think the whole section could be deleted. Crazekid 17:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Trance is mainstream, maybe not in the places you come from. I even went to Ecuador once and saw Tiesto unplanned on my 2nd day in a rave with about 5000 people!

---

In South America it may be mainstream. But in the US it isn't all that mainstream at all. No one ever brings it up, rarely will you hear someone playing a track by Tiësto or anyone else for that matter. And when a Trance theme is heard someone will always ask what it is, who made it and where can they get it. The only answers come from clubbers or people who have been exposed to the music from someone else. The only mainstream this music has gotten here was Cascada. Odd Faden 5/18/06 10:59 am

...As a european (sorry, a non-american) I can say that it gets a little tiring seeing most info on the web discuss subjects and events from a very skewed US point of view...You want this section changed or deleted because it has no relevance to the US (in your opinion) but are you aware that whenever the rest of the world hears about an americans involvement in any subject we are expected (by americans) to accept this as some kind of ultra-important global standard no matter how irrelevant or mundane the actual event/action is?....Take the american electronica artist BT for example, a musical genius no doubt, but hardly the massive influence on the eurotrance scene as his wiki article would have you believe, he was after all, just one artist amongst many...so i think this article should stay as it is..Wikipedia after all, is for the people of the world not just the USA... There arent a whole lot of people playing country and western in europe but try to tell an american that it is not a mainstream genre and you will get an earful of abuse for sure...

In Sweden and probably the rest of Europe club trance is indeed mainstream. Go into a night club in Sweden and you'll hear trance all night. It's also played at radio stations aimed at younger people. It actually surprises me that it's not considered mainstream in the US because it's so popular over here. Jiiimbooh 15:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Trance is mainstream. From a UK perspective its not at the height of its popularity at the moment, but it is nevertheless firmly routed as a mainstream music form - people understand it as a genre, are aware of notable trance artists (even if they are unaware that they ate trance artists etc.). Early Q 20:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree about that Trance is NOT mainstream. I live in Sweden and the only time we hear Trance on radio or tv (mtv) is when they play the very "light" vocal trance. That is a sub-genre of Trance and its very much the same like euro-techno. In mainland-euro Trance is more accepted and more well-known but no way mainstream. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.216.80.101 (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Trance is not mainstream, not at all. Being played in some clubs does not make it mainstream. People listen to music for the most part on TV, CD players, cars, radio and tape players not in clubs. Even in most of Europe, trance is not mainstream. In my part of the world (middle east) most people don't recognize the term except as a mental state. --Ghassan 217.78.49.19 (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

---

I think people need to cite references to stating that Trance is mainstream in Europe. Understand that we North Americans assume that what you tell us is true over there. Reality is in North America, it is NOT mainstream. Urban music is mainstream for example (R&B/Hip Hop) in this part of the world. The criteria used to determine if the music is mainstream or not is to monitor key tracking polls for the public. Such a list is the Hot Dance Party Poll by Billboard.biz Polls done by underground magazines DO NOT DETERMINE if it is mainstream (eg. DJMag) Mainstream music is the type of music you often hear on generic radio stations, and malls. Stuff like Justin Bieber - POP!. Club & Rave music is generally UNDERGROUND, and in fact if the younger population found out that the music played at raves was mainstream, the venue would be empty. The scene has thrived on the fact that the music is underground. Danceking5 (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

1. This article itself says "Trance is also very popular in Israel." 2. I agree with Roux's comment towards the end of this page about "assertions which betray a very narrow, Americentric understanding of trance, rave culture in general, and the history thereof". 3. As I post at the bottom of this page, prominent djs are saying their music is largely not for clubs or raves. One dj says "it's not just "club music" anymore", and even Armin van Buuren says a very large part of the 15 million or 20 million or 30 million of listeners to A State of Trance listen while at work at their computers. 4. Also I here post a picture showing, in a music/cd store in one of the glitziest shopping malls in New Delhi, India, that in the CD section, the trance section is bigger than the hip-hop section, & is one of the biggest sections overall. (Each section also has a couple of rows below what is shown in the photo.)

, a synthesizer famous for its incorporation of the supersaw waveform

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pengowl (talk • contribs) 17:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Since when was Trance popular worldwide accept the U.S?

Trance in the U.S. is not dead, it can still be found in major cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco etc. Trance has pretty much achieved worldwide popularity along with House music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.57.92 (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not dead. What the person is refering to is the comparison to the 2001 period where EVERY club played it over here. This was the time when Tiesto blew up big. It was a big thing in North America, and many newcomers to the scene experienced it as their first taste of dance music. What they mean is that, in the major cities such as Toronto, New York, Chicago etc..., it isn't at the forefront anymore for the most popular peak time slot in the club scene. The scene has reverted back to it's House roots in these cities. The tempo has dropped etc.. Trance events still happen but they aren't as widespread over here as they used to be.Danceking5 (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, this article itself says "Trance is also very popular in Israel", right before the section on electronic music. Also, as you can see in the photo I posted above under "Mainstream Popularity?" of the trance section of the music store in a glitzy shopping mall in India, at least in that store trance is more popular than hip-hop & has one of the largest sections in the store, suggesting it has popularity there, at least in that store or mall in New Delhi.

Again, I agree with Roux's comment towards the end of this page about "assertions which betray a very narrow, Americentric understanding of trance, rave culture in general, and the history thereof." Pengowl (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

---

By all means then add it if you feel it contributes to the page. Be aware that an article saying something is popular still does not gauge the data against a large population. Popular on one city block does not create a broad sweep for the population (like you pointed out) of a country. But, if you feel that the article does reflect some sort of barometer of the current economy there, then by all means. It is good reporting nonetheless, who would of thought Trance would appear in the slums of Calcutta. I say add it. Like I said, I don't know what's really going on outside of North America. We in North America tend to live in a bit of a bubble at times. It's a product of this society so I do apologize for not really knowing what's going on in the desert regions or third world regions. It wouldn't surprise me if those regions start building more clubs, as their middle-class continues to grow. Those could be the new markets for the next generation of Trance DJs and producers.Danceking5 (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are these concerts on here?

• Tiesto In Concert
• Armin Only
• Full On Ferry

These events are technically not trance events, they are simply EDM concerts. Since artist like Tiesto, Armin and Ferry play different kind of genres, I don't think their concerts should be listed in this article - anyone agree? -- R32GTR (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason is R32, is that some Ecstasy addict Trance only kids have found there way onto this encyclopedia, and are trying to use the page as an advertisement for Trance. I have read your statements and have edited the sections you refer to. I'm not from Europe but I'm not even sure if those events are technically Festivals. They are more likely just concerts.Danceking5 (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

They tend to be referred to as festivals by the organizers and in materials about them. Please remove your personal attacks. → ROUX ₪ 19:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because the organizer calls something a festival does not mean it actually is. I believe the word festival in relation to these dance events comes from the rock scene, and refers to events with multi-stages, like Miami Ultra etc.... If those events referred to above are multi-stage events, then by all means... Personal attacks? Not sure who your referring to that i'm attacking.Danceking5 (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please provide references to back your assertion that they are not festivals. As for personal attacks, how about terms like 'ecstasy addicts' and 'ass licking,' amongst others? → ROUX ₪ 03:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't need references, it's called common sense. Stop this nerd behavior please. You are starting to remind me of a computer programmer I know.Danceking5 (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, actually, yes you do need references. That's how Wikipedia works. Please refrain from personal attacks. Comment on content, not contributors. → ROUX ₪ 14:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Before the 90s, trance music meant something completely different!

This is a great article, but I expected something else. Trance music is ancient. Almost every culture in the world has its own trance music associated with many different types of trance. Before electronic trance became popular, trance music would have referred to any of the myriad of musical styles that accompany trance rituals. Many of these are old, even ancient, and cover a much wider musical spectrum than the 4-4 synth laden electronic genre, which is but a sub genre of an old, massive, and usually underground mind altering musical movement. The electronic stuff has a lot in common with the acoustic stuff, with the added benefit of being able to simulate brainwave states and even approximate inner sound experiences. Notable trance musics that I know: Balinese gamelan, North African Gnawa, Turkish Mevlevis, and South American Orisha rituals. It's all connected..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedbeetle (talk • contribs) 18:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not all connected. Are you seriously on drugs or something? I don't understand what is wrong with all these references to all this yoga crap. Is there anyone actually here on this page besides me, who was actually there from the beginning? Trance music (what this page refers to) came out of the Rave scene, it's dance music, and it DID NOT EXIST PRIOR TO THE RAVE SCENE. The Trance we are all speaking about on this page is the ELECTRONIC DANCE MUSIC Trance, that became popular in 2001, played at massive raves and clubs, where DJs like Tiesto became popular showcasing this sound. The ONLY THING you can all say is that Disco then House & Techno was it's Predecessor. That's it. To try and tie it in to praying at a temple or something that came down from the sky, is the thinking of a bumbling drunk, a crackhead if you will.Danceking5 (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of your facts are in error here. Trance became popular in mainstream North America circa 2001. It was extremely popular elsewhere before that--see, for example, the success of Tranceport, which was released in what, 97/98. Oakenfold made his name as a trance DJ, and he was huge long before 2001--you may wish to look at the history of Shoom, his club which opened in the late 80's. In addition, please remove your personal attacks. → ROUX ₪ 19:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

How is it incorrect if I said it became popular in 2001? Can I ask you Roux, do you live in North America? It was not EXTREMELY popular before that IN NORTH AMERICA. You may want to refer to my message on how to gauge popularity for Mainstream consideration. You need to refer to GENERIC radio. Trance was somewhat popular prior to 2000 in the clubs, but not on the large scale that occured after Tiesto arrived. Even then it is still not considered mainstream music over here. Hip Hop/Rap is mainstream. Country & Rock is mainstream. Oakenfold made his name as a DJ, who played a mix of Trance & House. He came from a background of Disco & House. Why? Because Trance as a word wasn't used to describe a whole genre of dance music that early on. You are assuming that because his club was open in the 1980's, this is when Trance begun? Reference to me the catalog#'s please. And when you say HUGE, can you please give me a comparison. To say HUGE, you need to compare it to something else. Huge compared to what. Also, consider the bias coming from a DJ. Oakenfold may have an agenda himself to say back then he was a 'Trance DJ', as he may be trying to take credit for creating the entire genre. DJs do funny things to get noticed, for marketing power. Just a thought.Danceking5 (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It is incorrect because what you meant was that trance became popular in North America circa 2001. A simple survey of worldwide rave and club culture prior to 2001 shows the popularity of trance everywhere else; Ibiza comes to mind. You apparently missed "It was extremely popular elsewhere before that." I am not assuming, I am basing what I say on the history of Shoom and the music he was playing there. I can't reliably remember the title of the book, unfortunately; it was published circa 1999, Generation Ecstasy perhaps. As for huge... look at Tranceport. That album was massive, and I don't know a single trance kid, of any age, who doesn't own it. Oakenfold has been a very, very big deal for a very, very long time. His article may be of some education to you. → ROUX ₪ 04:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Shoom was a small club event that showcased Acid House from Chicago and other Balearic Beat (it was not HUGE and he was not HUGE)...in fact their events were supposedly a flop...they were trying to re-create what they were exposed to in Ibiza. It was Acid House and tracks like Can You Feel It by Mr. Fingers. Around the same time there was a House Music Tour that occured and Fingers and Virgo and Adonis went over to England. House was exploding at the time. Maybe one day i'll post a mix for you of the early music that led into Trance....or, I'll just continue to laugh:) hahhhhaha

Oakenfold in the early years was a cheeseball. In Canada we laughed at him. He got way better later on caught everyone by surprise. Trance prior to Tiesto was still pretty underground in Canada. In order to gauge America you have to look at the key Dance music cities that were first exposed to House. These being New York, Chicago, Toronto, Montreal. Other cities in America too. Miami also had a Progressive House & Trance scene as early as Toronto & Montreal did. The reason that the first pressings of Trance & Progressive were over here, was because of the UK influence on Canada. Our scene revolved around UK DJs.

Lastly Oakenfold has NOT been a VERY VERY big deal for VERY VERY long. He deserves a place in the history, but like most things in life, everything is exagerrated by 300%.Danceking5 (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There are so many amazing factual errors in the above paragraphs that I can't even begin to address them. So all I can say is that if a nerdy high school kid--with zero connection to rave or underground club culture at the time other than sneaking into gaybars in Toronto underage--in St Catharines in 1995 knew who Oakenfold was, he was a very big deal. You're also ignoring the impact of Canadian DJs, particularly the Toronto-based Chris Sheppard (yes, I know, his music is awful but still), Don Berns/Dr Trance (you may have heard of a tiny little company called Destiny, or DAMN, or maybe the wee shindig they used to throw called WEMF; Destiny and WEMF were trance-focused for years until the market changed and they started bringing in jungle and dnb djs; the majority of DAMN's talent roster has historically been trance DJs), Brent Carmichael, and a whole host of others. Oh well, there's hardly any point arguing with someone who is so very convinced he's right... so, go ahead and say what you like, as long as you understand that any uncited additions you make to the article will be reverted. → ROUX ₪ 06:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I tried your colon thing, it doesn't work. Please point out the factual errors above then. Go through one by one and explain them please. Oakenfold was a big deal to you because he was marketed to you as being a big deal. The origins of the Trance music scene are much older than you think. Chris Sheppard was a commercial cheeseball, who DJed under the name DOGWHISTLE. I'm not even sure if he knew how to mix. Destiny & Atlantis showcased early Trance. I never said they didn't. They showcased the more german sound, that was referred to as Hard Trance at the time. Understand also that if you re-vert any uncited information that isn't contested with legitimate reason, it shall stand. Go ahead and add to the article yourself. I'm not going to delete your information.

So far this article on Trance is looking dumber and dumber since you've started deleting everything. The problem is, if you actually are some sort of computer nerd, you think too much in terms of inside the box. Because something doesn't conform to the 'rules', you want to silence it. I hate to break it to you, but there is very little information on the word 'Trance' from the early years. Lastly the whole premise of Trance is to think outside the box.Danceking5 (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

"I tried your colon thing, it doesn't work." This is a lie. You either did not try it and are simply being contrary, or you did try and did not do so correctly. I don't understand how that's possible, simply looking at the edit window should show you how. Beyond that I see no point in replying to anything else you've said; you apparently have absolutely no idea how Wikipedia works. I removed a bunch of information that has been uncited for months. There is no 'box' to be thinking outside here; Wikipedia requires that information be cited. Period. → ROUX ₪ 14:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Who Is Stalking Me & Why Is This Page Filled With So Much Hope

Someone is stalking me on this site, and it's starting to get annoying. This guy Pengowl has even followed me onto other pages, and re-verting other additions I've made to the wiki. It's seriously abnormal. All the work I do usually gets deleted within 1 Hr of posting. Additionally, I CCed to someone at Wikipedia the insane message he sent me in my inbox. Telling me to 'leave Trance alone'...like it's his 'loved one' or something. It's very strange considering 80% of my record collection consists of Trance. If I see fallacies I should point it out, I think you would all agree. This page SHOULD NOT be used as some outlet for fans of DJs types - 'followers' if you will. This page SHOULD be used to historically go back and trace the history AS IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED, up through to modern day.

I'll make a statement on this page. Right now it is filled with 'hope'. What appears to be people who WERE NOT PART OF THE BEGINNING of Trance trying to invent history in the making, so I ask myself, how could they possibly speak about the history. Even going through textbooks to try and grab citations isn't technically correct. Many articles were written by dingbats, or people who weren't even collecting the records. I can tell when people add 'hope' to the page, trying to include manifestations in their minds of what actually happened.Danceking5 (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Danceking5, I hope you're well. When I sent you that message a while ago, you had made changes that were about House music that most people informed about trance would agree were not right. For example, you changed the page so the 1st sentence of the whole article said, "Trance is a subgenre of House music" ( see 1st sentence at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trance_music&oldid=415306063 ), which is ridiculous. Another example: a history of a genre should identify as its start when it was actually a distinct genre from other genres. Otherwise everything would trace back to music from 3,000 years ago. To say trance started in Chicago in the early 1980s is just like saying jazz music started in the 1700s with Bach. Trance did not start to differ from existing genres until the 1990s. So to say trance starting in early 80s Chicago is just as valid as saying trance started in the 1800s with Beethoven. Other changes at the time included very pejorative statements and modifiers about trance that had no business being in an article. So the "insane" message I sent I think was completely justified given the changes made then. At that time, you seemed to be "stalking" the page as much as you say I was. However, that's in the past and hasn't seemed to be a problem recently.

Next, yesterday, some of my changes were a bit nitpicky, but when I previously undid your changes, they were for substantive reasons that I stand behind, so your valid critique applies only to that one modification I made.

Also, you seem to be saying that you're a more trusted authority than published books. Obviously you know a lot, but I don't think Wikipedia should set aside published books in favor of one person's statements. From your perspective you're right, but from a Wikipedia reader's perspective, they might actually believe the textbooks more on points where you disagree. In academic scholarship, some sources tend to have more initial credibility than others where there is disagreement. Also, remember Wikipedia should have no original research and should be verifiable. Therefore, textbooks are legitimate sources relative to a single individual's experience.

Also, you complain about hope, but many of your first changes I saw manifested strong cynicism & disapproval or pessimism. You shouldn't be complaining of "hope" if your original comments were the polar extreme. (I'll note as a slight digression that the Facebook page of the English version of the Trance Music Wikipedia page has over 700,000 fans and has been growing.) Your heading could say "Who is adding cynicism/pessimism/disapproval to this page"

Also, many of your changes were not to the HISTORY of trance but to the PRESENT. Eg, "Trance is a subgenre of House music" is what you put as the very 1st sentence of the whole article. ( You can see this at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trance_music&oldid=415306063) Your argument about your knowing the history of trance and about many contributors or "dingbats" gives you more expertise in contributing to the parts of the article about the history. But some of those dingbats & others may have a more accurate view of what's going on at PRESENT---especially because they will be much less wedded or attachment to trance as it was originally. This lack of attachment to the roots may give them a better view of the present.Pengowl (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason I started "stalking" your changes to trance article is quite legitimate. You make up to 20 separate substantive modifications to an article a day. Then the next day you might 10 more substantive changes, again in a row. Your changes were things like making the 1st sentence of the whole article said "Trance is a subgenre of House music" or changing Progressive's popularity to "none". Because I know you were messing up the page like this, I decided to monitor the page when I check into Wikipedia by seeing if there've been any changes; this is the only way to prevent you from messing up the page. And sometimes you make a ton of changes & I don't undo any of your changes. Exactly this happened on the Progressive Electronic Dance Music page last week (this is the example above of 20 changes one day & 10 the next, none of which I undid), and similar gigantic sequences by you of major changes to article happened previously on the Trance Music page. Wikipedia pages are supposed to be written by many people, with "peer review" to vet the article. However, you might delete entire sections, make major changes to sections that had been there for years, and then make 15 additional changes. This makes it very hard for peers to look over an vet major changes you make. If you delete entire sentence, it might be buried under 15 subsequent changes by you. It almost seems like you're trying to make major changes and not give other editors a chance to look them over an vet them. To undo a major deletion of yours might require wading through and undoing 15 of your changes. You also earlier seemed to bury very major debatable changes by a long string of minor changes to the same place, again, making it hard for other editors to vet and screen your contributions. The result is major sections written entirely by you and sequenced in a way that makes it almost impossible for anyone to notice any major deletions. Pengowl (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

About "stalking" you on other pages: Just like you were changing the 1st sentence of thole article to say "Trance is a subgenre of House music", you were making similar changes to other trance pages, like changing Progressive's popularity to "none".Pengowl (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

About "stalking" & unhealthiness: You've made far far more changes to trance pages that I have (often radically removing what had been on there fore years), often a plethora on each of multiple days in a row, over many different months, so if you complain about my unhealthy attachment to the page, consistency requires that you make the same critique of yourself. If I know are making up to 20 changes a day and some changes are changing the article's 1st sentence to say "Trance is a subgenre of House music" or changing a popularity to "none", the only way to maintain the integrity of the page is to frequently monitor it for changes.Pengowl (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You write, "This page SHOULD be used to historically go back and trace the history AS IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED, up through to modern day."

Only one part of the page is about history. The main purpose of the page is not to trace the history but to describe trance AS IT IS NOW. Wikipedia is not just a history book. It is just as much about the world as it exists today.

Most important and most relevant going forward, trance has changed A LOT from the early days. What's true about trance when you first started following it and became an expert on it is not true of trance now. You're right about people not at the start of trance having a distorted view of its history.

But much of the Wikipedia article is not about trance's HISTORY but about trance as it is NOW. There are plenty of vocal people who are not happy about the way trance has evolved, and these people often try to misrepresent today's trance to fit their image of what trance should be to have it be in keeping with its roots. I'm sure you know many such trance "purists". Those people just need to let go and accept that 1990s trance and the original trance are gone. (But even they wouldn't share your statement that "Trance is a subgenre of House music" that you made the 1st sentence of the whole article or changing popularity to "none".) Trance today is very different from what it was then, and so the parts of the article about trance as it is now should not be biased towards trance's roots.

So keep up your good work making sure everything written about trance's history is correct, but just be sure that people's attachments to 1990s trance does not color the presentation of the very different genre that trance is today.

To emphasize, Danceking5 changed the trance article to say as the very first sentence, "Trance is a subgenre of House music" ( see 1st sentence at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trance_music&oldid=415306063 ) and buried this in the history so that it would be very difficult to revert. Another such change was changing Progressive's popularity from "mid" to "none" or saying dream trance (a genre with is own page for years) was just a "marketing buzz word", which is very biased language. No music in the world has its popularity equal to "none". It is many such statements by him like this that I had to keep reverting, and these reversions are obviously necessary.Pengowl (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Except that Trance actually is a subgenre of house, inasmuch as it developed out of techno, which developed out of house. But that's neither here nor there... I see both of you making lots of edits, and throwing up walls of text here on the talk page. Provide references for what you want to add, or stop editing. → ROUX ₪ 18:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Danceking5 refers to the "insane" message I posted about his comments. The following is the complaint I wrote at that time & then the message I sent, in February 2011:

Someone named Danceking5 has been been making massive disparaging changes to pages concerned trance music to destroy the legitimacy of it as a genre and to advance a triumphalist view of house music in a strongly agenda-driven way reflecting his/her hatred of trance music.

Eg, he/she has made 15 straight changes without any comments or edit summaries to deligitimize progressive trance. see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Progressive_electronic_dance_music&action=history . If these changes had been made in good faith, he/she would have given edit summaries or comments. Whereas the original page talked about progressive house and progressive trance together, the new page

Eg, he/she changed the popularity from "mid" to "none" in the main box at top-right. Changing popularity to "none" is clearly not a change made in good faith, and is clearly agenda-driven rather than being more dispassionate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pengowl (talk • contribs) 01:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, this person on two sets of occasions made many strongly anti-trance, pro-house changes to the main trance music page. For example, everyone (eg in published books, etc) traces the origin of trance to the early 1990s in Germany. And for years, this is what it said on Wikipedia. However, Danceking changed the page to claim trance is merely a subgenre of House and changed trance's origins to instead be what are actually the origins of house. You can see this at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trance_music&oldid=415306063

The problem on that page began similarly: Danceking5 made 11 changes on Feb 22 without making any notes at all in terms of comments or edit summaries. He uprooted what had been on the page for years with a clear agenda to disparage trance music and exude a triumphalist view of house. I don't think anyone who knows even a little bit about electronic music would say that trance is a subgenre of house and delete its origins and instead put the origins of a completely different genre of music. The only reason to do this would be a hatred of one genre of music in favor of another. If he hates trance music and loves house so passioantely, he probably should not be ripping apart years' worth of accumulated knowledge on the trance music page.

(I will note that another page Danceking5 made many changes to (Trance Energy) was originally so badly written & biased in the other direction that I let Danceking5's changes there stand because even if biased they were better than what was there before.)

An example of damages on a smaller page: Danceking5 changed the first sentence of the Dream trance article to say the genre was merely a "marketing buzz word". This page, with this name, had been around for 4 years, and suddenly now was pronounced just a "marketing buzz word". This is not unbiased language.

What can be done to prevent this person from making deliberate content damages to trance pages out of hatred for trance and a triumphalist attitude towards house?

[Now this is the "insane message" I sent you:] Hi, I hope you're well. I tried directly contacting you but you weren't reachable by usual Wikipedia methods to contact another person.

I see you've been deliberated damaging trance-music-related pages and promoting a triumphalist view of house. Eg, by changing the trance page to begin that trance is just a subgenre of house, which no one in the world would have said in the last 15 years. You also deleted the origins of trance and replaced them with those of house.

Moreover, you removed much accumulated knowledge that had been on the trance page for years and promoted a triumphalist view of house music. (However, you later made a few changes that were worth keeping & which I reinstated.)

In any case, I reported what you did and you passionately agenda-driven hatred for trance music to the administrations. Please stop messing up the trance pages, & stick to house as that is your preferred genre. I don't want to report you to the administrators again.

Pengowl (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Again: please provide references for what you are saying. Avoiding language that indicates that Danceking5 has some sort of agenda would also be a really good idea to make this discussion about facts and not people. I have reformatted the page to make it easier to read; please note that replies go under the comment they're replying to. → ROUX ₪ 19:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Pengowl I'm not even going to read this crazy rant you've displayed above. It's over the top, and it makes me tired just to look at it. Just please stop stalking me. Contrary to what you think, it actually takes a lot of work to write what I'm writing. And the other guy Roux, I don't know how to do the reply thing under the previous message, that's why I'm creating the line.

"Triumphalist" - I think your reading into my information too much. It's obvious I've created some sort of emotional response in you. Maybe it drives you crazy that I know what I know. It's just information. It's just words, and it's not personally written to annoy you. Lastly considering my entire music collection is probably 60% Trance, i'm not sure why I would want to 'destroy Trance' as you so dramatically have pointed out.Danceking5 (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you got citations to support the information you are putting into the article? If not, stop editing. → ROUX ₪ 04:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the citation is me. I was there when it was created, and I have many of the vinyls from that early period when it started. And I can tell from your writing that you weren't, as you wouldn't be taking offense to what i'm writing. If you were there, you would probably read what I'm saying and feel positive about the actual memories of what went down. I may even post some of the JPEG scans of the early memorabilia of the first flyers where the word appeared.

I think your trying to put pieces together from books or articles to 'make' history much further down the road. Considering most articles back then were written not even from DJs, it is very difficult to take a broad OVERVIEW of the scene. Some of the articles were good, most of them just hippie opinions. If you lived through that era of the scene you will know what i'm talking about when I say that those magazines from the rave scene were taken VERY LIGHTLY.

Pengowl, I do agree that you should write about the current state of Trance. But the current scene came from the history of it, and the history of it is incomplete, and sometimes false. I have more work to do overtime on this.Danceking5 (talk) 06:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I will explain again: you indent your comments using colons. It's becoming increasingly annoying to have to fix your formatting every time. Second, it seems like you are perhaps unaware of how Wikipedia actually works. You cannot be a citation for anything in an article. We must use, at all times, reliable sources for all information contained within articles. What I am taking offense to is many of your assertions which betray a very narrow, Americentric understanding of trance, rave culture in general, and the history thereof. You maintained several times, for example, that trance only became popular circa 2001. That is true only for the USA and parts of Canada. Trance has been very popular worldwide for much longer; you either know this and are ignoring it for some reason, or you do not know this which indicates at the very least one enormous gap in your knowledge. You claimed that Oakenfold wasn't very popular; I invited you to go read his article to disabuse yourself of your incorrect notions. → ROUX ₪ 06:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I like talking to you now, this is fun. I think Roux it bothers you that someone has information on the history and it may not be what you thought it was, and it ticks you off even more because you want to silence the information, and try to hide behind 'rules'. The thing is, Most if not all of this article is written from uncited sources. Lastly I would hardly call rave magazines credible sources. People like you are relying only on what magazines or books tell you, because not being there it is difficult to piece it together. What you should be doing is ingesting what I write, and thinking about it, that hey, this information is useful. That said I'll write what I want and if I see you as the parasite that you may now become, i'll revert your annoyances. Try to contribute to this community instead of disrupting it. Until I see someone contest it with LEGITIMATE REASONS, then I won't consider annoying edits. In instances where there is limited information, the wiki relies on first hand accounts from people who were there. When it comes to you, you feel furious because I changed the word progressive trance, this is why you respsond in the way you do. Try and not get so attached to terms. The only thing that matters is if the music is good. I'm not surprised by your behavior, this is the DJ scene afterall.

Feel free to add a section at the bottom on Progressive Trance if you will. Pengowl brought up the point that it is important to speak about the CURRENT trance scene. I agree on this, but you should add a separate paragraph down below explaining in your opinion the word Progressive Trance, if you feel so compelled. It's difficult for you to turn back the clock, as it tries to set some precedence like in a court room. Especially when it comes to terms. Even if the term was used in 1997, the roots of modern Trance exist much prior to that - when the term WAS NOT in existence. Even if the term was used, it's just a description, not an entire genre of music.

And what makes you think i'm not a reliable source? I think I should re-word that, it is your hope and dream that I BECOME un-reliable. 'Americentric' did you just make that up? The person speaks about POPULARITY IN NORTH AMERICA, of course I'm going to focus on America. First of all, we need to determine what you mean by POPULAR. Can you please define to me in terms what means popular. Stop trying to nit pick useless information such as popularity. Why do you care how POPULAR something is. Popular within a rave or a club DOES NOT CONSTITUTE MAINSTREAM COMMERCIAL POPULARITY. Even if a certain record was played on the radio in 1997, it doesn't mean BROADLY, that the genre is popular in North America. I'm only talking about North America right now. I have no idea what was going on in Europe in terms of POPULARITY, because I don't live there. When I reference 2001, I'm talking about IN NORTH AMERICA.

Why do you keep referring to Oakenfold by the way? He was one DJ in a sea of DJs. It seems to me like your a ballwasher of Oakenfold...did you carry his record box or something? Oakenfold was a Hip Hop DJ, then a House DJ, then a House & Trance DJ. He produced horrible cheezy commercial sounding records in the early years, and this is the reason I refer to most in the rave scene made fun of him BACK THEN. However, he became much better over the years and started playing good. Why do you keep referring to him?

When I say he wasn't very popular, I'm talking about 1987-1988. Nobody was, the scene was small in England. Lastly why do you care how popular someone is, or how HUGE someone is. Don't you care if what you are listening to is actually good? Just because one article (that was likely endorsed by the DJ himself) says something, doesn't mean this is an accurate gauge of the population. You were aware of something called the HYPE factor in the DJ scene, weren't you?Danceking5 (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The endless circular logic and the number of times you have contradicted yourself above kind of makes it pointless to really respond to much. So all I'll say is: you appear to be labouring under some misapprehensions as to how Wikipedia works. "In instances where there is limited information, the wiki relies on first hand accounts from people who were there" is completely, 100% wrong. Please read this policy on reliable sources, and why they matter. This may also help you understand. The bottom line is that all information in Wikipedia articles must be sourced to reliable third parties; readers of Wikipedia must be able to independently verify that all information in a given article has been published elsewhere. We serve as an aggregator of information, and not a place where people may write what they like. And consider this your final warning to avoid personal attacks. If you continue I will be forced to find an administrator, who may remove your editing privileges until you cease. → ROUX ₪ 14:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Club/Rave as Popularity?

The popularity section talks about trance's popularity being "Club/Rave." However, statements by prominent DJs suggest a large part of the fan base is not in this scene. Armin van Buuren talks about this regarding his radio show A State of Trance, which supposedly has 15 or 20 million or 30 million listeners (no small number, regardless of which is the right one). In his DJ Mag interview for being the #1 dj in the world for the 4th straight year, he says,

"Armin then cites 'chair-ravers' as being an important part of his fan-base. "There are a lot of people 'chair-raving' behind their desks, at their computers listening to A State Of Trance, rather than actually going clubbing," he believes. "I call them 'chair-ravers'. They may be graphic designers working in an office listening to music with headphones on, or whatever."" (http://djmag.com/top100/detail/2585)

A less-prominent dj to say something similar is DJ Eco, in 2010, in an interview ( http://www.trancearena.ro/Interviuri/Dj-Eco-Interviu/dj-eco-interviu-05-mai-2010.html ): "I don't really focus on it being "dance music" or something to play in clubs, because it's not just "club music" anymore, it's the soundtrack to many people's lives who have fallen in love with this music."

A different, albeit much less authoritative, example to support the question is that when I was in one of the glitziest shopping malls in New Delhi in India, in the music store there, in the CDs section, the trance section was bigger than the hip-hop section and was prominent in terms of the store layout. I actually took pictures, & I posted the picture above in this discussion page, under the heading. But this is just an anecdote. The statements from such djs as Armin about his millions of listeners are the most convincing about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pengowl (talk • contribs) 17:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey pengowl, this is pretty good reporting here. You've pretty much uncovered then why the DJMag Poll has become almost useless in gauging what's actually happening in the venues. I always wondered what was happening in the Polls. Now it makes sense because there are TONS of arm-chair raves who probably aren't even old enough to go to the events, but are following and voting. I wonder if this is the case with the Mouse DJ too, if the reason he is voted so high is because there are so many arm-chair ravers voting for him. This also explains to me the anomolies I find that, in North America, people stopped caring about that Poll. Thanks for bringing me up to speed.Danceking5 (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Great! Thanks :) You're most welcome! I'm glad I could help.Pengowl (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Origins

Danceking5 has added a questionable statement with a questionable ref to this page.

The text of the edit:

cultural_origins = Late 1980s to Early 1990s, UK Acid House movement

The problems are thus:

1. That reference does not actually support the claim that trance grew out of Acid House; it is merely a catalogue listing of a specific track release
2. One cannot assert this particular track is acid house without a source saying so
3. Nor can one assert this particular track is an early trance track without a source saying so
4. The only thing one can use this reference for is the date, content, and publishers/writers/etc of this particular track
5. The assertion that trance developed from Acid House is probably untrue (given trance's genesis in Germany, arising mainly out of techno), and not supported in any case
6. No support is given in this reference for the date, either

In short, this addition and the reference allegedly supporting it simply do not belong here. I would suggest to Danceking5 that he appears to be unfamiliar with some key policies: those of verifiability, reliability, and the absolute prohibition against any form of synthesis, and should probably read them, as violations of all three are the only way that one could justify inclusion in this article of the content he added.

I would also suggest to Danceking5 that he familiarise himself with the concept of WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss. In short, Danceking5, you bold'ly added content to the article, I reverted it with an edit summary mentioning the issues. That is the point at which you should start discussion if you feel that it should be included. Reverting me was the wrong thing to do. → ROUX ₪ 08:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed). Roux I thought you were gone (Personal attack removed) I'm sorry but you have no proof that Trance did NOT grow out of Acid House. A catalog listing of the specific release is very important. It establishes first published use of the word Trance on a House record. The record ITSELF is the source. Early Trance music existed in published form via vinyl records and sleeves, not magazines. Go listen to it yourself. It is cataloged by me as Trance and by many people, and I think you are seriously deluded if this release isn't Trance. There are many in my archive, I'm just waiting to see if people list them. In fact it may be the very first Trance release. That is your opinion that it ONLY comes from Germany out of Techno (probably because a magazine or book told you this, not you actually living through the scene). You have no proof that Trance did not come out of the UK. Please list supporting evidence that Trance DID NOT come out of the Acid House movement (UK), and addition the legitimacy of that reference. Notice how you use the word 'probably'.Danceking5 (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks; redact your 'stalker' allegation please. Please also indent your comments, as I have taught you before, as it makes the page confusing to read when you keep putting divider lines. Simply put a colon at the beginning of a paragraph to indent once, two colons for twice, etc; one more colon than the comment previous to yours. Thank you.

First of all, a logical fallacy: one cannot prove a negative. You are alleging that trance grew out of acid house, therefore you must provide a reference stating it did. Have you got one?

Second, the page you are using as a reference only proves that such and such a record was released on such and such a date on such and such a label. Can you please show me where on that page it states that is the first published use of the word trance? Can you also show me where it states on the page that trance is the genre of the track, and not just a name for the track?

Third, listening to it myself is irrelevant. That is original research, and is expressly forbidden by policy. (It's a great track, agreed, but for me--or you--to draw any conclusions from it is not permitted). All facts on a page must be sourced to third parties; we cannot draw our own conclusions. This is a non-negotiable policy; in essence, Wikipedia functions only as an aggregator and summariser of information found elsewhere.

Fourth, I have tried to be respectful and reasonable in my post here. I have provided you with links to several policies which would help you understand why your edits are problematic. Could you please give me some respect back, particularly enough respect to read and understand the links you are being given? Thank you. → ROUX ₪ 17:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even going to address you anymore Roux, (Personal attack removed) (I checked the many other comments on your own talk page) I'm not personally out to get you believe me. The reference that it grew out of the Acid House movement is right there - that is the source. I don't need to repeat this. I think there is something wrong with you if you need some book to tell you that this record is NOT Trance, and it is NOT from the Acid House movement. It clearly shows you were not part of the original scene (Personal attack removed) My guess is you came into the scene around 1992. It's expressly forbidden to listen to it? I think your going off here. This website is about music, I think it is important to actually hear what we are talking about. In fact references to the actual vinyl releases for most statements on this page hold more merit than books or articles. Why? Articles written on Trance are highly suspect and not scholarly sources. Even if they were written from some 'reputable source', half the time it is written by some nerd who has it completely wrong, or interviewed by some DJ who has an adgenda to 'attach himself' as some creator. Much like anything else they are opinions. The actual vinyl records themselves and the dates they were released are more relevant than any book. (I can't remember how to do the line break sorry)Danceking5 (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You called me a stalker. That is a personal attack, as is 'unstable and annoying' and 'god complex.' As warned on your talkpage, I will now have to take your behaviour to WP:ANI where someone else can deal with it.

As for your other points: the reference you provided, to discogs.com, does not support your assertion that trance grew out of acid house. Nor does it support any of your other assertions, as far as I can see, but I will give you a chance. Please show me where on the discogs.com page you cited it says the following:

1. This track is trance
2. This is the first trance track
3. Trance grew out of Acid House

The simple fact of the matter is that facts on Wikipedia, where they are contentious, must be cited to reliable sources. There is no need for simple statements such as 'the sky is blue' or 'water is wet' to be cited. Anything more questionable, however, must be. I think maybe you don't understand why? Readers must be able to go to the source material we use and verify for themselves that the facts as presented are true.

I did not say it was forbidden to listen to the track. I said it was forbidden to listen to the track and draw our own conclusions. There is a huge difference there, one that forbids the use of original research. Do you understand what the term 'original research' means? It means that even if you are completely right about what you are saying, it cannot be used on Wikipedia without reliable sources stating that is the case. This isn't negotiable; it is an absolute policy.

In other words, I do not need a book to tell me that the track is trance, but Wikipedia does. The actual vinyl records and the dates they were released do not support any statements other than "This track exists and was released on this date by this label." That's it. You cannot use a reference to support a statement when the actual content of that statement is not present in the reference. Since I seem to be making very little headway getting you to understand this concept, could you please explain to me what you find unclear here?

As for 'can't remember how to do the line break', at this point my reserves of assumption of good faith are rapidly draining, as I have explained to you several times how to format your comments on talkpages correctly. Indeed, in the comment you responded to above I gave very clear instructions as to Wikipedia norms for talkpage formatting. Here it is again: Please also indent your comments, as I have taught you before, as it makes the page confusing to read when you keep putting divider lines. Simply put a colon at the beginning of a paragraph to indent once, two colons for twice, etc; one more colon than the comment previous to yours. Thank you. → ROUX ₪ 20:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Roux I didn't even read what you have put above, it's getting to the point of TOO MUCH TEXT. (Personal attack removed) I think the page would be extremely interested on you ADDING content. (Personal attack removed) - how are you able to scan this page in real time? I'm logging off because I have to go.Danceking5 (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please format your talkpage comments correctly. I don't know why I keep having to ask you this.

Your failure to read what I have to say is your problem entirely. I am trying to teach you about the Wikipedia policies which you don't seem to understand. Your personal comments and implications about my life are neither wanted nor allowed, I suggest you redact them. → ROUX ₪ 21:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)