Talk:Uplifting trance

	This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Music/Music genres task force project's importance scale .

Anybody?

agreed. googling, "anthem trance" gets 24,300, "epic trance" gets 305,000 and "uplifting trance" gets 1,480,000. i started the article so my bad really. --MilkMiruku 01:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think it looks good now.

Psychomel@di_(s)cussion 18:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Btw, to be exact googling shows that:

1. Anthem trance 1,450,000 hits
2. Epic trance 2,180,000 hits
3. Uplifting trance 1,990,000 hits

Yet I think the Google test is wrong in this case as we agree uplifting is much more common *outside internet*.

Psychomel@di_(s)cussion 19:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

those searches don't include quotation marks so the word trance and anthem/epic/uplifting only have to appear on the same webpage for it to appear in the results, rather than immediatly next to each other --MilkMiruku 19:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I think I've done working on this page for now, moved information from

Psychomel@di_(s)cussion 19:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

well i always knew it as euphoric, but thats a personal preference really220.238.180.200 08:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's kind of splitting hairs at this point. I think many would agree that 'epic' and 'anthem' trance are uplifting, and the 3 sub-genres sound very similar, so we might as well group them under one name Belfunk (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands now, "Anthem" and "Epic" redirect to this article, which i think is enough, since there's not really any characteristics which Anthem or Epic have and Uplifting doesn't. Belfunk (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Anthem trance" is usually used as a derogatory way to describe commercial uplifting trance (ie. anthem trance is not "real" trance). I find that songs get labeled as epic trance when they have more of a "cheesy" sound to them... A lot of it is just marketing, though, I mean epic trance must be great, right? -- Borb (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been made a separated page for Nitzhonot with a little more information. Firstly, I think the nitzhonot part should be removed from here, since my article already has these informations. Maybe a link still should be here for that page. Secondly, feel free to contribute. =) Thanks!

I'd just like to mentoin the "Epic trance" word leads to this article, but it should lead to "vocal trance". Epic trance = Vocal trance, and Uplifting trance = Anthem trance. Hope someone will fix this problem, because I don't know how to do it. --TaZaR 20:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Super8 and Tab have been producing some of the most popular progressive/uplifting songs today, and Tab has done a lot of work in progressive individually as well. Thought he should get a mention. —The preceding

"Famous AMV of Sky Falls Down (Armin van Buuren Remix) by djKAKERU" is listed at the bottom of this article, and I see no reason why it's there. For one, it adds nothing to this article, and additionally, it is not even famous. It has received about 18000 views in the timespan of almost an entire year, which, as many people know, is not enough for a YouTube video to be considered famous. This being said, I am removing the link from the article, since I expect this is nothing more than shameless self-promotion. Sandwiches99 18:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list is, like others in Wikipedia, an object that has become out of control. Inexperienced users find that it is an easy place to make a contribution. And this is fine and good; that's the nature of this free encyclopedia. However, it isn't what we're trying to accomplish.

What I'm going to do, in a few days time, is remove all the links to non-existing articles. There may be some further reductions, but that is where I'm going to start.

What about removing it altogether? I support this idea based on the content at

Hi ' 03:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Same goes with the artist list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.180.65 (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I agree. But, what we don't have are articles on these types of songs. You can see my work here recently has been to clean up these lists that tend to get out of control. I reduced the list to tracks that we have articles on. Maybe this isn't what's best though because, like you said, it could be argued that some of these tracks may not be categorized as uplifting trance at all. Thanks for speaking up... (Thinking of solution)

Hi ' 00:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

In the first section, we've got whole paragraphs about Goa and Progressive, which don't really seem germane to the topic at hand (Uplifting Trance). I'll try and make a few edits just to slim the article down and keep it topical. Belfunk (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well all I can say is Wow. I do agree the article was poorly done. I didn't have the motivation to do the work, so this cleanup you've done is so appreciated. Cheers man... Excellent work!

Hi ' 20:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The little heading at the top is right: the article lacks in sources. Do we have any news articles or any sort of hard material we can back up the article with? Especially for some of the "Current status" section. Belfunk (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've googled some, but wasn't able to find any useful statements. The type of links that come up are blogs or forums; these type of websites don't make adequate references. So we're stuck for now as far as web-based references go.

Hi ' 19:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Now that the article's been cleaned up a bit, I think we can bump it up a notch or two on the quality scale for the electronic music project —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belfunk (talk • contribs) 01:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I don't think it's necessary to include this list in the article at all. I think we can all agree those tracks are not really cookie-cutter uplifting trance, if even uplifting trance at all, which makes them poor examples of uplifting trance.

I do realize that trance's nature makes it difficult to find sourced examples, and the examples that are sourced are naturally mainly very commercial, and hence very commercial sounding.

Anyway, I think that this section should be deleted since it's really not necessary at all. Bootini (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's a good idea. I'm not opposed to it; I find myself spending too much time keeping the list restricted. Lets let this brew for a while & see what other editors might have to say. If, after no objections, I would be in agreement with the proposal.

Hi ' 21:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I whipped up a quick track with side-chain compression vs. none and put it in the article, because it's a core element to uplifting trance to make that euphoric emotion it gives you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kesean Beat (talk • contribs) 00:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the article cites the origins of this genre as being German with a reference, however the side-bar has the origin down as Greece. Can anyone clear up what the country of origin actually is? Pheliciano (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]