Why was 2006 such a good year for hardstyle

[Dutchboyuk]

Btw here's why 2006 was such a good year for hardstyle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostalgia. I predict in another 8 years there'll be people going 'remember 2013/14 and how great hardstyle was just before blah blah'

lol I don't think so tim

You're kidding me right? There's always some old cunts talking about how much better stuff was 'before'.

[Reverse Ghost]

lol it's not nostalgia that makes that period seem great at all.
It was a development year, almost like puberty, but not as awkward or terrible, quite the opposite.
No one is going to look back at 2013 and 2014 and remember how "great" it was. More average releases around this time period, with only a handful of really great tracks people will always remember.

[Shadow Interaction]

No one is going to look back at 2013 and 2014 and remember how "great" it was.

exactly... no matter how good tracks are, they just don't empower the feel of a generation growing up alongside with it. It's a timebound thing, hardstyle nowadays is simply too commercial for that. not just in sound, but also in crowd direction.
tho i'm sure the kiddies from these days will lateron say "how awesome 2010 was" ... well that was an okayish year, but you get my point.

[Absence]

Sometimes I don't understand what people mean with quality. In my opinion a simple kick sample from 2002 sounds way better, than a complex for instance Noisecontrollers kick nowadays. If you take a look at impact, the progress of the kick, the punch and tail being indistinguishable etc. then the simple sample kick beats the complex kick at every aspect. Ofcourse a 2002 producer would be unable to create such a Noisecontrollers kick back then, but does that mean the quality has increased, perhaps the complexity has increased at a faster rate.

[Shadow Interaction]

^ i think "quality" can be considered something like "technicly, analyzable explainable", though through the years equipment has become better so the details are more notably for adjusting, thus making kicks definately "better" then before
Quality is not a level of personal opinion.

[Dutchboyuk]

Quality is not a level of personal opinion.

This, this, a thousand times this

[Absence]

^ i think "quality" can be considered something like "technicly, analasisable explainable", though through the years equipment has become better so the details are more notably for adjusting, thus making kicks definately "better" then before
Quality is not a level of personal opinion.

Impact, progress and elements sounding as 1 are technically analyzable. It is a fact that it is harder to distinguish punch and tail in a simple early kick than it is in a new Noisecontroller kick. My point was, that the complexity of a kick has increased faster than that they can handle quality-wise and therefore the quality is less even though the techniques have become more advanced.

[Neutronic]

^ i think "quality" can be considered something like "technicly, analasisable explainable", though through the years equipment has become better so the details are more notably for adjusting, thus making kicks definately "better" then before
Quality is not a level of personal opinion.

Impact, progress and elements sounding as 1 are technically analyzable. It is a fact that it is harder to distinguish punch and tail in a simple early kick than it is in a new Noisecontroller kick. My point was, that the complexity of a kick has increased faster than that they can handle quality-wise and therefore the quality is less even though the techniques have become more advanced.

or nah. I call bias man

[ceero]

Quality is not a level of personal opinion.

This, this, a thousand times this

Yep, do agree. But i absolutely disagree that quality of music is measured by the quality of the production. An idea is way, way more than technique/performance, that you can say perhaps about progressive metal where technique really is a matter of talent but to produce electronic music on nowadays production standards can learn literally everyone if he has the will to do so, that is not a matter of talent, what is a matter of talent is to make something unique and new out of it. Look at Coone, his production quality is on a high level but for what, his addition to the hardstyle genre is equal to zero. Imo that goes for music in general, look at The Beatles, its stupidly simple music, none of the band members were particullary standing out in the instrument they played and its still considered to be one of the greatest bands ever because they were original, they brought something new, they changed the course of the whole music.
You know if you took the production level as a determinant of quality, we could go one step further. My gf's brother, who i always have passionate debates about music says that electronic music is shit music, because it cant be performed live on a concert because he values how much a band impresses him when he goes to see their concert the most to decide whether he likes the music or not. And i think we can agree that is not a very good measure for the quality of music itself.

[Neutronic]

But the problem is that while you can be objective (to an extent) about technical quality, it is virtually impossible to agree upon who is creative or not. I hear so many people in here talking about how the earlier hardstyle was so diverse and creative and I just dont hear it, while I can totally get trying to do hardstyle at 130BPM, others call it commercialism and being uncreative. I dont think "quality of music" can be measured but I think its important to distinguish it from technical quality.