Youtube users have been incredibly resourceful in unearthing video content previously unavailable to anyone interested in the history of trance. The following clip, dated late 1996, is a brief Channel 4 (UK) news report detailing the emergence of the Goa trance phenomenon into the public sphere of awareness. Since this is British programming, the emphasis is on Dragonfly, TIP, Flying Rhino, and Return To The Source, with soundbites from trance pioneers Simon Posford, Youth, James Monro, Chris Deckker, and Raja Ram. Beware the “nostalgic” graphics!

Despite the age of this clip (now more than a decade old), it still serves as a reasonably well-articulated primer on what distinguishes the Goa trance movement from the rest of electronic dance music culture. By its very nature, the report provides an outsider’s perspective—one which would not necessarily match that of someone within the movement, then or now—but I think it manages to strike fairly close to the mark, for its time. It is interesting to reflect upon all that has changed over the years since those early days, and also to consider what elements of psychedelic trance culture have remained relatively unaltered over the years.

Thanks go out to Chechko for the find.

Mushroom Magazine, a major psytrance publication with worldwide distribution, recently announced the discontinuation of their CD reviews sections. From the press release:

We will from now on only print a list of new CD releases instead of a review beginning with the coming July issue. The reason for this is that we simply can’t afford the high costs for this section of the magazine.

Admittedly, some would claim those reviews were never all that great to begin with—Mushroom Magazine typically avoided publishing anything contentious that might ward off potential advertisers (many of whom are distributors, labels, or other such music-related businesses). Despite the tendency for lavish praise, reviews in Mushroom provided labels with an inexpensive avenue to gain some exposure for their products in this era of “dwindling sales figures.”

The press release contends that the new “Artist Features” will compensate readers and small labels for the lack of free reviews. Since Mushroom cites “high costs” as their reason for abandoning the reviews section, obviously the replacement feature will have some income potential. The obvious candidate for this role would be in the form of an advertorial, defined by Wikipedia as “an advertisement written in the form of an objective opinion editorial, and presented in a printed publication—usually designed to look like a legitimate and independent news story.” Flip through a few issues of Mushroom Magazine and you might notice correlations between the artist/label profiles and the advertising placed in a given issue. Some of those profiles may have been paid for—a familiar practise in the commercial publishing industry. The question here is mainly one of degree—how much of the content in Mushroom is directly sponsored?

As a freely distributed publication, Mushroom Magazine relies on revenue from the sale of advertising. Although this arrangement is common, free publications typically strive to achieve a balance between the interests of the readership (quality content) and the interests of the business (securing and maintaining an income stream). With the relaxed standards of the psytrance scene, Mushroom has been free to increase the amount of paid and sponsored content beyond what readers in other markets would be comfortable with. Consumer choice—often a source of strong influence over business decisions—seems muted in the psytrance underground.

Advertising in Mushroom Magazine is not cheap; the most inexpensive unit (a microscopic box roughly the size of a postage stamp—2.8cm x 3.0cm) runs for an astounding 140 € (roughly the cost of manufacturing 25 CDs under contract with a major distributor such as Wirikuta). Larger sizes cost far more—as much as a whopping 1150 € for a full page spread. Naturally, these rates are often beyond the means of all but the most successful labels in today’s over-saturated market. Responding to a wave of criticism to this effect, Mushroom Magazine devised a new payment scheme, described in a follow-up press release:

When you decide to advertise with us we will forward your request to your distributor and will arrange an approval for the advertising budget. The payment will be made by your distributor; the amount will be deducted from your sales statement at a later date.

Is such an offer really in the best interest of labels on a limited budget? I suppose this depends on how effective advertising with Mushroom really is—something that is virtually impossible to assess. After all, Mushroom is really only selling the image of a widely read magazine. They readily play fast and loose with the numbers in their press release, citing a worldwide readership of 150,000 despite having a circulation of only 50,000. Incredibly, the inflated readership count is based on the assumption that every single issue is shared by “the usual 3 readers.”

Now, I don’t mean to trash Mushroom Magazine—I’ll leave that to Damion at Psyreviews, who happens to be very severe in his critique. My main concern with regards to this “restructuring” is how it might impact an industry that Mushroom acknowledges is at an “all time low.” Has Mushroom done wrong in making this move to strip the reviews from their future publications? This really depends on whether or not their reviews were of great value in the first place. We cannot dismiss their quality while simultaneously revolting against this editorial decision as if it were a direct affront to labels, artists, and listeners. Plainly, it is difficult to operate a successful business in an underground subculture such as this one. The advance of online media no doubt poses a challenge for a publication that prides itself on the prestigious print format. As much as there may be a tendency to respond in anger to Mushroom’s announcement, perhaps a more measured response would be helpful—let’s wait and see.