How does the book handle lived experience versus the record?

The book works from two things at once: what I lived through, heard and watched happen, and what the record can actually back up. When they line up, I lean into it. When they don't, I say so and flag the speculation as speculation.

When I state something as fact, I try to be careful and, where I can, point to something you could go check yourself. Every date has to earn its place: a release with a catalog number, a chart you can look up, a flyer that actually got printed and handed out at a venue. Anything that's interpretation gets labeled as interpretation.

What happens when the book gets something wrong?

Once I confirm an error, I post it on the corrections page with the original wording next to the fix, and it gets corrected in later revisions.

Research notes

How the book decides what it can say.

Euphoria Unleashed tells the history of Trance through what I lived, heard and watched happen, and through what the record can actually back up. This page lays out the standard behind that, so you can judge the book against it.

Memory and the record, kept apart

I tell this history through what I lived, heard and watched happen, and through what the record can support. Where those agree, I lean into it. Where they diverge, I say so, and speculation gets flagged instead of slipped in quietly.

Every date is earned

A release with a catalog number. A chart you can look up. A flyer that got printed and handed out at a real venue. A date with nothing attached to it is just a guess wearing a history costume.

Traceable where it's factual

When I'm stating a fact, I try to be careful and, wherever I can, point you to something checkable. Where a point is interpretation and not fact, I call it interpretation.

Clarity, not legend-building

Trance culture runs thick with myths, half-remembered nights and strong opinions. If I claim something mattered, there's evidence behind it. If there isn't, I soften the claim.

Reviewed by the people who were there

Before publication, artists, managers, labels and industry professionals read their own sections, among them Gareth Emery and Kassy Ruimy, Emma Hewitt, Black Hole Recordings, Emily Tan, Stark Profiles PR and Silver Lining Agency, Kiss That Sound, Music First Agency, Future Sound of Egypt, Anjunabeats, Armada, Henrik Twardzik and Toby Marks of Banco de Gaia.

Publish the errors

Anything confirmed wrong gets logged in public on this site with the original wording and the fix, then corrected in later revisions.

Sourcing and evidence

What counts as evidence here.

Most of what gets written about Trance history is recollection. Recollection is worth having, and it's also unreliable on dates. These are the sources I lean on, roughly in the order of how much weight they carry.

Records and release dates: Catalog numbers, label credits and pressing information. This is about the most reliable anchor you can get, because the object still exists.
Label and catalog histories: What a label put out, in what order, and who was on it. A catalog run shows a scene changing direction long before anyone sits down to write an essay about it.
Compilations and mix CDs: Tracklists from commercial mixes are dated, credited and checkable, which makes them a solid record of what was actually getting played.
Event and festival lineups: Flyers, printed lineups and archived programmes. They pin down who played where and when, and they're a lot harder to misremember than a night out.
Magazines and press: Coverage from the time shows how something actually landed then, not how it got remembered later.
Radio shows and documented playlists: Weekly shows and their published tracklists are one of the few continuous, dated records of what a scene was actually listening to, week by week.
Interviews and liner notes: First-person accounts, treated as first-person accounts. Good for intent and context, weaker on dates.
First-party review: Artists, managers, labels and industry professionals read their own sections before publication and pushed back when a detail was wrong.

Where two sources disagree and neither one is checkable, I say so rather than pick the tidier version. The resources page lists the public archives, radio shows and databases that anyone can use to check this work, the source library sets out which of them can settle which kind of claim, and corrections explains how to report an error.

Common questions

About the sourcing.

How does the book handle lived experience versus the record?: The book works from two things at once: what I lived through, heard and watched happen, and what the record can actually back up. When they line up, I lean into it. When they don't, I say so and flag the speculation as speculation.
Are claims sourced?: When I state something as fact, I try to be careful and, where I can, point to something you could go check yourself. Every date has to earn its place: a release with a catalog number, a chart you can look up, a flyer that actually got printed and handed out at a venue. Anything that's interpretation gets labeled as interpretation.
Did anyone from the scene review it?: Yes. Artists, managers, labels and industry professionals read their own sections, and the book is more accurate for it.
What happens when the book gets something wrong?: Once I confirm an error, I post it on the corrections page with the original wording next to the fix, and it gets corrected in later revisions.

Keep going

Where to next.

The corrections log The source library The eight eras About Steve Zenone

How the book decides what it can say.

Research principles

What counts as evidence here.

About the sourcing.

Where to next.