A question for all the dubstep goers

Again, this applies only to transition DJs. If you're actually MIXING, they should always be in compatible keys. Don't knock strict harmonic mixing. It encourages DJs to actually mix, rather than do 64-bit transitions during breakdowns. I Don't care how smooth you get at that, it's crap compared to actual DJing.

^Isn't mixing in key better as "just a guideline" ? I mean I have all my records labeled with the key but honestly isn't the general vibe of the song and what music you want to bring for your audience in the limited time that you have just as important ?

Seamless, 10/10 transitions (or mixes if you want to distinguish) are possible, if not common with music in conflicting keys.

Just my

I understand where Patch is coming from.
This is one of the problems that arises when people learn to DJ this way. Just because your tracks dont have corresponding keys next to them does not mean they are not compatible. Mixing in key is supposed to be used as a guideline to help you plan and control the flow of energy. It is not meant to be some unspoken rule that says your sets must follow a harmonic pattern! They dont. Your set does not need to follow predictable keys just as it does not need to be a specific temp the whole time. Sets are supposed to be dynamic, spontaneous, and engaging. Nit picking details of your sets like this is a major crutch. It narrows your focus down into irrelevant technical aspects when your time would be better spent just playing around with the songs in your set.

There is so much wrong with this thread - I don't know where to start.

My bad yo. I should have made my question much more clear. Transitioning is a much better word to use. I'm struggling with "transitioning" during the break down. Lets say track B is playing and it reaches its 16 bar breakdown, and I start playing track A with its 32 bar intro and in hopes of transitioning into track A by time track B has finished its breakdown and has began its build up. Do I bring track A slowly into track B even though it has clashing elements. Eq'ing can only do so much, you know what I mean? Whats your take on something like this?

Well... Mixing is not synonymous with DJing. Most DJs "transition" but they call it "mixing".
Every Dubstep DJ I've ever heard (and I've heard hundreds more than I'd like) has just transitioned between tracks during breakdowns/buildups, and called that "mixing". Is that what you're talking about, or are you talking about double dropping and mixing actual verses?

There is so much wrong with this thread - I don't know where to start.

Avid dubstep mixer here.

^I agree with that post.

I find that EQing properly makes loong (over 1 minute of playing together is long IMO) blends a breeze if you choose the right songs. This how I do 95% of my transitions: have all the EQ killed and add and subtract frequencies to your liking.
But I would advise against using this kind of mixing with heavy dubstep with lots of prominent stuff going on or tunes with a lot of vocals, if you got a tune like that on your hands then I say work a quick transition out. Or mix only in the break.
Or if you reach a 16 bar break, start the incoming track at bar 16 instead of bar 1, then you can double drop if you want.

Maybe upload a mix for more directed answers.

My bad yo. I should have made my question much more clear. Transitioning is a much better word to use. I'm struggling with "transitioning" during the break down. Lets say track B is playing and it reaches its 16 bar breakdown, and I start playing track A with its 32 bar intro and in hopes of transitioning into track A by time track B has finished its breakdown and has began its build up. Do I bring track A slowly into track B even though it has clashing elements. Eq'ing can only do so much, you know what I mean? Whats your take on something like this?