Am I Totally out of my mind thinking this is total garbage

Home :: General Discussion :: Am I Totally out of my mind thinking this is total garbageReply
Am I Totally out of my mind thinking this is total garbage
Posted on: 06.06.2012 by Sarai Suchman
Okay so this is a post off a different community . People actually believe this post is considered "VALID" Djing. I'm sorry but its shit like this that pisses me off...and further more people actually consider this being a DJ...Fuck me if this is what it has come down to i may as well throw away all my gear.


"I'm a Virtual DJ program DJ. I line up songs and let the program do a 4 second automix. On most evening s, the most I'll do is change the automix points of songs, so that it comes in when I want it to and cuts off any unnecessary intro's and outro's. I do it for a living, it takes care of me and my wife, and we live pretty comfortably. I have 4 guys who work for me, and last year my company had almost 700 shows. Everything from 12 year old birthday parties to Weddings, plus, mostly, a lot of bars and restaurants. In any given evening we can go from top 40, to old school hip hop, to 90's rock, to country... Whatever seems to fit the mood of the crowd. I charge about $50 per hour with a 4 hour minimum for the basic shows, obviously, much more for Weddings and the more complicated gigs. If I've got a dance floor slammed, and I'm playing a bunch of songs that would go well mixed together, I'll usually do some basic beat matching and mixing within Virtual DJ and throw in a few effects sparingly, but nothing fancy, and frankly, usually people don't know the difference between my beatmatched mix, and virtual DJ's quick automix. In a way, I do it just to look busier. Also, some of the area DJ's that mix give me shit because I'll "press play, and walk away"... But I'm usually off engaging specific people in the crowd. Checking in on the different groups of people, cracking jokes, getting to know the newcomers, basically trying to make damn sure that everybody is having a good time and that they know who I am and that they can and should come up and engage me.

I often shake my head when I go on DJ boards and hear people bad mouthing program DJing. I can believe of a bunch of DJ's off the top of my head in my area who mix and work really hard at it, and are pretty damn good at it. But they don't make good and consistent money or get consistent shows, because they don't adapt to different crowds as well. With that said, there are also a few DJs in my area that mix top 40, are really good at it, and are like local celebrities. I'm happy for their success. I would never bad mouth mixing, but there is more than one way to skin a cat. We're all supposedly about the music, I'd rather play 50 random incredible songs that fit my crowd, in their entirety, than 100 similar styled, pretty good songs, that we're beatmatched and cut up.

Now, I'm here because I'm trying to teach myself to mix a lot better, and I'd like to start using my NS6 out once in a while if the show seems to call for it. But I definitely wanted to chime in to say that plenty of people out there in my fairly affluent Chicago suburbs have a blast getting drunk while I DJ, and I usually don't mix at all. Song selection is the key for me, I love it when at the end of the evening , the hipsters, dubsteppers, country girls, and top 40 fans are all leaving happy. I love it when I play a track and people go apeshit because it's an awesome song that they forgot existed and they still remember every word... that's my favorite. I love being a DJ, I just haven't needed to mix to love it, or to profit from it. "
Hipolito Scionti
10.06.2012
Originally Posted by mostapha
I'd love to see you perform at a wedding…honestly.

Most of the weddings I've been to are family…couple friends…which were usually better and had live bands. And I'll agree with you that the vast majority of my firends have shit taste in music. Why do you believe I spend so much time on community s?
Thing is your mixcloud is one of the community member mixes on here that I really like (actually believe we got similar tastes in music and sensibilities when it comes to house music).

Have you got a d/l link?

Weddings can be great parties but it takes a good crowd who appreciate decent music and a dj who has an ear for music that caters for various eras without compromising on taste and can craft a set. I actually believe that's fairly rare and most jobing mobile djs do disappoint, I'll give you that.

This is a longish old mix I did live at a bar (not exactly what i'd play at a wedding) but I try and keep things "broadish" and fun but still "cool. If you get a chance have a listen http://www.maxonemusic.com/2012/01/l...20th-jan-2012/

I'd recommend using the d/l link so you can skip through if you're attention isn't fully grabbed, the wordpress player i used is wack (whole site needs an overhall).

Peace.
Hipolito Scionti
10.06.2012
Originally Posted by mostapha
Fixed.

All DJs are entertainers, some better than others. I have seen nothing to imply that all of them are artists, though some obviously are.



And for what appears to be the vast majority of people, the quality of music doesn't affect the party in the slightest. It just has to be there. Mobile DJs don't tell a story with their mixes, and they don't paint an image using other people's tracks. At most, they figure out when to play slow songs and don't piss off people too much.

Again, maybe I've only been to really terrible events. But lousy bands that can barely play together and have no sense of musical appropriateness lead to better wedding receptions than mobile DJs in my experience and school dances can be done just as well with a radio.
No need for the fix. We were talking about the "art" of djing.

Dunno how old you are (im 35) but the weddings i've been to are my friends... most of my friends have wicked taste in music as do their family and ask me or other good DJs to play their weddings.

Now when I play a wedding I do tell a story with the music and the whole evening . I'm of the opinion that when you do something, you do it well.

Frankly the skill at a wedding is the same as when i play a club. I'm playing music to entertain and create a set. It has highs and lows.

To dismiss wedding sets wholeheartedly as the music being done "just as well with a radio" is selling a perfectly good party short. People are there, theyre in good spirits and the system is normally loud and decent. If that's not the basic ingredients for a good party then don't know what is...

It's like saying "all clubs" play monotonous music and someone could stick on a mixed cd or premade set. If any thing (as proved by David Guetta, etc) it's easier to get away with and less important to read the mood of the crowd.

You have just been to shit weddings (maybe you got shit friends?) and you're being narrow minded about them. Clearly nothing I say will sway you (as normal)
Dorie Scelzo
10.06.2012
Originally Posted by MaxOne
The better you read the crowd the more of an entertainer you are.
Fixed.

All DJs are entertainers, some better than others. I have seen nothing to imply that all of them are artists, though some obviously are.

Originally Posted by MaxOne
People at weddings are still people and everyone likes to party.
And for what appears to be the vast majority of people, the quality of music doesn't affect the party in the slightest. It just has to be there. Mobile DJs don't tell a story with their mixes, and they don't paint an image using other people's tracks. At most, they figure out when to play slow songs and don't piss off people too much.

Again, maybe I've only been to really terrible events. But lousy bands that can barely play together and have no sense of musical appropriateness lead to better wedding receptions than mobile DJs in my experience and school dances can be done just as well with a radio.
Dorie Scelzo
10.06.2012
Originally Posted by ellgieff
*shrugs* <awesome stuff>
I agree with you wholeheartedly. The only disagreement I have is that I don't believe there's anything the least bit artistic about mobile DJing, and I honestly want someone to show me an example of it.

Originally Posted by MaxOne
I'm believe comparing djing to art is certainly interesting but I actually believe it is more akin to movie making in one respect.
There's nothing about movies that isn't artistic, and it's not just in the editing. I've seen a lot of movies with horrible camera work, bad editing, terrible sound, etc. that were still great movies……and I've seen movies with flawless technicality that said nothing.

Alien vs. Avatar.

Alien had its charm. It also featured lots of new sequences and plot devices; great costumes and awesome effects; phenomenal set design; etc.…but the camera work was worse than lousy, the music fucking blows, and I've seen first year student films with sound that was worlds better. It sounds like Ridley Scott raped their boom op's dog the day before shooting started and set their re-recording mixer on fire before he started work. Sections are badly exposed. And (IMHO) they screwed up pacing to show off good models.

And it went down in history as launching a generation of sci-fi.

Avatar was technically flawless. Great camera work; great animation; just about perfect sound; good music; and just about the only even pretend legit use of 3D in a movie that I've seen. And it said nothing. The closest thing to art in that movie were the animators who did the backgrounds…and you get prettier stuff that says more for free out of an amateur's pirated copy of Illustrator.

Technicality in movies–just like in DJing–is a means to an end.

There's nothing artistic about beat matching. There's nothing artistic about operating a slate. But they both have to be done correctly for the art to come across……assuming that your artistic expression has anything to do with sync'd up audio.

Originally Posted by MaxOne
Wedding djing is like a Disney movie. No ones interested in the artistic camerawork as long as the story is emotionally / sentimentally fulfilling.
You didn't see the 3d version of Beauty & the Beast, did you? The technical wizardry detracted from the story. And that does happen.

But the art comes first. And that's where my objection to mobile jocks using advanced technology comes from: what's the point? If you can't say anything useful/beautiful/artistic with iTunes, why do you need Traktor?
Lela Umanskaya
09.06.2012
Originally Posted by ellgieff
*shrugs* I've gotten a little over the no true scotsman fallacy as applied to most art. There's a constant undercurrent (not just here, and not just in DJing, but all over the place) that:

"Art is aristocratic, not egalitarian: talent is not evenly distributed and the effort to learn artistic craft counts for much. Some people truly are better artists, and some people are better at using the artistic talent they’ve got. The rest of us are kept in line by their brilliance, which is justified by a sense of our own inadequacies."

It's bullshit. It's always been bullshit. Art is somebody expressing a part of their being that they might not normally share, that might ordinarily be hidden from the world.

I believe it's best when it has passion behind it - but passionless artistic expression is _still_ artistic expression whether it's my preference or not. I despise the suggestion that someone else's art is more "real" or "true" or "artistic" because its expressed in a way that's difficult for most people to achieve. I despise it mostly because of the way it locks many people out of even the opportunity to express themselves.

Techniques can be learnt. Always, and by everybody. So to suggest that technique is what makes one person an artist is to lessen the core of their art - which is the self they are expressing. This is why the "if you don't play on Vinyl, you're not a real DJ" is bullshit. It's why the "if you don't beatmatch and blend tunes together, you're not a real DJ" is bullshit.

"Talent" is a reflection that some people find some things easier to learn than others. But if you find something harder to do than I do, it doesn't mean your expression is less valid - it just means you work harder at it. If you wanted a real merit based system, it would be the people who struggled and still did it who would be lauded, not the people who happen to find something easy to do.

*sigh* I believe I may have got a little lost here. I'll let Bruce Lee wrap it up for me (once again, thanks to Tarekith for bringing this quote to my attention):

"Art reaches its greatest peak when devoid of self-consciousness. Freedom discovers man the moment he loses concern over what impression he is making or about to make."
No shrug necessary, you definitely hit on some very valid and interesting points
Lauretta Ehrhorn
13.06.2012		Having done both extensively I feel that Club DJing is a personal expression of my style/skills and Wedding DJing is a professional job to please the client (bride and groom). There is no doubt in my mind, however, that to do such mobile gigs requires a far more extensive knowledge of music.

Back to topic if I walked off and let autoplay do it's thing my clients would be far from happy (they pay for my DJing skills along with the PA and lights) and I would never be recommended again.

As I don't advertise I rely on client satisfaction for future gigs of this type and am busy for most of the year. Having said that I don't enjoy them anywhere near as much as the club gigs so autoplay may be adopted very soon.
Ethel Feigum
11.06.2012		@ mostapha, wish you could come to one of my wedding gigs. Don't have any sets recorded, though...

I agree, most weddings are pretty bunk parties. Too much family.

Most weddings you'll have a list of not only the formal dances, but usually 10-50 "must have" tracks from the bride and groom that HAVE to be played throughout the evening , preferably you can build a set around these to make sure you're playing the kind of stuff they want to hear. Turns out, they all want to hear the same old, tired crap, so I try to at least present it to them in a new way.

I carry a love story throughout the set, using their 1st dance as a starting point, older songs with an "innocent" flirty feel early on, then building into high energy anthems, then more passionate, intense tracks, and so on until everyone leaves the floor exhausted to go drink or have sex. Pretty much like a club set, except you're skipping between genres and limited to recognizable hits.

The way I see it, meeting or exceeding my client's expectations is my job. Doing that job while showcasing my personal style is what makes it art. Mobile gigs allow me to dj for a living, and I take advantage of that by spinning the best set I can every time.

That being said, the best wedding entertainment I've ever seen was an Elton John impersonator that I tech-ed for. He showed up in the middle of the reception in a fucking helicoptor. It was amazing.
Dorie Scelzo
10.06.2012		@Max…Despite not being able to sleep, I have to get up at 330 in the morning and have a lot of work to do. I'll listen to it while I'm doing it and also upload the file for you. Look for a PM around 10-11am your time.

And thanks for the compliment.

I really wish I'd seen better mobile DJs. A lot of parties would have been a lot better.

And, uhh…I'm not convinced weddings are good parties all that often. Open bars help, but the best one I've been to was a Led Zeppelin cover band that was actually talented (I hate Led Zeppelin BTW…love what they did for blues-rock and easily credit them with their place in history…but I hate their recordings) and most of what I remember involved sharing fine smokeables and home-brew beer while passing around acoustic guitars with the wedding party and a few close friends after the bridge & groom went off to go screw.
Erica Charvet
10.06.2012		Most of my weddings are a lot of fun, but it heavily depends on the group of people there. I've seen GREAT wedding DJ's go home two hours early because no one wanted to dance and have a great time.

And interestingly enough, I attended a wedding with the WORST, least professional wedding DJ I have ever seen last summer. His setup could have made the "How to not run your mobile DJ business" thread. He had the crowd rocking from 6 to midevening the whole time.

Why? Because mixing talent is far from the focus of a reception - it's about family and friends coming together to see each other and enjoy each other's company. They aren't paying you to take them on an artistic, musical journey. They're paying for you to set a good atmosphere for the time they spend together. This is why I hardly do anything other than simple transitions at weddings - Because that's all they want. Besides, what am I going to do? Put together some kind of mashup with "Shook you all evening long" with "Piano man" and "Dixieland Delight?" A good section of the music is just not destined for mixing.

Although I will say that I've done weddings that have tons of 20-year old friends, and those tend to be a lot of fun because I can do some club-style sets. They do seem to enjoy the fact that I can actually mix in those situations.
Hipolito Scionti
10.06.2012
Originally Posted by mostapha
I'd love to see you perform at a wedding…honestly.

Most of the weddings I've been to are family…couple friends…which were usually better and had live bands. And I'll agree with you that the vast majority of my firends have shit taste in music. Why do you believe I spend so much time on community s?
Thing is your mixcloud is one of the community member mixes on here that I really like (actually believe we got similar tastes in music and sensibilities when it comes to house music).

Have you got a d/l link?

Weddings can be great parties but it takes a good crowd who appreciate decent music and a dj who has an ear for music that caters for various eras without compromising on taste and can craft a set. I actually believe that's fairly rare and most jobing mobile djs do disappoint, I'll give you that.

This is a longish old mix I did live at a bar (not exactly what i'd play at a wedding) but I try and keep things "broadish" and fun but still "cool. If you get a chance have a listen http://www.maxonemusic.com/2012/01/l...20th-jan-2012/

I'd recommend using the d/l link so you can skip through if you're attention isn't fully grabbed, the wordpress player i used is wack (whole site needs an overhall).

Peace.
Dorie Scelzo
10.06.2012		I'd love to see you perform at a wedding…honestly.

Most of the weddings I've been to are family…couple friends…which were usually better and had live bands. And I'll agree with you that the vast majority of my firends have shit taste in music. Why do you believe I spend so much time on community s?
Hipolito Scionti
10.06.2012
Originally Posted by mostapha
Fixed.

All DJs are entertainers, some better than others. I have seen nothing to imply that all of them are artists, though some obviously are.



And for what appears to be the vast majority of people, the quality of music doesn't affect the party in the slightest. It just has to be there. Mobile DJs don't tell a story with their mixes, and they don't paint an image using other people's tracks. At most, they figure out when to play slow songs and don't piss off people too much.

Again, maybe I've only been to really terrible events. But lousy bands that can barely play together and have no sense of musical appropriateness lead to better wedding receptions than mobile DJs in my experience and school dances can be done just as well with a radio.
No need for the fix. We were talking about the "art" of djing.

Dunno how old you are (im 35) but the weddings i've been to are my friends... most of my friends have wicked taste in music as do their family and ask me or other good DJs to play their weddings.

Now when I play a wedding I do tell a story with the music and the whole evening . I'm of the opinion that when you do something, you do it well.

Frankly the skill at a wedding is the same as when i play a club. I'm playing music to entertain and create a set. It has highs and lows.

To dismiss wedding sets wholeheartedly as the music being done "just as well with a radio" is selling a perfectly good party short. People are there, theyre in good spirits and the system is normally loud and decent. If that's not the basic ingredients for a good party then don't know what is...

It's like saying "all clubs" play monotonous music and someone could stick on a mixed cd or premade set. If any thing (as proved by David Guetta, etc) it's easier to get away with and less important to read the mood of the crowd.

You have just been to shit weddings (maybe you got shit friends?) and you're being narrow minded about them. Clearly nothing I say will sway you (as normal)
Dorie Scelzo
10.06.2012
Originally Posted by MaxOne
The better you read the crowd the more of an entertainer you are.
Fixed.

All DJs are entertainers, some better than others. I have seen nothing to imply that all of them are artists, though some obviously are.

Originally Posted by MaxOne
People at weddings are still people and everyone likes to party.
And for what appears to be the vast majority of people, the quality of music doesn't affect the party in the slightest. It just has to be there. Mobile DJs don't tell a story with their mixes, and they don't paint an image using other people's tracks. At most, they figure out when to play slow songs and don't piss off people too much.

Again, maybe I've only been to really terrible events. But lousy bands that can barely play together and have no sense of musical appropriateness lead to better wedding receptions than mobile DJs in my experience and school dances can be done just as well with a radio.
Hipolito Scionti
10.06.2012		@Mostapha It was a simplified analogy but thought it was a bit stronger that comparing djing to pure art. I disagree that with all films the art comes first, many times the motivation will be cynical and just to entertain in order to make money... And yes even then sometimes people make "art" almost by accident. But not always (Gigli)

You've heard a lot of bad wedding djs clearly.

But controlling a room is controlling a room.

If you give the same selection of wedding songs to two different djs, even if they can only use iTunes, the better Dj will rock it.

The better you read the crowd the more of an artist you are.

Now give that good Dj the same tunes and traktor and he can mix Blue Monday with Sweet Dreams at the right time of the evening and get the party rocking.

Give the that even better Dj the opertunity to pick his own wedding music and he will sift the great well known songs from the shit ones and create a set that transcends the humdrum cliches.

People at weddings are still people and everyone likes to party. Great djs always make a good party better
Dorie Scelzo
10.06.2012
Originally Posted by ellgieff
*shrugs* <awesome stuff>
I agree with you wholeheartedly. The only disagreement I have is that I don't believe there's anything the least bit artistic about mobile DJing, and I honestly want someone to show me an example of it.

Originally Posted by MaxOne
I'm believe comparing djing to art is certainly interesting but I actually believe it is more akin to movie making in one respect.
There's nothing about movies that isn't artistic, and it's not just in the editing. I've seen a lot of movies with horrible camera work, bad editing, terrible sound, etc. that were still great movies……and I've seen movies with flawless technicality that said nothing.

Alien vs. Avatar.

Alien had its charm. It also featured lots of new sequences and plot devices; great costumes and awesome effects; phenomenal set design; etc.…but the camera work was worse than lousy, the music fucking blows, and I've seen first year student films with sound that was worlds better. It sounds like Ridley Scott raped their boom op's dog the day before shooting started and set their re-recording mixer on fire before he started work. Sections are badly exposed. And (IMHO) they screwed up pacing to show off good models.

And it went down in history as launching a generation of sci-fi.

Avatar was technically flawless. Great camera work; great animation; just about perfect sound; good music; and just about the only even pretend legit use of 3D in a movie that I've seen. And it said nothing. The closest thing to art in that movie were the animators who did the backgrounds…and you get prettier stuff that says more for free out of an amateur's pirated copy of Illustrator.

Technicality in movies–just like in DJing–is a means to an end.

There's nothing artistic about beat matching. There's nothing artistic about operating a slate. But they both have to be done correctly for the art to come across……assuming that your artistic expression has anything to do with sync'd up audio.

Originally Posted by MaxOne
Wedding djing is like a Disney movie. No ones interested in the artistic camerawork as long as the story is emotionally / sentimentally fulfilling.
You didn't see the 3d version of Beauty & the Beast, did you? The technical wizardry detracted from the story. And that does happen.

But the art comes first. And that's where my objection to mobile jocks using advanced technology comes from: what's the point? If you can't say anything useful/beautiful/artistic with iTunes, why do you need Traktor?
Lela Umanskaya
09.06.2012
Originally Posted by ellgieff
*shrugs* I've gotten a little over the no true scotsman fallacy as applied to most art. There's a constant undercurrent (not just here, and not just in DJing, but all over the place) that:

"Art is aristocratic, not egalitarian: talent is not evenly distributed and the effort to learn artistic craft counts for much. Some people truly are better artists, and some people are better at using the artistic talent they’ve got. The rest of us are kept in line by their brilliance, which is justified by a sense of our own inadequacies."

It's bullshit. It's always been bullshit. Art is somebody expressing a part of their being that they might not normally share, that might ordinarily be hidden from the world.

I believe it's best when it has passion behind it - but passionless artistic expression is _still_ artistic expression whether it's my preference or not. I despise the suggestion that someone else's art is more "real" or "true" or "artistic" because its expressed in a way that's difficult for most people to achieve. I despise it mostly because of the way it locks many people out of even the opportunity to express themselves.

Techniques can be learnt. Always, and by everybody. So to suggest that technique is what makes one person an artist is to lessen the core of their art - which is the self they are expressing. This is why the "if you don't play on Vinyl, you're not a real DJ" is bullshit. It's why the "if you don't beatmatch and blend tunes together, you're not a real DJ" is bullshit.

"Talent" is a reflection that some people find some things easier to learn than others. But if you find something harder to do than I do, it doesn't mean your expression is less valid - it just means you work harder at it. If you wanted a real merit based system, it would be the people who struggled and still did it who would be lauded, not the people who happen to find something easy to do.

*sigh* I believe I may have got a little lost here. I'll let Bruce Lee wrap it up for me (once again, thanks to Tarekith for bringing this quote to my attention):

"Art reaches its greatest peak when devoid of self-consciousness. Freedom discovers man the moment he loses concern over what impression he is making or about to make."
No shrug necessary, you definitely hit on some very valid and interesting points
Emanuel Kepics
09.06.2012		Thanks for the great post Ellgieff. Too true and well said.
Isa Erik
09.06.2012
Originally Posted by MaxOne
I'm believe comparing djing to art is certainly interesting but I actually believe it is more akin to movie making in one respect.

Basically, like movies, it takes a certain amount of technical / mechanical skill to create one and also, although it can be "art" it's more often "entertainment" with the craft itself being "invisible" to the punter.

Most people don't watch a film believeing "that was great editing" but just get swept along by the pace and story. Filmmakers (like other djs do with mixing) appreciate the skill when done well.

Think of the music as the story and content and djing as the camerawork and editing and hopefully the analogy holds.

Wedding djing is like a Disney movie. No ones interested in the artistic camerawork as long as the story is emotionally / sentimentally fulfilling.
very well said
Hipolito Scionti
09.06.2012		I'm believe comparing djing to art is certainly interesting but I actually believe it is more akin to movie making in one respect.

Basically, like movies, it takes a certain amount of technical / mechanical skill to create one and also, although it can be "art" it's more often "entertainment" with the craft itself being "invisible" to the punter.

Most people don't watch a film believeing "that was great editing" but just get swept along by the pace and story. Filmmakers (like other djs do with mixing) appreciate the skill when done well.

Think of the music as the story and content and djing as the camerawork and editing and hopefully the analogy holds.

Wedding djing is like a Disney movie. No ones interested in the artistic camerawork as long as the story is emotionally / sentimentally fulfilling.
Brunilda Kora
09.06.2012		ellgieff - awesome post, my man.

There is a great book that explores this in detail (I've just yesterday started to read it, again) called The Artists Way, by Julia Cameron. It explores in depth a lot of what you have mentioned. Recommended to me by The Phat Conductor/iLL Gates a few years back.

It says that to be creative is normal, and we learn (are taught?) NOT TO BE creative. It's an awesome book. Quite spiritual (mentions God, but God as in Good Orderly Direction) but not directly religious.

Well worth a couple of reads.
Georgina Schatzman
09.06.2012
Originally Posted by ellgieff
*shrugs* I've gotten a little over the no true scotsman fallacy as applied to most art. There's a constant undercurrent (not just here, and not just in DJing, but all over the place) that:

"Art is aristocratic, not egalitarian: talent is not evenly distributed and the effort to learn artistic craft counts for much. Some people truly are better artists, and some people are better at using the artistic talent they’ve got. The rest of us are kept in line by their brilliance, which is justified by a sense of our own inadequacies."

It's bullshit. It's always been bullshit. Art is somebody expressing a part of their being that they might not normally share, that might ordinarily be hidden from the world.

I believe it's best when it has passion behind it - but passionless artistic expression is _still_ artistic expression whether it's my preference or not. I despise the suggestion that someone else's art is more "real" or "true" or "artistic" because its expressed in a way that's difficult for most people to achieve. I despise it mostly because of the way it locks many people out of even the opportunity to express themselves.

Techniques can be learnt. Always, and by everybody. So to suggest that technique is what makes one person an artist is to lessen the core of their art - which is the self they are expressing. This is why the "if you don't play on Vinyl, you're not a real DJ" is bullshit. It's why the "if you don't beatmatch and blend tunes together, you're not a real DJ" is bullshit.

"Talent" is a reflection that some people find some things easier to learn than others. But if you find something harder to do than I do, it doesn't mean your expression is less valid - it just means you work harder at it. If you wanted a real merit based system, it would be the people who struggled and still did it who would be lauded, not the people who happen to find something easy to do.

*sigh* I believe I may have got a little lost here. I'll let Bruce Lee wrap it up for me (once again, thanks to Tarekith for bringing this quote to my attention):

"Art reaches its greatest peak when devoid of self-consciousness. Freedom discovers man the moment he loses concern over what impression he is making or about to make."
Never tried any drugs, but you're some one I would want to smoke/drop acid/eat shrooms with. Mad props for all of the above
Darlene Strohbeck
08.06.2012
Originally Posted by mostapha


Again, with you. But there's an artistic component to dance music (including hip hop) that isn't there in radio DJing or mobile DJing the way I've seen it done. They're doing the same thing (playing other people's music) but there's something about the dance/hip hop DJ vibe that just isn't there with other styles of "djing"

Mobile DJ'ing is an occupation not a style...And by all rights, a mobile DJ should be able to play the way any club DJ does, it's just that they can get away with the absolute minimum not because nobody cares, but because people spend their whole lives going to clubs and usually only get married once, they believe that all DJ's carry the same level of skill (or at least the basic mixing ability) that club DJ's do...Except that the wedding scene is full of hacks that ONLY got into it for the money and are only interested in exerting the most minimal level of effort possible (playing from iTunes).
Dorie Scelzo
08.06.2012
Originally Posted by jakeintox
I'm not gonna tear you a new one, but try djing a wedding or a prom before you pass judgement.
I've done fraternity parties that were basically mobile gigs. I occasionally bring real gear depending on what the party is supposed to be and how long the "late crowd" is going to stick around (a few of them have been fun) but the vast majority of them (after the first) were done with iTunes party shuffle. People who aren't specifically into EDM don't care that I'm not in the booth for 80% of the time, and no one cares that I'm typically above .15 BAC when I'm doing it.

Doing that as a professional is probably not a good idea, but I just don't see how they're at all the same thing.

Originally Posted by jakeintox
There is a flow to the music that controls the mood and energy of an event, just like a club gig, but without the benefit of a set genre. It requires intimate knowledge of many genres whether you like them or not, quickly reading crowds with diverse age ranges and musical tastes, good public speaking skills, a willingness to deal with requests, and sometimes the need to swallow your pride to make your clients happy. These are aspects of working as a dj, and I believe this deserves more respect than plugging in a usb stick and playing one genre for a few hours. It also makes me waaaay more $$$!
Agreed. There are skills involved. But I don't believe it's at all that complicated. I have maybe heard 500 distinct songs at all the mobile events I've been to or done, and I believe that's probably an overestimate. I don't see how picking which era of top40 to play is harder than controlling a floor using tracks that are in general so much more similar to each other. A gig where you can drop Thriller, Gangster's Paradise, Take Five, I'm Sexy and I Know It, and Fast Cars and Freedom is way easier to control. That's 5 groups, probably without too much overlap that are going to the bar at different times…going to the bathroom at different times…etc.

I firmly believe it's harder to control energy when everything is 120-128 BPM, all based on the same kick/hat/snare pattern, and using very similar instruments used in similar ways.

Originally Posted by jakeintox
People have been called djs since before there was edm, or hip hop, or beatmatching. If you play recorded music for people you are, by definition, a dj. That's it. Doesn't matter what you use, what you play, or HOW WELL YOU DO IT. People seem to believe 'dj' is some special title bestowed upon those with some superior skills and musical taste. It's not, it's just a fucking job title like bus driver or lawyer or porn fluffer, get over yourselves.
Again, with you. But there's an artistic component to dance music (including hip hop) that isn't there in radio DJing or mobile DJing the way I've seen it done. They're doing the same thing (playing other people's music) but there's something about the dance/hip hop DJ vibe that just isn't there with other styles of "djing", and there are a lot of very good musicians, engineers, record producers, and punters that easily accept that fact. A DJ that can't confuses me.

Originally Posted by MaxOne
Entertaining the crowd is the job and whether you mix or not is neither here nor there if the crowd are entertained
Agreed. I also haven't been to too many of those things where people who care about music sing much better praises than "it wasn't as bad as [some other guy]". I might have a skewed view based on how bad the ones I've seen are. That's why I'm hoping for someone to tear me a new one for having that opinion.
Werner Bile
08.06.2012		(off topic but..)

I always liked the way Picasso put it "We all know art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth..."
Rosenda Gossage
08.06.2012
Originally Posted by rotebass
DJ Yoda right hurr
*shrugs* I've gotten a little over the no true scotsman fallacy as applied to most art. There's a constant undercurrent (not just here, and not just in DJing, but all over the place) that:

"Art is aristocratic, not egalitarian: talent is not evenly distributed and the effort to learn artistic craft counts for much. Some people truly are better artists, and some people are better at using the artistic talent they’ve got. The rest of us are kept in line by their brilliance, which is justified by a sense of our own inadequacies."

It's bullshit. It's always been bullshit. Art is somebody expressing a part of their being that they might not normally share, that might ordinarily be hidden from the world.

I believe it's best when it has passion behind it - but passionless artistic expression is _still_ artistic expression whether it's my preference or not. I despise the suggestion that someone else's art is more "real" or "true" or "artistic" because its expressed in a way that's difficult for most people to achieve. I despise it mostly because of the way it locks many people out of even the opportunity to express themselves.

Techniques can be learnt. Always, and by everybody. So to suggest that technique is what makes one person an artist is to lessen the core of their art - which is the self they are expressing. This is why the "if you don't play on Vinyl, you're not a real DJ" is bullshit. It's why the "if you don't beatmatch and blend tunes together, you're not a real DJ" is bullshit.

"Talent" is a reflection that some people find some things easier to learn than others. But if you find something harder to do than I do, it doesn't mean your expression is less valid - it just means you work harder at it. If you wanted a real merit based system, it would be the people who struggled and still did it who would be lauded, not the people who happen to find something easy to do.

*sigh* I believe I may have got a little lost here. I'll let Bruce Lee wrap it up for me (once again, thanks to Tarekith for bringing this quote to my attention):

"Art reaches its greatest peak when devoid of self-consciousness. Freedom discovers man the moment he loses concern over what impression he is making or about to make."
Lela Umanskaya
08.06.2012
Originally Posted by ellgieff
What in any art has merit? Art has merit if someone likes it.
DJ Yoda right hurr
Georgina Schatzman
08.06.2012
Originally Posted by ellgieff
What in any art has merit? Art has merit if someone likes it.
Well played sir, very insightful you are young one
Rosenda Gossage
08.06.2012
Originally Posted by tokenasianguy
I guess that's true, but what in the "art" of DJ'ing does have merit? Most of it seems questionable and that would explain a lot about DJ egos.
What in any art has merit? Art has merit if someone likes it.
Darlene Strohbeck
08.06.2012
Originally Posted by rotebass
Same, it's technically impressive but has little merit beyond that IMO.
I guess that's true, but what in the "art" of DJ'ing does have merit? Most of it seems questionable and that would explain a lot about DJ egos.
Lela Umanskaya
08.06.2012
Originally Posted by JasonBay
Yes, I acknowledge that it takes mad skills and talent to be able to do what they are pulling off.
Same, it's technically impressive but has little merit beyond that IMO.
Rosenda Gossage
08.06.2012
Originally Posted by JasonBay
Has this really gone on for 7 pages now?
Yeah, but there's the core of an interesting discussion forming around the original piece of ridiculous snobbery.
Danae Dumler
08.06.2012
Originally Posted by JasonBay
Has this really gone on for 7 pages now?
nope; 8, thanks to your post
Hipolito Scionti
08.06.2012
Originally Posted by jakeintox
I'm not gonna tear you a new one, but try djing a wedding or a prom before you pass judgement. There are plenty of playlist djs out there half-assing these gigs, but there are also a lot of real, skilled djs (yes DJs!) that work their asses off to make these events special and memorable for people. This is way harder than a club gig (I've done plenty of both).

There is a flow to the music that controls the mood and energy of an event, just like a club gig, but without the benefit of a set genre. It requires intimate knowledge of many genres whether you like them or not, quickly reading crowds with diverse age ranges and musical tastes, good public speaking skills, a willingness to deal with requests, and sometimes the need to swallow your pride to make your clients happy. These are aspects of working as a dj, and I believe this deserves more respect than plugging in a usb stick and playing one genre for a few hours. It also makes me waaaay more $$$!

People have been called djs since before there was edm, or hip hop, or beatmatching. If you play recorded music for people you are, by definition, a dj. That's it. Doesn't matter what you use, what you play, or HOW WELL YOU DO IT. People seem to believe 'dj' is some special title bestowed upon those with some superior skills and musical taste. It's not, it's just a fucking job title like bus driver or lawyer or porn fluffer, get over yourselves.
Yup, this.

I got flown to Isle of Mull of west coast of Scotland just on Sunday for a wedding set. All expenses paid (flights, hotel, car hire, etc) plus
Georgina Schatzman
08.06.2012
Originally Posted by rotebass
Except they all usually sound like a pile of audio garbage. Nobody would want to hear that at a Club.



Or scratching is a useless novelty?
Couldn't agree more as well. Yes, I acknowledge that it takes mad skills and talent to be able to do what they are pulling off. BUT, it's a routine and not something you can really do for four hours without the crowd losing interest.
Danae Dumler
08.06.2012
Originally Posted by sdrthedj
I learned how to play the piano, gut a fish, and...
yeah but can you tuna... aw forget it
Georgina Schatzman
08.06.2012		Has this really gone on for 7 pages now?
Lela Umanskaya
08.06.2012
Originally Posted by tokenasianguy
The really impressive DJ's are the turntablists...The ones that really use turntables as instruments and win DMC competitions.
Except they all usually sound like a pile of audio garbage. Nobody would want to hear that at a Club.

I always hear DJ's say "that's not my style of DJ'ing" but I can't help but believe it's just another way of saying "I can't scratch".
Or scratching is a useless novelty?
Darlene Strohbeck
08.06.2012
Originally Posted by jakeintox
I'm not gonna tear you a new one, but try djing a wedding or a prom before you pass judgement. There are plenty of playlist djs out there half-assing these gigs, but there are also a lot of real, skilled djs (yes DJs!) that work their asses off to make these events special and memorable for people. This is way harder than a club gig (I've done plenty of both).

There is a flow to the music that controls the mood and energy of an event, just like a club gig, but without the benefit of a set genre. It requires intimate knowledge of many genres whether you like them or not, quickly reading crowds with diverse age ranges and musical tastes, good public speaking skills, a willingness to deal with requests, and sometimes the need to swallow your pride to make your clients happy. These are aspects of working as a dj, and I believe this deserves more respect than plugging in a usb stick and playing one genre for a few hours. It also makes me waaaay more $$$!

People have been called djs since before there was edm, or hip hop, or beatmatching. If you play recorded music for people you are, by definition, a dj. That's it. Doesn't matter what you use, what you play, or HOW WELL YOU DO IT. People seem to believe 'dj' is some special title bestowed upon those with some superior skills and musical taste. It's not, it's just a fucking job title like bus driver or lawyer or porn fluffer, get over yourselves.
Well said. Even for the club DJ's that just do straight up mixing track to track, it's not very impressive, so I tend to believe that DJ's (of the mixing variety) tend to have an inflated sense of self worth. They talk about their talent in "mixing" and "track selection"...Well it's not hard to mix. Anyone can do it, and track selection is subjective. There's nothing impressive about a DJ that just mixes. The really impressive DJ's are the turntablists...The ones that really use turntables as instruments and win DMC competitions. I always hear DJ's say "that's not my style of DJ'ing" but I can't help but believe it's just another way of saying "I can't scratch". I can't scratch either, but it's not because "it's not my style of DJ'ing" it's because I suck at it, otherwise I'd do it, and to me that's when someone can say they truly mastered the art of DJ'ing.

Seems like since the beginning of time DJ's have been trying to stand up for themselves as a legitimate career, or art, talking about how hard it is and how much work it requires...But let's be honest it doesn't. I quit working in Marketing in a corporate office to pursue DJ'ing full time in search of an easier life and the work itself is so simple.
Ladonna Schlender
08.06.2012
Originally Posted by Ed Paris
i just read your sig "I dont care if you use 2 ipads...2 cassette tapes...or a washboard and a wooden spoon...if you rock it, you rock it".
The OP got hoisted by his own petard with this post and he hasn't posted in this thread since!

The guy and his 4 employees did nearly 700 gigs last year. That's between 13-14 gigs per week between them, about 3 per week, every week, each.

As far as his customers are concerned he obviously "rocks it" so, given the OP's sig, the OP should rate him.

Most DJ's I know are so far up their own arses it's a wonder they ever see daylight.

If the customer is happy then, for the customer, you are doing a great job.

There are many types of DJ, some mobile, some club/resident, some scratch, some mix, some are personality DJ's and some do a little bit of everything etc.

The snobbery from some is breathtaking. They do their thing and you do yours. Why worry?

The customer is always right, and if you don't like that or agree with it, go and do something else or stay in your bedroom.
Rosenda Gossage
08.06.2012
Originally Posted by jakeintox
People have been called djs since before there was edm, or hip hop, or beatmatching. If you play recorded music for people you are, by definition, a dj. That's it. Doesn't matter what you use, what you play, or HOW WELL YOU DO IT. People seem to believe 'dj' is some special title bestowed upon those with some superior skills and musical taste. It's not, it's just a fucking job title like bus driver or lawyer or porn fluffer, get over yourselves.
This.

<< Back to General DiscussionReply

Copyright 2012-2023
DJRANKINGS.ORG n.g.o.
Chuo-ku, Osaka, Japan

Created by Ajaxel CMS

Terms & Privacy