18 tracks in an hour Hi,
I am recording a 1 hour mix for a friends party, which I unfortunately cannot attend.
In preparation for my mix I have selected 18 tracks. Is that about the right amount for an hours mix?
Thanks, in advance. |
Cole Maroto
29.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by The Pancaker
I personally like both styles of mixing. When mixing electro I can go for almost 30 tracks in an hour. Without going all buttonmasher crazy style. But when it's about keeping the energy up and pumping it might make sense sometimes. But then again, If I'm mixing tech house I'll just play out most of a song, mixing in/out maybe 30 to 40% of the track. I really enjoy the technical part of mixing electro (which I haven't at all mastered yet), but I also love a long groove which I can dance to. Hey, I've heard electro sets which are mixed in a more "classical" way and sound MUCH better than button mashing/scratching/screwing around. Take Chuckie on one side, keeping his sets groovy while still upbeat and with a LOT of energy. Take Laidback Luke on the other side, sure he's a great technical skills guy but he sometimes goes a tad too far IMO. And then there's Kissy Sell Out who's a total beast at quick mixes and drops and what not, but at the same time keeping the groove and energy. Granted, groove and energy are subjective, but in the end it's all about your own style of mixing and how the audience reacts to the music.
i believe there is a time and place for both styles of mixing as well. i generally like to hear/mix more traditional, long playing transitions in the deeper genres. it gives the songs the space they need to groove and build up all of the subtleties i love. when i'm listening/mixing drop oriented music (ie dubstep, dnb, electro) most of the time the quick mixes sound better to me. especially with dubstep, since i feel like most of those tracks are basically a 2-3 minute song that was just copied onto itself to make it twice as long. also, i generally like either only the drop or only the breakdown/buildup in dubstep songs, so it tends to sound better to me if there are quick drop-in style transitions without too much overlap. |
Lashawn Maycock
29.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by faderswagger
differences in style I guess. Personally, traditional DJs who will let one channel play just bore me to tears. These transition DJ guys ALLLLLLLWAYS go on about how "its all about the groove" and their "slow mixing style" is way better than the newer performance-stlye, and how we have no idea what we're doing.... So I feel obligated to voice opinions from the other side. There's something to be said for actually doing something behind the decks, and not being an EDM wedding DJ. An easy way to gauge how much time someone spends letting one track play out, vs how much time they're actually doing something, is how many tracks they play in an hour.
I suppose the style of music you're playing matters a bit... But I've seen people spin just about every genre in an awesome way... If you ask me, these guys who just let other people's tracks play out by themselves for 1-2 minutes are going to be bred right out of our scene, as the randoms are much more impressed by performance-style DJs than jukebox-style DJs.
EDIT: cause sometimes I'm bad at spelling. -_-
I'm afraid I have to disagree with your two posts, you are of course fully entitled to your opinion and I respect that however in my experience (UK and Ibiza) of most dance music orientated clubs (talking underground house/techno/trance), the music played over 8 hours is not frenetic quick mixes which you alude to, this would just not go down well and would drive most punters mad. The ebb and flow of a evening
it is generally what the promoters of most club evening
s are looking for and quick mix electro house sets are not the thing BUT there is always an exception to the rule which I accept.
I would also argue that the producers of the tracks have spent many hours creating it to be a certain way, obviously the DJ has licence to tweak, layer and add a new twist but do you not believe he/she/they may have already been through many iterations and edits of tracks along with commissioned remixes(?).
IMHO, the DJ is there is play tracks in a thought out manner to give the people on the floor a good evening
out, whilst reacting on the go as well as educating them in new sounds at the same time. It is not an opportunity for self indulgent button mashing which may be technically exciting but not necessarily a good evening
not make.
I could of course be completely wrong and this is a dying view.... |
Francie Gindin
29.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by lethal_pizzle
@faderswagger... who knows how people's tastes will change in the future? Historically, of course, it is obvious what length of track people want on the dance floor; dance music spawned the 12" single.
|
Leeanna Ayla
29.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by faderswagger
I suppose the style of music you're playing matters a bit... But I've seen people spin just about every genre in an awesome way... If you ask me, these guys who just let other people's tracks play out by themselves for 1-2 minutes are going to be bred right out of our scene, as the randoms are much more impressed by performance-style DJs than jukebox-style DJs.
EDIT: cause sometimes I'm bad at spelling. -_-
Or maybe it will be the other way around? |
Celestine Porebski
29.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by Emmett
Disagree entirely with your comment and CNBF wasting my time to tell you why.
+1. I don't believe I agree with a single word he said (well, except for the first sentence maybe). |
Francie Gindin
29.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by faderswagger
differences in style I guess. Personally, traditional DJs who will let one channel play just bore me to tears. These transition DJ guys ALLLLLLLWAYS go on about how "its all about the groove" and their "slow mixing style" is way better than the newer performance-stlye, and how we have no idea what we're doing.... So I feel obligated to voice opinions from the other side. There's something to be said for actually doing something behind the decks, and not being an EDM wedding DJ. An easy way to gauge how much time someone spends letting one track play out, vs how much time they're actually doing something, is how many tracks they play in an hour.
I suppose the style of music you're playing matters a bit... But I've seen people spin just about every genre in an awesome way... If you ask me, these guys who just let other people's tracks play out by themselves for 1-2 minutes are going to be bred right out of our scene, as the randoms are much more impressed by performance-style DJs than jukebox-style DJs.
EDIT: cause sometimes I'm bad at spelling. -_-
Disagree entirely with your comment and CNBF wasting my time to tell you why. |
Leeanna Ayla
29.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by lethal_pizzle
I have to disagree with the last, as I believe a track should be played out.
This |
Lashawn Maycock
29.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by Flash101uk
13 tracks an hour!? I guess I better slow down my mixing!
On a good day, with 3 decks rocking, I rinse a track a minute :s
So by the end of an hour set at a gig ive usually finished my 3 hour setlist and im digging the back catalogue for inspiration!
Hi Flash, by the looks of it you play D&B(?), big fan myself but don't play it out. Definitely agree, can certainly work through tracks very quickly. I guess it depends on the genre of dance music, some cries out for quick shifting whereas others longer transistions. |
Lashawn Maycock
29.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by photojojo
I play lots of deep stuff and will get 18-25 tracks in 2 hour sets. I don't play any electro. When I play deep sets I usually play about 95% of the song, but at least 50% of that song is usually being mixed with either the next song, samples from previous songs or both. I don't count and I usually don't watch the beat counter, but I do start stuff in phrase.
Ditto this, I play Deep & Soulful House which doesn't generally lend itself to quick mixing but I bring in the intros from the next track fairly early, as well as run a 3 or 4 deck with loops/samples/accapellas from upcoming tracks for example. |
Reva Poat
29.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by hola amigos
So you start track A at the beginning, then once it reaches 32 beats, then you push play on track B from the beginning and let that play to 32 beats, then load up another track from the beginning and start another song once that reaches 32 beats? I just tried that method, its a new type of mixing i never had experienced.
Especially when ı am making my own sets on mixmeister ı generally use this method of mixing.I mean 32 beats generally at soulful house genre ı dont know the other genres which ı dont play and cant say anything.But in soulful house ı start mixing in 32 beat and then mix in the other song.As well on live you can start on the last 16 last 8 or even the songs end is too long you can do it 64 beats as well.It s up to you and how it is sounds in to your ear. |
Celine Surico
29.05.2012 | A good DJ could make a one hour mix of that material. |
Cole Maroto
29.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by The Pancaker
I personally like both styles of mixing. When mixing electro I can go for almost 30 tracks in an hour. Without going all buttonmasher crazy style. But when it's about keeping the energy up and pumping it might make sense sometimes. But then again, If I'm mixing tech house I'll just play out most of a song, mixing in/out maybe 30 to 40% of the track. I really enjoy the technical part of mixing electro (which I haven't at all mastered yet), but I also love a long groove which I can dance to. Hey, I've heard electro sets which are mixed in a more "classical" way and sound MUCH better than button mashing/scratching/screwing around. Take Chuckie on one side, keeping his sets groovy while still upbeat and with a LOT of energy. Take Laidback Luke on the other side, sure he's a great technical skills guy but he sometimes goes a tad too far IMO. And then there's Kissy Sell Out who's a total beast at quick mixes and drops and what not, but at the same time keeping the groove and energy. Granted, groove and energy are subjective, but in the end it's all about your own style of mixing and how the audience reacts to the music.
i believe there is a time and place for both styles of mixing as well. i generally like to hear/mix more traditional, long playing transitions in the deeper genres. it gives the songs the space they need to groove and build up all of the subtleties i love. when i'm listening/mixing drop oriented music (ie dubstep, dnb, electro) most of the time the quick mixes sound better to me. especially with dubstep, since i feel like most of those tracks are basically a 2-3 minute song that was just copied onto itself to make it twice as long. also, i generally like either only the drop or only the breakdown/buildup in dubstep songs, so it tends to sound better to me if there are quick drop-in style transitions without too much overlap. |
Jerica Salava
29.05.2012 | You will probably end up using 13-14 tracks. |
Loyce Mekonen
29.05.2012 | I personally like both styles of mixing. When mixing electro I can go for almost 30 tracks in an hour. Without going all buttonmasher crazy style. But when it's about keeping the energy up and pumping it might make sense sometimes. But then again, If I'm mixing tech house I'll just play out most of a song, mixing in/out maybe 30 to 40% of the track. I really enjoy the technical part of mixing electro (which I haven't at all mastered yet), but I also love a long groove which I can dance to. Hey, I've heard electro sets which are mixed in a more "classical" way and sound MUCH better than button mashing/scratching/screwing around. Take Chuckie on one side, keeping his sets groovy while still upbeat and with a LOT of energy. Take Laidback Luke on the other side, sure he's a great technical skills guy but he sometimes goes a tad too far IMO. And then there's Kissy Sell Out who's a total beast at quick mixes and drops and what not, but at the same time keeping the groove and energy. Granted, groove and energy are subjective, but in the end it's all about your own style of mixing and how the audience reacts to the music. |
Lashawn Maycock
29.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by faderswagger
differences in style I guess. Personally, traditional DJs who will let one channel play just bore me to tears. These transition DJ guys ALLLLLLLWAYS go on about how "its all about the groove" and their "slow mixing style" is way better than the newer performance-stlye, and how we have no idea what we're doing.... So I feel obligated to voice opinions from the other side. There's something to be said for actually doing something behind the decks, and not being an EDM wedding DJ. An easy way to gauge how much time someone spends letting one track play out, vs how much time they're actually doing something, is how many tracks they play in an hour.
I suppose the style of music you're playing matters a bit... But I've seen people spin just about every genre in an awesome way... If you ask me, these guys who just let other people's tracks play out by themselves for 1-2 minutes are going to be bred right out of our scene, as the randoms are much more impressed by performance-style DJs than jukebox-style DJs.
EDIT: cause sometimes I'm bad at spelling. -_-
I'm afraid I have to disagree with your two posts, you are of course fully entitled to your opinion and I respect that however in my experience (UK and Ibiza) of most dance music orientated clubs (talking underground house/techno/trance), the music played over 8 hours is not frenetic quick mixes which you alude to, this would just not go down well and would drive most punters mad. The ebb and flow of a evening
it is generally what the promoters of most club evening
s are looking for and quick mix electro house sets are not the thing BUT there is always an exception to the rule which I accept.
I would also argue that the producers of the tracks have spent many hours creating it to be a certain way, obviously the DJ has licence to tweak, layer and add a new twist but do you not believe he/she/they may have already been through many iterations and edits of tracks along with commissioned remixes(?).
IMHO, the DJ is there is play tracks in a thought out manner to give the people on the floor a good evening
out, whilst reacting on the go as well as educating them in new sounds at the same time. It is not an opportunity for self indulgent button mashing which may be technically exciting but not necessarily a good evening
not make.
I could of course be completely wrong and this is a dying view.... |
Francie Gindin
29.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by lethal_pizzle
@faderswagger... who knows how people's tastes will change in the future? Historically, of course, it is obvious what length of track people want on the dance floor; dance music spawned the 12" single.
|
Marshall Aby
29.05.2012 | @faderswagger... who knows how people's tastes will change in the future? Historically, of course, it is obvious what length of track people want on the dance floor; dance music spawned the 12" single. |
Leeanna Ayla
29.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by faderswagger
I suppose the style of music you're playing matters a bit... But I've seen people spin just about every genre in an awesome way... If you ask me, these guys who just let other people's tracks play out by themselves for 1-2 minutes are going to be bred right out of our scene, as the randoms are much more impressed by performance-style DJs than jukebox-style DJs.
EDIT: cause sometimes I'm bad at spelling. -_-
Or maybe it will be the other way around? |
Celestine Porebski
29.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by Emmett
Disagree entirely with your comment and CNBF wasting my time to tell you why.
+1. I don't believe I agree with a single word he said (well, except for the first sentence maybe). |
Linda Chavda
29.05.2012 | I usually hit 18 tracks in 50-55 minutes with my mixing style, so that comes to about 20 tracks an hour, playing electro kind of stuff, maybe some leaning towards prog. |
Francie Gindin
29.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by faderswagger
differences in style I guess. Personally, traditional DJs who will let one channel play just bore me to tears. These transition DJ guys ALLLLLLLWAYS go on about how "its all about the groove" and their "slow mixing style" is way better than the newer performance-stlye, and how we have no idea what we're doing.... So I feel obligated to voice opinions from the other side. There's something to be said for actually doing something behind the decks, and not being an EDM wedding DJ. An easy way to gauge how much time someone spends letting one track play out, vs how much time they're actually doing something, is how many tracks they play in an hour.
I suppose the style of music you're playing matters a bit... But I've seen people spin just about every genre in an awesome way... If you ask me, these guys who just let other people's tracks play out by themselves for 1-2 minutes are going to be bred right out of our scene, as the randoms are much more impressed by performance-style DJs than jukebox-style DJs.
EDIT: cause sometimes I'm bad at spelling. -_-
Disagree entirely with your comment and CNBF wasting my time to tell you why. |
Natalia Bucko
29.05.2012 | differences in style I guess. Personally, traditional DJs who will let one channel play just bore me to tears. These transition DJ guys ALLLLLLLWAYS go on about how "its all about the groove" and their "slow mixing style" is way better than the newer performance-stlye, and how we have no idea what we're doing.... So I feel obligated to voice opinions from the other side. There's something to be said for actually doing something behind the decks, and not being an EDM wedding DJ. An easy way to gauge how much time someone spends letting one track play out, vs how much time they're actually doing something, is how many tracks they play in an hour.
I suppose the style of music you're playing matters a bit... But I've seen people spin just about every genre in an awesome way... If you ask me, these guys who just let other people's tracks play out by themselves for 1-2 minutes are going to be bred right out of our scene, as the randoms are much more impressed by performance-style DJs than jukebox-style DJs.
EDIT: cause sometimes I'm bad at spelling. -_- |
Leeanna Ayla
29.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by lethal_pizzle
I have to disagree with the last, as I believe a track should be played out.
This |
Marshall Aby
29.05.2012 | I have to disagree with the last, as I believe a track should be played out. A good track should progress over the two breakdowns and buildups and will only be satisfying as a whole. If you've had enough after a minute and a half then the track just isn't good enough. Having said that, you may want to switch up intensity during a mix and quick mixing is good for this, however I don't believe it's warranted over an entire mix. That's just my personal preference though, I'm sure some people love it when you rattle through the tracks. Electro maybe, deep house not so much. |
Natalia Bucko
29.05.2012 | If you're asking for open opinions, honestly I believe 18 tracks in an hour is way too slow to be interesting, especially with three-quarters electro. That's almost 3 and a half minutes per track, which means you're using two breakdowns/build ups of the same track the majority of the time, which I don't believe is a good thing to do.
EDIT: For background, I Just checked a few of my past electro set playlists and they're all between 30 and 35 tracks, including a couple of acapellas. four decks in traktor. I don't have any of them recorded any more, but if you want an example of how electro sounds at this pace, I could spend a quick half-hour recording one. |
Lashawn Maycock
29.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by Flash101uk
13 tracks an hour!? I guess I better slow down my mixing!
On a good day, with 3 decks rocking, I rinse a track a minute :s
So by the end of an hour set at a gig ive usually finished my 3 hour setlist and im digging the back catalogue for inspiration!
Hi Flash, by the looks of it you play D&B(?), big fan myself but don't play it out. Definitely agree, can certainly work through tracks very quickly. I guess it depends on the genre of dance music, some cries out for quick shifting whereas others longer transistions. |
Lashawn Maycock
29.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by photojojo
I play lots of deep stuff and will get 18-25 tracks in 2 hour sets. I don't play any electro. When I play deep sets I usually play about 95% of the song, but at least 50% of that song is usually being mixed with either the next song, samples from previous songs or both. I don't count and I usually don't watch the beat counter, but I do start stuff in phrase.
Ditto this, I play Deep & Soulful House which doesn't generally lend itself to quick mixing but I bring in the intros from the next track fairly early, as well as run a 3 or 4 deck with loops/samples/accapellas from upcoming tracks for example. |
Corrin Penney
29.05.2012 | 13 tracks an hour!? I guess I better slow down my mixing!
On a good day, with 3 decks rocking, I rinse a track a minute :s
So by the end of an hour set at a gig ive usually finished my 3 hour setlist and im digging the back catalogue for inspiration! |
Reva Poat
29.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by hola amigos
So you start track A at the beginning, then once it reaches 32 beats, then you push play on track B from the beginning and let that play to 32 beats, then load up another track from the beginning and start another song once that reaches 32 beats? I just tried that method, its a new type of mixing i never had experienced.
Especially when ı am making my own sets on mixmeister ı generally use this method of mixing.I mean 32 beats generally at soulful house genre ı dont know the other genres which ı dont play and cant say anything.But in soulful house ı start mixing in 32 beat and then mix in the other song.As well on live you can start on the last 16 last 8 or even the songs end is too long you can do it 64 beats as well.It s up to you and how it is sounds in to your ear. |
Leeanna Ayla
29.05.2012 | I play lots of deep stuff and will get 18-25 tracks in 2 hour sets. I don't play any electro. When I play deep sets I usually play about 95% of the song, but at least 50% of that song is usually being mixed with either the next song, samples from previous songs or both. I don't count and I usually don't watch the beat counter, but I do start stuff in phrase. |
Marshall Aby
29.05.2012 | Good rule of thumb is that quite a lot of house music takes about 4 x 32 blocks of music (or phrases, if you will) until everything kicks in. This you will probably want to mix in over the last 128 beats of the previous tune. At 128bpm this will take a minute or so. With 18 tracks, you have 17 transitions, so you'll spend 17 minutes in the mix. If each track is 5 minutes long, your mix will be 90-17=73 minutes long or so. If you do any quick mixing, your mix will be shorter etc. So total up the length of your tracks with Calc and knock 17 minutes off. |
Lashawn Maycock
29.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by hola amigos
Can you tell by looking at the waveform that its a breakdown? whats the best spot to mix out of and into a new track? The end of a track? The first breakdown 32 bars or later like 54 bars or 64 bars?
Like when the waveform is all like this
Pretty busy in the song.
Then is this considered the breakdown when the waveform looks flat?
You need to zoom out on your waveforms, it's very evident when there is a breakdown generally. Also most dance music (club mixes as opposed to radio mixes) will follow a 32 beats or 8 bars pattern change, although this is not a rule and there is likely other musical elements will be change at 16 beats/4 bars but the drum programming will almost certainly be based on 8 bars. Working to this principle 'most' mixes will 'sound' natural in terms of timing. It's difficult to explain in words but it is a fundamental ability required of a DJ to understand where he is in a track at any one point, with practice it should be second nature and you should be able to do this with even previously unheard tracks, any dance music really. In fact any one who listens to 4/4 based music (whether a DJ or not) has the ability to anticipate change within the track i.e. breakdowns, percussion changes, key change etc. I'm rambling now... |
Lashawn Maycock
29.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by 3heads
Haha, that's what I thought.
Anyways, for me the magic number seems to be 13 tracks per hour. Somehow I always end up with that. I play mostly deep and tech house and some techno, though. Might be quite different with an ADHD genre like electro house.
Great post, well summed up for me. |
Jolynn Schroyer
29.05.2012 | Can you tell by looking at the waveform that its a breakdown? whats the best spot to mix out of and into a new track? The end of a track? The first breakdown 32 bars or later like 54 bars or 64 bars?
Like when the waveform is all like this
Pretty busy in the song.
Then is this considered the breakdown when the waveform looks flat?
|
Yukiko Beauvil
29.05.2012 | Well breakdowns are usually the part where the tracks lose its kicks, so its only like pads, simply the melody etc. The soft and smooth part lol. If you are using traktor its the part where the waveform is thinner than usual unless they compressed the shit out of everything and it looks like a straight waveform lol |
Jolynn Schroyer
29.05.2012 | Yeah but its hard for me to find the "breakdown" or any other transitioning spot by ears. So i have the feature that tells me what bar I'm on. And i just watch till it gets up to 32 bars and then i push play on my other track from the beginning.
Pretty much trying to find the most common bar to start a new track on to transition smoothly I've listened to mixes and watched videos but none are hitting the question, what bar should i start my other track on. Im starting each of my new tracks from the beginning. Once the track hits 32 bars, i turn down the "Lo" and plus play on track B. then let that track take the more dominant role. |
Yukiko Beauvil
29.05.2012 | Most of the time something new happens in every 8 or 16bar so you can try to figure out which songs you want to let it play and which songs you want to mix in halfway etc. |
Jolynn Schroyer
29.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by Serkan Yerdan
I make house and soulful house mixes and my sets include like 9 or 10 and sometimes max 11.I usually make my sets for 1 hour and not more than that maybe one song less 55 mins is ok .But ı believe 18 songs in an hour is too much mixing in ? I believe in the sets rather than live you can choose the sounds and play it on the last 32 or 16 beats.I do it that way especially on soulful house ı go with 32 beats and then the other song starts.
So you start track A at the beginning, then once it reaches 32 beats, then you push play on track B from the beginning and let that play to 32 beats, then load up another track from the beginning and start another song once that reaches 32 beats? I just tried that method, its a new type of mixing i never had experienced. |
Maximina Daspit
29.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by firebr4nd
He was just asking for some help. There's absolutely no need to respond in a derogatory manner like that. It's not even like this is a thread you see often here...
10-20 tracks is pretty standard for an hour long mix of the genres you're mixing. Best bet is to start mixing with your 18 tracks in mind and then adjust based on how it's going.
Thanks. |
Ulysses Vittetoe
29.05.2012 |
Originally Posted by AllDay
You actually thought that this was a good thread to post.. haha.
Post the track list with the times and we can get a rough estimate... but oh wait, you could do that yourself.
He was just asking for some help. There's absolutely no need to respond in a derogatory manner like that. It's not even like this is a thread you see often here...
10-20 tracks is pretty standard for an hour long mix of the genres you're mixing. Best bet is to start mixing with your 18 tracks in mind and then adjust based on how it's going. |
