RANT HERE: What is a DJ?

LOFA · Post by **LOFA** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 7:38 am

Sorry for so many posts, SweetJesus, I am just very excited about this topic.

::mic-minimal::, I seriously wanted you to elaborate. I am hoping that you have point, and that you weren't just being contrary, though I apoplogize. ad concede that my tone was not condusive to a useful response. I think my point is lost on you, but I don't expect everyone to drink the same poison I do. Peace.

Pitch Black · Post by **Pitch Black** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 7:42 am

drc24 wrote: you equate DJing skill, the "choosing and presenting of music" with "playing a musical instrument." If DJing is a completely non-expressive act, then why do you put its associated skills in the same category as playing an instrument, a very self-expressive act?

drc24, I take your point. I should have been more specific in that I was talking about self-expression as meaning composing/writing/producing your own music. I agree that there is self-expression in "DJing" or "playing an instrument", of course there is.

However, DJing your own tracks is very different from playing someone else's tracks, in the same way that playing your own songs on an instrument is very different from playing someone else's songs. Its the question of composition/writing/recording the track that is the divider. I believe in this context, my Covers Band analogy is still valid.

cheers!
p

::mic-minimal:: · Post by **::mic-minimal::** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:14 am

i understand your point LOFA, but I'd rather have a civil discussion with you, I think speaking to each other rudely over this topic is silly.

I think that with the argument that some laptop entainers make for the sake of callinng themselves djs would also make somebody playing a guitar patch on a triton a guitarist and I just don't see it that way.

::mic-minimal:: · Post by **::mic-minimal::** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:23 am

another thing LOFA i read your second to last post and I agree with you entirely but I think you are discussing art and the audience, I don't think you are discussing 'what a dj is', and yes I actualy think that what your post was about is more inportant than the subject of what a dj is but thats
what the threads about.

philosophicly I couldn't agree with you more

Sintec · Post by **Sintec** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:27 am

It's the interaction that is important here. I've seen some DJ's who are really into what they do, you can feel that energy as a clubber on the dancefloor. Much like a good band some DJ's actually perform, leap around behind their decks or whatever.

One of my personal hates both from DJ's and live bands is those who just don't seem to be into what they're doing. If it doesn't fill you with energy and make you want to get up and dance or whatever then why are you playing it? Be it a piece of black plastic or a guitar or a laptop. Unfortunatly it's been my experience that the worst people for hiding at the back of the stage and offering no performance are the laptop/electronic music crew. With some notable exceptions too many of these performers stand behind there chosen electronic box and seem to ignore the crowd. This makes them no less a good musician but it can make for a very dull live performance.

I think the keyword for me here is performance. Be you a DJ, part of a live band, an electronic musician with laptop, or god forbid miming. It's the energy that you put into the performance that the audience will pick up on. Hell, Ultraviolence rocked live and their live set up consisted of a couple of mics an empty keyboard shell a dat player and an angle grinder. No musicianship necessary, apart from the occasional bit of singing. Didn't make them any less good live.

noisetonepause · Post by **noisetonepause** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:38 am

I'd say it's written in big letters on the first page of the Big Book of Obvious & Self-Evident Facts of Life that manipulating a full mix of a track with a turntable is nothing like playing chords on a guitar.

But then I'm not a DJ so I don't really know exactly what can be done with vinyl. Ne'ertheless, the is my uninformed opinion.

-Paws

LOFA · Post by **LOFA** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:59 am

That dude from rage against the machine... if I remember right he was origionally a truntableist, but decided to take his yale-bred turnatable approach to guitars/effects. An extreme example, but not if you are cognitive of the processes involved in developing a technical skill.

Guitars can sound invidual notes, or on top of drones. These sounds can be repeated with effects. Sounds can be toggled between delay channels/boxes. This is done all of the time, and it can easilly produce results, strikingly similiar to some house or ambient music.
Of course there are more direct routes, but before I got my shit together I was doing things like this for years.
I can't tell you how happy it makes me to finally tear shit apart on my G5 though!
Unfortunately, my earlier crap has more stage presence.

noisetonepause · Post by **noisetonepause** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:01 am

Nah, Tom Morello is a guitarist through and through. He did use the the term DJ about himself, but only as an allegory.

And I think he went to Harvard

-Paws

dCross · Post by **dCross** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:08 am

Pitch Black wrote:However, DJing your own tracks is very different from playing someone else's tracks, in the same way that playing your own songs on an instrument is very different from playing someone else's songs.

OK, I gotcha. We're coming from very different perspectives here, so I think it takes some explaining to get the message through both ends

I completely understand your analogy now - I just didn't want you to think that DJing other people's tracks is a completely non-expressive act.

When I'm talking about DJing, I'm focusing very much on this concept of a DJ's musical "style." This gives a DJ his individuality, and makes him/her an attraction beyond that of a human jukebox. I imagine, to a lesser extent, this exists in the cover band scene as well (only to "a lesser extent" because the club music world has focused very much on this "style" concept).

::mic-minimal:: I agree - the point I was making was that he used a non-traditional method to DJ, a method that many of his peers would scoff at. I was just focusing on the fact that as long as you fulfill your duty as a DJ, the specific method is of little concern.

Sorry to throw another analogy out there, but here's we go. This may help all you more musician-minded folks out there conceptualize what serious club DJs are trying to do.

A typical club DJ set runs 4-6 hours
A typical guitar solo runs 30-60 seconds

In 4-6 hours, a DJ will play 35-40 tracks (ballpark).
In 30-60 seconds, a Guitarist will play 35-40 notes/chords (ballpark).

The DJ's goal is to connect their songs together in a musically appealing way.
The Guitarist's goal is to connect their notes together in a musically appealing way.

If you stretch your notion of what a "solo" is, and turn it from a 30 second feat to a 4 hour "set," then change "notes" to "songs," you'll have a good idea of what a DJ is trying to do in a night.

Sure, their "notes" are very different from you're used to, but their "solo" is 3.5 hours longer than what you're used to as well.

bigdog · Post by **bigdog** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:18 am

i like the 'covers band " analogy best of all....since it more succintly describes my original intentions in replying to this thread......sure there are some good covers bands out there...but lets not get them confused with the people who actually create the music.....that is my point exactly
as for the assertion that how come people make heroes of djs much like pop stars of old....well that sort of vacuous nonsense will always go on as long as humans are as vapid as the current crop... i mean you can convince humans of anything..look at hitler!!.....lets face it rock and roll really is dead...but all the disc jockeys out there have a lot to answer for in that...................

LOFA · Post by **LOFA** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:23 am

whoops. Second hand info anyway- I should have known better.

hambone1 · Post by **hambone1** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 1:23 pm

As an ex-musician who couldn't make ends meet, I've resorted to DJing with Live. And I use many of my musician skills to make this happen, and my day-job graphic designer/3d skills are helping a lot with the big-screen video and sequenced lighting.

And I don't give a shit what anyone else thinks about it, except the paying people out shaking their booties on the dance floor and having a great time.

I think DJing is a bit of a misnomer. Anyone can spin records, CDs, digital, whatever. But working the audience with skill and talent is something different.

Any ideas for a new name?

sweetjesus · Post by **sweetjesus** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 1:44 pm

Booty Manipulators?

gaspode · Post by **gaspode** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 1:54 pm

noisetonepause wrote:I'd say it's written in big letters on the first page of the Big Book of Obvious & Self-Evident Facts of Life that manipulating a full mix of a track with a turntable is nothing like playing chords on a guitar.

But then I'm not a DJ so I don't really know exactly what can be done with vinyl. Ne'ertheless, the is my uninformed opinion.

-Paws

While I will concede the points that it may be nothing like playing a chord on a guitar... it is entirely possible to play/scratch a chord on two decks... Not that this is usually useful from a DJ'ing perspective... from a 'turntablist' it is... turntables can be just as musical an instrument as anything... and if you ever get the chance to see somebody compose an entire song with one turntable (perhaps two) and a series of stomp box loop effects I'd suggest taking it...

I'll agree with anybody that just playing songs on turntables and crossfading between them, backspinning before starting yet another song... or any of the other dubious 'tricks' just come down to a lazy or inexperienced DJ... this is definitely 'non' musical... and yeah, I'd say it is much easier for an amateur DJ with less practice and experience to get on the road and play than it is for an amateur musician... however I have several amateur musician friends who are out and booking clubs and events... so it isn't like it is impossible

Personally I don't DJ... but one of my friends does, and he has opened my eyes to what is possible with turntables... unfortunately it doesn't seem like many people really get beyond the 'yeah I mix songs' stage... on the other hand... how many people that pick up a guitar get beyond the 'yeah I can play stairway to heaven' stage and begin making their own songs.

I'm a computer programmer by trade... and a lot of these posts in the thread strike me as the sort of 'my programming language is better than yours' type... and not 'this has virtues over that'... so I guess I'm not surprised that the DJ's here are getting rather huffy and defensive... they were put there and feel they need to defend themselves... I'm also not terribly surprised that the 'musicians and producers' are taking the high ground trying to make us believe that the DJ's are anything because of 'that amazing track I wrote'... I've heard plenty of DJ's take songs that are kind of catchy but would bomb by themselves... but when mixed with another song are completely amazing. So who made that a good song... the original artist that did a so so job... the other artist that is being mixed in for good flavor... or the dj who is actually doing the work? Probably someplace in between...

Personally my advice is to stop being so clique... it really isn't that cool to be down on others anyways... and there isn't any valid reason for group x to prop themselves up over group y... can't we all just get along?

gaspode · Post by **gaspode** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:01 pm

bigdog wrote:i like the 'covers band " analogy best of all....since it more succintly describes my original intentions in replying to this thread......sure there are some good covers bands out there...but lets not get them confused with the people who actually create the music.....that is my point exactly
as for the assertion that how come people make heroes of djs much like pop stars of old....well that sort of vacuous nonsense will always go on as long as humans are as vapid as the current crop... i mean you can convince humans of anything..look at hitler!!.....lets face it rock and roll really is dead...but all the disc jockeys out there have a lot to answer for in that...................

Aren't the really good cover bands the ones that take a song and not only make it their own, but also sometimes make it better? Just because they take the lyrics of a song, and possibly a couple melodies, but change everything else... aren't they possibly being more creative than just labelling them a 'cover band' allows?

If I went to see a DJ... who didn't play an ounce of shit for an entire set I'd make them my hero too... just thinking of how much dregma and crap they had to sift through so that they could come up with a two or more hour set... yikes... hehe