Previously huge DJs

  On 7/4/2011 at 1:58 PM, Coalbucket PI said:

I get really frustrated with people feeling the need to compare playing an instrument with playing a live electronic set with being a DJ. There is only so much to be said for how much you enjoy it because of the technique being employed to give you music. I can't believe this thread gave birth to the idea that a DJ is inferior for trying to entertain people! I nearly soiled my keks when I read that.

 

I think the spontinaeity that you are capable of as a DJ is what makes it a lot of fun to experience. I generally find live electronic sets are a lot more boring and chin stroky, and despite the amount of control you theoretically have they are often a lot less spontaneous than a good mix.

I guess you're mainly referring to my posts so I'll reply to that. The idea that the DJ is inferior due to the "technique being employed to give you the music" wasn't what I was saying at all. It's more to do with the fact that, due to the nature of what DJing is in its most basic form, almost anyone CAN do it, with differing degrees of competence and creativity of course (I'm not referring to talented turntablists or the likes of Richie Hawtin who strips the music he's playing down to the barest essentials and recontextualises them in a unique and interesting way).

So anyway, you're left with someone's taste in music as the sole determiner of the quality of the set. It's a bit like saying that someone is musical because they collect "good" records... which simply isn't the case. Their actual understanding of the music they're playing can be minimal since they weren't actually required to make it and, in the worst cases, this "understanding" can be almost totally informed by prevalent trends in this or that musical genre.

What you find "boring and chin stroky" may well be a succinct, interesting and well planned musical journey... or it may not. The fact remains, though, that if you are playing to and for a crowd as an entertainer, you will obviously be required to take your music in a different direction than you might if you were playing to a seated audience who were there to listen intently to what you are doing. Necessarily, this reverses the artist/ audience relationship and the interest of the music, which might be coming from the mind of one individual (ideally a creative and interesting mind), is rounded off to appease a mass consensus of what is danceable.

There is a place for flexibility and spontaneity in performance (best reflected by great jazz musicians) but if you take it too far you're no longer making art so much as providing a service for a fee. Exactly the same goes for string quartets who play at weddings... you're not likely to hear Bartok or Schoenberg, they'll stick rigorously to what pleases people who aren't there to engage with the music... Vivaldi or some shit.

Any DJ that gets to perform at Arcadia at Glastonbury is one lucky sod.

I used to DJ vinyl in the past and most of my sets were spontanious. mixing with an akai 40 and ablteton takes planning. sometimes I'll work on just one set for 2 weeks breaking down tracks to use for samples and loops and placing them just right.

I don't know, I've had good responses backing a slowdive track with a 4/4 beat so...

If I go out on the town and see some DJs, I don't care what format they use. But I would be more likely checking out a digital set up than trainspotting a spinning record.

  On 7/4/2011 at 1:35 PM, feltcher said:

Even circa 2000 I caught Oaken$old at a gatecrasher gig - again using 1210s. His beatmatching was spot on, some of the transitions lasted for minutes and the drops were timed to perfection. Sheer class, with a great build throughout the set. Just at the end of the peak of the superstar DJ period - must have been 10000 people in there going nuts.If you look at that youtube video I linked he is just fannying around with a couple of CDs...The local DJs at the ritzy clubs in Oxford would do a much better job.

Saw him at a smaller but packed club (hundreds of people, not thousands) in 2005 (i think) and he did alright, albeit with CDs. Still timed and beat-matched things well though. Then again I was drunk.

  On 7/4/2011 at 8:00 PM, asymmetrical head said:

I used to DJ vinyl in the past and most of my sets were spontanious. mixing with an akai 40 and ablteton takes planning. sometimes I'll work on just one set for 2 weeks breaking down tracks to use for samples and loops and placing them just right.I don't know, I've had good responses backing a slowdive track with a 4/4 beat so...If I go out on the town and see some DJs, I don't care what format they use. But I would be more likely checking out a digital set up than trainspotting a spinning record.

^You sound like the kind of DJ I would enjoy seeing live. Hell, I remember a silly but fun local DJ mashing up stuff on vinyl live for nerd rap group Grand Buffet, and at the end he spun the Ghostbusters theme while they sung U2's "In the name of love." They were quite stoned and it was hilarious. On the other end, I've seen people from well-known bands "DJ" but really just play some songs we've all heard before, especially at events like SXSW in Austin or festival after-shows. Just flat out pretentious and lame (to be honest, the recent surprise DJ sets by Thom Yorke give me that vibe).

I understand where both Jim and Coalbucket were coming from, I'm split down the middle. Solid track selection is key, RDJ's DJ sets are always good in this regard. I've also liked how "big name" people like Daft Punk and the Chemical Brothers mix and edit their own songs up live and have done so for years. But if someone is going to make a career out of DJing, they better bring it when it comes to transitions and mixing ability, whether they are turntablists, aces at ableton, or simply skilled at messing around with live trigger loop and sample set-ups.

^ Yeah, Chemical Brothers DJ sets are always worth catching. They certainly put that extra bit of effort into planning it out and dropping in classics / mashups / edit....

*digs out Brothers gonna work it out*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyx9opE5vho

If you can't see Oakenfold's skill in this set then there's no hope for you.

  On 7/4/2011 at 7:49 PM, feltcher said:

Any DJ that gets to perform at Arcadia at Glastonbury is one lucky sod.

 

damn, that's some cyberpunkish shit

  On 7/4/2011 at 11:32 PM, scones to die for said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyx9opE5vho

 

If you can't see Oakenfold's skill in this set then there's no hope for you.

Mm well whenever I DJ I mix it up so I throw in some dubstep, techno, garage and maybe some funk and electro. That said you got make the mix work and create the right sort of vibe/momentum. At the same time you can't please everyone but yeah playing stuff which just clears the dancefloor is lame and childish.

  On 7/4/2011 at 4:26 PM, jim said:

  On 7/4/2011 at 1:58 PM, Coalbucket PI said:

I get really frustrated with people feeling the need to compare playing an instrument with playing a live electronic set with being a DJ. There is only so much to be said for how much you enjoy it because of the technique being employed to give you music. I can't believe this thread gave birth to the idea that a DJ is inferior for trying to entertain people! I nearly soiled my keks when I read that.

 

I think the spontinaeity that you are capable of as a DJ is what makes it a lot of fun to experience. I generally find live electronic sets are a lot more boring and chin stroky, and despite the amount of control you theoretically have they are often a lot less spontaneous than a good mix.

 

I guess you're mainly referring to my posts so I'll reply to that. The idea that the DJ is inferior due to the "technique being employed to give you the music" wasn't what I was saying at all. It's more to do with the fact that, due to the nature of what DJing is in its most basic form, almost anyone CAN do it, with differing degrees of competence and creativity of course (I'm not referring to talented turntablists or the likes of Richie Hawtin who strips the music he's playing down to the barest essentials and recontextualises them in a unique and interesting way).

 

So anyway, you're left with someone's taste in music as the sole determiner of the quality of the set. It's a bit like saying that someone is musical because they collect "good" records... which simply isn't the case. Their actual understanding of the music they're playing can be minimal since they weren't actually required to make it and, in the worst cases, this "understanding" can be almost totally informed by prevalent trends in this or that musical genre.

 

What you find "boring and chin stroky" may well be a succinct, interesting and well planned musical journey... or it may not. The fact remains, though, that if you are playing to and for a crowd as an entertainer, you will obviously be required to take your music in a different direction than you might if you were playing to a seated audience who were there to listen intently to what you are doing. Necessarily, this reverses the artist/ audience relationship and the interest of the music, which might be coming from the mind of one individual (ideally a creative and interesting mind), is rounded off to appease a mass consensus of what is danceable.

 

There is a place for flexibility and spontaneity in performance (best reflected by great jazz musicians) but if you take it too far you're no longer making art so much as providing a service for a fee. Exactly the same goes for string quartets who play at weddings... you're not likely to hear Bartok or Schoenberg, they'll stick rigorously to what pleases people who aren't there to engage with the music... Vivaldi or some shit.

I don't really know who I was replying to. But anyway...

DJing in it's most basic form is as boring as anything in it's most basic form. If I was sat in a bar and someone was DJing in a simple straightforward way I might enjoy it but I probably wouldnt care much either way. Same as if someone was playing some basic piano pieces in the background. I feel like underneath it all you think DJing is inherently more basic, but I think playing any instrument or producing is as attainable by anyone at a basic level, and at more advanced levels becomes more interesting.

I don't really see where you are going with the idea of 'being musical'. Is it more musical to be able to wail on a guitar, or have a nice singing voice, or program funny little noises? Is that better or worse? You can get so far in most pursuits by following trends and being generic, there is nothing special about DJing that allows this any more than anything else. I think any good DJ is in the business of recontextualising music.

I also don't agree that people at a seated gig are not there to be entertained, I don't know why else they would be there. If the relationship is reversed then what you are saying is that the performer is entertaining himself and the crowd are doing the hard work. That's what I would call boring and chin stroky. I do like live sets a lot but I feel this is exactly what needs to be avoided with them. I don't really feel that it has any impact to know whether one is art and one is not, it's semantics at that point.

  On 7/5/2011 at 1:51 PM, Coalbucket PI said:

I don't really know who I was replying to. But anyway...

 

DJing in it's most basic form is as boring as anything in it's most basic form. If I was sat in a bar and someone was DJing in a simple straightforward way I might enjoy it but I probably wouldnt care much either way. Same as if someone was playing some basic piano pieces in the background. I feel like underneath it all you think DJing is inherently more basic, but I think playing any instrument or producing is as attainable by anyone at a basic level, and at more advanced levels becomes more interesting.

 

I don't really see where you are going with the idea of 'being musical'. Is it more musical to be able to wail on a guitar, or have a nice singing voice, or program funny little noises? Is that better or worse? You can get so far in most pursuits by following trends and being generic, there is nothing special about DJing that allows this any more than anything else. I think any good DJ is in the business of recontextualising music.

 

I also don't agree that people at a seated gig are not there to be entertained, I don't know why else they would be there. If the relationship is reversed then what you are saying is that the performer is entertaining himself and the crowd are doing the hard work. That's what I would call boring and chin stroky. I do like live sets a lot but I feel this is exactly what needs to be avoided with them. I don't really feel that it has any impact to know whether one is art and one is not, it's semantics at that point.

Well I agree that anything in its most basic form probably won't be interesting, but if we define basic DJing as the ability to beatmatch two house records, both in 4/4, and operate a crossfader... there are people with this very modest skill level who are are playing to large crowds for substantial amounts of money. Someone playing the piano to an equivalent level wouldn't dream of performing in public, or at least they shouldn't, and certainly not for a fee.

I didn't expect to have to argue the point that being musical was important for a musician, but perhaps it isn't as obvious as I thought. Please don't think I'm being snobbish about different types of music though. Being musical has nothing to do with the instrument you play or the mode in which you choose to deliver your music. However it cannot be denied that an unmusical person will be able to play records made by others. Sure they won't be able to recontextualise them in a creative way or do any skilful beat juggling, of course, which is a point we seem to agree on. After all, I wasn't launching some kind of attack on DJing as a whole, rather commenting that it is easier for someone with no talent whatsoever to do a "passable" job as a DJ (in terms of providing entertainment for a not particularly discriminating audience of people, many of whom are likely to be pissed, on pills or both).

Regarding the "seated audience", I'm referring to people who come with an open mind to be moved/ challenged/ musically stimulated/ and yes, perhaps entertained too, but above all to pay attention. They certainly shouldn't come expecting the artist to tailor his piece/set/show to suit them. This is the type of audience I'm familiar with from concerts of contemporary classical music, and perhaps I've become a bit spoiled that way, I dunno. About a month ago I went to see a couple of my friends playing in a London Contemporary Orchestra gig in a grimy club somewhere near Waterloo. I guess it was an attempt to cross boundaries in some way and to engage with a fresh audience but it was a dismal failure. They programmed fucking Morton Feldman of all things, the quietest subtlest music imaginable which, of course, was almost inaudible over the laughter, shouting and general din of the bar next door. People were chatting at full volume right beside the stage with no sense that it might even be inappropriate and many of them left after the first piece. This was an audience who wanted to be entertained, not challenged or stimulated and, to some extent, this is the kind of audience a DJ will pretty much always have to deal with.

  On 7/3/2011 at 1:35 AM, kaini said:

  On 7/3/2011 at 1:06 AM, jeyemusik said:

Scion doing their Arrange + Process Basic Channel Tracks live is one of my favourite gigs ever and that was a couple of guys monkeying about with Ableton.

 

yeah but they have the best techno in the world as source material. i love the mix cd.

+11111111 you turned me on to that cd, and from there on to allllll of dub techno, and i have only thanks to give in return!

  On 7/5/2011 at 1:40 PM, Promo said:

Mm well whenever I DJ I mix it up so I throw in some dubstep, techno, garage and maybe some funk and electro. That said you got make the mix work and create the right sort of vibe/momentum. At the same time you can't please everyone but yeah playing stuff which just clears the dancefloor is lame and childish.

that all sounds well and good but i'm a bit scared to hear how it would actually come off...

  On 7/4/2011 at 11:32 PM, scones to die for said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyx9opE5vho

 

If you can't see Oakenfold's skill in this set then there's no hope for you.

lol

goldie circa 1993

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5xa0CmeQp8

goldie circa 2010

Whoever said Paul Oakenfold could ever mix must be extremely lucky or something. I remember seeing that twat in 98 or 99 and he would spin 7 min trance tracks damn near all the way to the damn run off groove before he threw on the next track. i mean, he put ZERO effort into his set.

how did oakenfold get so big?

great question. right place/right time/right label?

Also, Goldie had a ghost writer for most of his shit. He was but a face to pin the music on. Rob Playford doesn't get enough credit methinks.

thanks for not saying cheeseburgers got him so big.

  On 7/7/2011 at 3:39 AM, sneaksta303 said:

great question. right place/right time/right label?

 

Also, Goldie had a ghost writer for most of his shit. He was but a face to pin the music on. Rob Playford doesn't get enough credit methinks.

perhaps in the later days, but i think the rufige kru shit was all his. and great.

  On 7/7/2011 at 3:39 AM, sneaksta303 said:

great question. right place/right time/right label?

 

Also, Goldie had a ghost writer for most of his shit. He was but a face to pin the music on. Rob Playford doesn't get enough credit methinks.

Two of my friends have ghost written for BT. That guy is a huge twat.

  On 7/7/2011 at 5:39 AM, kaini said:

  On 7/7/2011 at 3:39 AM, sneaksta303 said:

great question. right place/right time/right label?

 

Also, Goldie had a ghost writer for most of his shit. He was but a face to pin the music on. Rob Playford doesn't get enough credit methinks.

 

perhaps in the later days, but i think the rufige kru shit was all his. and great.

I was thinking it was the other way around because in the beginning, he didn't know how to do shit, then after some years, he picked up enough know how to do it himself. I know Timeless was Playford.

i liked it when goldie was in that james bond movie. the pierce brosnan one, with skiing and oil pipelines.

  On 7/7/2011 at 1:10 AM, kaini said:

goldie circa 2010

he is a goofy looking motherfucker no doubt, but I love pisstake photos like this (especially the metalhead in blow)

Goldie's son is a convicted murderer hahaha. Crazy shit.