TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Promotion
-- Jack Moss - Time & Space [Mixtape]
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

Then why bring it up?

I didn't bring up "filling" a dancefloor. That's a different issue entirely. The physical rhythm of a crowd on a dancefloor is a direct manifestation of general human reactions to the rhythmic properties of music. The house tracks I play would bring a lot more energy to a dancefloor than those half-time drum 'n bass tracks, and I don't believe it's any different in your neck of the woods.

The beginning was interesting as I hadn't put too much time in reading the track list and wasn't sure where you were taking it. It almost sounded like you weren't really, either, but just kind of going with the flow and letting inspiration strike. (Kind of curious, actually, if you'd worked that out or were just intuitively mixing.) Some unexpected transitions later and you're making some interesting decisions that pull me out of what I'm doing (putting away laundry) to have a cigarette and concentrate on the mix.

It's not until the peak and release from the 125 or so BPM stuff, back into more ambient territory, that the clothes get hung. Everything was well mixed and it was great home listening. I suspect I'll hear it again to hear what I missed and also just because I really enjoyed it. Nice work, as always.

No, it was all planned. This isn't a live mix. If you read the tracklist, you'll see there's a couple of places where I throw in samples from other tracks, and do a significant re-edit on one track.

As I implied in the OP, I used the mixtape idea to be a bit looser and more diverse with the flow and the direction. I wanted to play a diverse collection of tracks that fitted the theme, and to be ultra-tight as well would be nearly impossible. I still think there's a definite structure and emotional journey here though, that reveals itself by the end.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I didn't bring up "filling" a dancefloor. That's a different issue entirely. The physical rhythm of a crowd on a dancefloor is a direct manifestation of general human reactions to the rhythmic properties of music. The house tracks I play would bring a lot more energy to a dancefloor than those half-time drum 'n bass tracks, and I don't believe it's any different in your neck of the woods.

And how does that relate to my earlier statement regarding the loss of rhythmic intensity and the effect it has on the climax of this particular set? I don't see how isolated dancefloor occurrences prove anything as to whether the progression and set-flow was executed properly in this case. It's all about context, if this half time D&B is played after a long night of downtempo and ambient then you will bring a lot of energy to the dancefloor as well.

I also pointed towards the multiple facets that make up a climax. Tempo is only one of these, it's not impossible to have a proghouse climax after a jungly build up, it just didn't feel convincing enough in this case. That's all I'm saying for now. If I can come up with a better analysis as to why this is after I've given it a few more listens then I'll let you know.

quote:

Originally posted by Bierheld I don't see how isolated dancefloor occurrences

What on Earth are you talking about?

You were comparing two fictional dancefloors I presume, they're playing proghouse on one and D&B on the other. You didn't mention the act of playing one style after the other, in which case I'd find your claims a lot more questionable.

...and?

...Now you know what I was talking about.

I'm not sure you know what I'm talking about though.

Something like:

Big ass house --> people dance.
half-assed D&B --> people don't.

Me:

You lost intensity when playing house after D&B in this case. No dancing was required in coming to this conclusion.

No... I'm trying my best to discover why you think this:

quote:

Whether the actual tempo changed or not, you're still working with a lot less in terms of bass-drum hits, and it feels tamer because of it.

...doesn't seem to apply on a dancefloor, and is so inextricable from this particular mix.

When you switch from half-time rythms to full-time rythms at a certain tempo, you lose half of your percussion. Does that have an effect on the intensity? yes or no? The key word being switch here.

I'm not saying you can't make up for the loss some other way, but the basic gist of the matter seems pretty clear. If this is all we're arguing about then I'm glad we've come to an agreement on the disagreement.

No, we're not on the same page here at all. I'm not even sure you've got the same book open. It's like you're not reading what I'm writing at all.

Anyway, it really doesn't matter.

Well you're quite the elusive one then aren't you.

If I'm misunderstanding the intent behind your arguments it's because I've had to make it up because you seal of your arguments in proverbial concrete in an attempt to ward off all possible disagreements. Every discussion from then on is doomed.
"You didn't get it! That's not what I said! What do you mean? What do you mean?"

One day we'll be able to do this. Together! I believe in you!

No I don't! You are unique in your ability to reply to something I've never written, and then to enter into this absurd meta-argument when I try and tell you that you've completely missed the point.

I'm going to recap this once, but if you make another irrelevant reply then consider this over, because as much as I like keeping my own mix on the front page I don't want to go down the rabbit hole about such a minor issue.

I told you how idiosyncratic your interpretation of rhythmic intensity was, and used the example of how most people would interpret the intensity of these tracks, using the example of their natural, physical response to the respective rhythms of the two sets of tracks. Play one of these drum 'n bass tracks and people would slow right down, responding to the 80bpm elements because they dictate the energy level in the tracks, the double-time drum spasms being more ear candy. Play a Timewriter track at 125bpm and people would dance with more energy. This would happen on just about any dancefloor. You need to get over the word "dancefloor" and stop jumping to conclusions about what the point is (something you do often). I've no idea, for instance, at what point you got any kind of conception I was talking about "isolated" situations, given I'm talking in complete generalities, and my phrasing could scarcely have made that more clear.

Also, I've just asked you about why your explanation of rhythmic intensity wouldn't apply on a dancefloor - why mere drum hits per square inch dictate intensity on a mixtape, but apparently not when it comes to a club. You completely, utterly, did not respond to that point at all. Not even close.

I think most people are quite prone to being dragged off-topic when it comes to a debate, particularly because most people develop their technique from verbal discussion where there is no written record of the thread of conversation, and I have always been very careful not to get dragged away from my own actual point. You seem to think that's game-playing, but I suspect you are merely very prone to misinterpretation or to jumping to quick conclusions and you're not used to someone who doesn't come along for the ride.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J No, it was all planned. This isn't a live mix. If you read the tracklist, you'll see there's a couple of places where I throw in samples from other tracks, and do a significant re-edit on one track. As I implied in the OP, I used the mixtape idea to be a bit looser and more diverse with the flow and the direction. I wanted to play a diverse collection of tracks that fitted the theme, and to be ultra-tight as well would be nearly impossible. I still think there's a definite structure and emotional journey here though, that reveals itself by the end.

I think it's to your credit that you have it mapped out while sounding like very well executed spontaneity. I don't want to leave you with the impression that I think it sounds like lucky improvisation. The best metaphor is that it was like watching a well-edited film. Everything just seems to be in place without one being aware of the process behind it.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J No I don't! You are unique in your ability to reply to something I've never written, and then to enter into this absurd meta-argument when I try and tell you that you've completely missed the point. I'm going to recap this once, but if you make another irrelevant reply then consider this over, because as much as I like keeping my own mix on the front page I don't want to go down the rabbit hole about such a minor issue. I told you how idiosyncratic your interpretation of rhythmic intensity was, and used the example of how most people would interpret the intensity of these tracks, using the example of their natural, physical response to the respective rhythms of the two sets of tracks. Play one of these drum 'n bass tracks and people would slow right down, responding to the 80bpm elements because they dictate the energy level in the tracks, the double-time drum spasms being more ear candy. Play a Timewriter track at 125bpm and people would dance with more energy. This would happen on just about any dancefloor. You need to get over the word "dancefloor" and stop jumping to conclusions about what the point is (something you do often). I've no idea, for instance, at what point you got any kind of conception I was talking about "isolated" situations, given I'm talking in complete generalities, and my phrasing could scarcely have made that more clear. Also, I've just asked you about why your explanation of rhythmic intensity wouldn't apply on a dancefloor - why mere drum hits per square inch dictate intensity on a mixtape, but apparently not when it comes to a club. You completely, utterly, did not respond to that point at all. Not even close. I think most people are quite prone to being dragged off-topic when it comes to a debate, particularly because most people develop their technique from verbal discussion where there is no written record of the thread of conversation, and I have always been very careful not to get dragged away from my own actual point. You seem to think that's game-playing, but I suspect you are merely very prone to misinterpretation or to jumping to quick conclusions and you're not used to someone who doesn't come along for the ride.

I fail to see how these dancefloor analogies, yes I used the term again, have any impact on my initial point regarding intensity. Because I've said from the beginning that it doesn't solely rely on on track tempo. How intensely people dance to a record has less to do with track intensity and more to do with tempo. A classical or downtempo track can be extremely intense sonically but people wouldn't dance to it very intensively when compared to a 130 bpm minimal track or whatever.
That's why I make a clear distinction between listening format and dancefloor mechanics. Which you're breaking because it happens to fit your argument. I'm not playing.

The only reason I brought up the percussion density because i's a clear example on how you can lose intensity even without changing the actual tempo. I also never intended to imply that it wouldn't work the same way on a dancefloor, I've disputed this from the beginning and the it's only because you attacked me for misunderstanding you that I started to assume you must have been talking about multiple isolated situations, which you then confirmed creating even more confusion. If your argument is that playing this set as it is on a dancefloor would have people dancing more intensely at the climax then I would still disagree, but it's irrelevant to my point. Because i believe climatic moments can be more the just "more danceable then the rest of the set".

Again, I don't have a problem with how you progressed through different beat formats throughout this mix, I think there was room for a longer and bigger climax which I think would have made the set more intense and complete. That is all.

quote:

Originally posted by Bierheld I fail to see how these dancefloor analogies, yes I used the term again, have any impact on my initial point regarding intensity. Because I've said from the beginning that it doesn't solely rely on on track tempo.

Really? From the beginning? You might want to go back and fact check that one. You actually didn't even mention the word "intensity" in the post that started this. You do, however, mention an "uptempo start". Seems very much to me like you started off explaining this set's "inverse pyramid approach to set flow" exclusively in terms of tempo.

quote:

How intensely people dance to a record has less to do with track intensity and more to do with tempo. A classical or downtempo track can be extremely intense sonically...

This is both completely wrong, and also symptomatic of your ongoing quest obfuscate what exactly you meant by "intensity". I have watched John 00 Fleming absolutely tear a dancefloor to pieces playing at 130bpm (right off the CDJ counter), and I have watched Actress barely make people nod their heads playing abstract techno at 140bpm.

Furthermore, what is "sonic intensity"? What does that mean? Emotion? Volume? What? You started off talking about up-tempo and mid-tempo and you specified rhythmic intensity, and now you're trying your very best to run away from the framework of discussion you started on, all the while telling me I'm playing games. Remarkable.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Really? From the beginning? You might want to go back and fact check that one. You actually didn't even mention the word "intensity" in the post that started this. You do, however, mention an "uptempo start". Seems very much to me like you started off explaining this set's "inverse pyramid approach to set flow" exclusively in terms of tempo.

You only need to look one post further, which is still before you started to attack my claims and had only asked for clarification. I still consider this the beginning. Uptempo was the wrong term to use, uh oh! Fortunately it only took me a post to rectify the mistake in terminology, and the underlying point didn't change. Let it rest.

quote:

This is both completely wrong, and also symptomatic of your ongoing quest obfuscate what exactly you meant by "intensity". I have watched John 00 Fleming absolutely tear a dancefloor to pieces playing at 130bpm (right off the CDJ counter), and I have watched Actress barely make people nod their heads playing abstract techno at 140bpm.

So what? It's anecdotal evidence for something that isn't remotely relevant to my point. There are a bazillion things that factor in in to what makes people dance. It doesn't prove anything, If I put a room full of people on drugs and they dance maniacally to a reggae session then does that mean it's more intense than a house party? Leave it be man. It was an example of an underlying principle you have now only proceeded to support. Dancefloor mechanics have nothing to do with anything I said here.

Also, I'm not obfuscating what I mean by intensity, I have to keep reiterating because you fail to see the premise. My thoughts on the matter haven't changed at all. I also don't feel the need to explain to you what intensity means, it's pretty self explanatory. What's important here is that it's multi-faceted, there is no one element you can deduce it to. If it looks like I am doing so it's because I'm exemplifying the concept. It's either more intense or it isn't, simple as that.

quote:

Furthermore, what is "sonic intensity"? What does that mean? Emotion? Volume? What? You started off talking about up-tempo and mid-tempo and you specified rhythmic intensity, and now you're trying your very best to run away from the framework of discussion you started on, all the while telling me I'm playing games. Remarkable.

Sure. I'm not running away. I can do this all day if you like. You're the one who's wildly ripping things out of context in attempt to disprove what is merely a difference in opinion or something to that end.

Whatever, it's fine by me, I'll just stand by what I said then. Apparently you just don't know what I'm talking about. When I take the effort to attempt to clarify some of my points I just get scolded for obfuscating my argument. Apparently old posts have to be taken into account forever and ever and it is impossible someone may have made a boo boo and didn't formulate his point correctly. At least not in your world.

Maybe you should try saying "I may have started off by talking about tempo, but that was misleading and not what I really meant", instead of "I made myself clear right from the start, stop playing games!" It's hard to understand someone when they keep mentally crossing out earlier posts without telling the other half of the conversation. I'm left trying to reconcile totally contradictory posts, and I still have no idea what you actually mean by intensity, beyond "more drum hits". I'm genuinely, utterly baffled as to how anyone would say Future Reality has "rhythmic intensity" of any kind.

I finally got around to listening to this. I dug the flow and the track selection although the prog section slightly bored me. The time & space sample got sort of cheeky after the second time like "yeah, I know what the mix is called"

I should have put it in a third time, just before the pads in Satori rise up.

Yeah, I know. That's when it got really cheeky. I think you should've played the original of Starlight. I love Atkins' stuff from the mid/late 90's in general. It sounds so carefree, yet also futuristic at the same time. You just don't get that anymore.

I don't really see much in the original version of Starlight, in all honesty. The Echospace Unreleased Mix just makes it completely redundant. That version actually goes perfectly into Intex Systems - Absorb (you can hold the mix for five minutes if you so desire), but would have made little sense following on from The Astrophysical Nebula.

Incidentally, I think the difference between the Echospace Unreleased Mix of Starlight and the Deepchord Mix is an instructive divide between what I consider brilliant dub techno and paint-by-numbers Modell aural fog dub techno. I wish they would release an album in the vein of the former, rather than in the latter.

EDIT: I've never really listened to the other mixes on the re-release before now. Some serious quality on there, and on Spotify the tracks segue nicely into each other. Echospace -> Soultek -> Convextion -> Mike Huckaby -> Echospace Dub is as good a half hour of dub techno as I've ever heard.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.