TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- DJ Booth
-- Fillers...
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Fillers...

I think both the meaning and purpose of "filler" records has been lost... it's become a term that means "sub-standard record" but that shouldn't be the case at all imo. I've heard people saying (both on here and other messageboards) "why would you intentionally make/play a filler?" etc.

To me, a filler has always been a track that's intentionally subdued that just keeps the energy going without trying to blow anyone's mind and without stopping the dancefloor for a long breakdown or anything... it's a "non-anthem". This doesn't mean that the production or musical quality is any lower than any other track in a set, in fact for me good fillers generally tend to be better produced and have more interesting sounds than (while not having as much of a hook as) an anthem.

These tracks are essential for setting the mood and setting up the more anthemic tracks so that they have more of an impact, but so few DJs (particularly trance DJs) seem to use them anymore... and as a result hardly any producers are making them, but there are still quite a few around. 5 or 6 years ago when I first started going clubbing the trance DJs used to play awesome "fillers" for the majority of the set and you could really get lost in the sounds, with the few anthems dotted around really cutting through and making those memorable moments.

Of course a filler in one set can be an anthem in another - there are a lot of rolling prog tracks, for example, which would be anthems in a relatively minimal or deep set, which when thrown into a trance set makes the perfect filler.

A set without fillers just has too many peaks and can get very bland - they also help to vary the feel and keep the crowd interested, take things down a groovier route for a couple of tracks before slamming into a huge uplifting anthem.

In my last demo I really tried to put this across and I think I felt the anthem:filler ratio was about 50:50, but there wasn't a single track I'd class as a bad record in the slightest.


If you're talking about a weak record, just call it a weak record


Discuss.

Are you sure this isn't a shameless promotion for your mix? lol jk

DLing

Re: Fillers...

quote:

Originally posted by Stu Cox To me, a filler has always been a track that's intentionally subdued that just keeps the energy going without trying to blow anyone's mind and without stopping the dancefloor for a long breakdown or anything... it's a "non-anthem". This doesn't mean that the production or musical quality is any lower than any other track in a set, in fact for me good fillers generally tend to be better produced and have more interesting sounds than (while not having as much of a hook as) an anthem.

Agreed.

Not much to discuss really. I think you are absolutely right in everything you just wrote.

I agree with that. In fact, i actually get sick of hearing those "anthemic" tracks. It's just baseline, then long drawn-out breakdown/buildup, then back to the baseline. Get's quite boring. I like older trance where there was a more constant beat with melodies and vocals and etc thrown in randomly, without 30 second-1 minute buildups.

Breakdown after breakdown isn't really great for dancing.

I know what you are saying, I was out just the other night and the DJ was playing banging track after banging track with no let off whatsoever.
I think lots of DJs are starting to lose sight of what a good set means.
Too many DJs are just trying to do mash ups and fancy tricks instead of a decent set.

quote:

Originally posted by Beatflux Are you sure this isn't a shameless promotion for your mix? lol jk DLing

Haha


Actually it was more of a rant off the back of a conversation with a mate where he said "I don't play fillers, my sets are just massive tune after massive tune, why would you intentionally play a filler?? Why not play a good record instead?" etc

And a comment by another mate who's involved with a hard trance label, who claimed his label made fillers - but they've all got big riffs and quite long breakdowns, I'm afraid what you're dealing with there are wannabe anthems! Just cos it's not the biggest tune of the night, doesn't make it a filler.

Why even bother to use the word? just leaves a bad taste in any case. why bother with coming up with a filler ratio?

in my opinion, a set just consists of highs and lows, expansion and compression, themes, and moods. This is an extremely sensual thing which comes from either within yourself, from the collective feelings of those around you, or from the music itself. When you are playing it should be an intuitive impulse to play something with X vibe rather than Y vibe. I don't think it's wise to divide music up into "Anthems" and "Fillers". That makes also for predictability.

If you want to play a track that is climactic, then you don't play 3 other climactic tracks before it, because it takes away from its effectiveness.

each track that I buy is a unique animal and I like them to hold their own in the mix. In other words, I think a mix should have its own identity where big tracks don't necessarily stand out.

The best nights out I've had have been those where I hear anonymous, mind blowing, beautiful music, and each track that comes in takes me a little bit deeper into the DJ's head.

For me it's like some kind of surrealist thing. Being in a dark room under the influence with all your senses numbed and the only intelligible thing being electronic music is like being in a dream-world. And I think a proper set is like a dream sequence where it slips deeper and deeper away from reality and envelops you completely. Like dreams, you often go from one to the next without even knowing how or where you came from.

But when some kind of 'anthem' comes in, which by definition is recognizable, it's almost like waking up from a dream, and I want nothing more than to forget about it and get back to the dream that I was experiencing.

So basically, why worry about playing "anthems" and "fillers"? I think it is more constructive and interesting to take people on trips, and how you do that is not formulaic but intuitive.

quote:

Originally posted by Beatflux Are you sure this isn't a shameless promotion for your mix? lol jk DLing

I'm with Stu on this one.

I don't think filler is the right name and it the term has most definately been misused to describe something that is of inferior quality. Part of the DJ culture snobbery I guess.

I know the tracks you are refering to, often good driving tracks that keep the floor simmering nicely but also give people a chance to get their faculties together.

In my opinion you can't hammer out anthem after anthem, it just gets dull but on the other hand you need to take your sets somewhere so you need both just as you have stated. Haven't had a chance to listen to your set yet but will make a point of doing so, sure I wont be disapointed, never have been so far.

I find a lot of DJs are stuck in compilation album mode, i.e. massive tune after massive tune.

Playing so called 'Filler' tracks does actually give you more scope to be more creative and really work the crowd. Rare skill these days. Far too rare in my opinion.

Cheers
Nem

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec Why even bother to use the word? just leaves a bad taste in any case. why bother with coming up with a filler ratio? in my opinion, a set just consists of highs and lows, expansion and compression, themes, and moods. This is an extremely sensual thing which comes from either within yourself, from the collective feelings of those around you, or from the music itself. When you are playing it should be an intuitive impulse to play something with X vibe rather than Y vibe. I don't think it's wise to divide music up into "Anthems" and "Fillers". That makes also for predictability. If you want to play a track that is climactic, then you don't play 3 other climactic tracks before it, because it takes away from its effectiveness. each track that I buy is a unique animal and I like them to hold their own in the mix. In other words, I think a mix should have its own identity where big tracks don't necessarily stand out. The best nights out I've had have been those where I hear anonymous, mind blowing, beautiful music, and each track that comes in takes me a little bit deeper into the DJ's head. For me it's like some kind of surrealist thing. Being in a dark room under the influence with all your senses numbed and the only intelligible thing being electronic music is like being in a dream-world. And I think a proper set is like a dream sequence where it slips deeper and deeper away from reality and envelops you completely. Like dreams, you often go from one to the next without even knowing how or where you came from. But when some kind of 'anthem' comes in, which by definition is recognizable, it's almost like waking up from a dream, and I want nothing more than to forget about it and get back to the dream that I was experiencing. So basically, why worry about playing "anthems" and "fillers"? I think it is more constructive and interesting to take people on trips, and how you do that is not formulaic but intuitive.

While not trying to humour the slightly over-emotive way you've put a lot of that lol, you've thrown in a lot of good points... and yeah recently I've been using the word less and less cos people misinterpret it, although I'm yet to find another word that fits better.

And yeah, most tracks aren't either an anthem or a filler, they have elements of either side in varying proportions along with a load of other qualities that make it unique, but there are definitely tracks which have very much more a filler quality imo - or maybe it would be more suitable to picture them as groovier or deeper tracks, and these tend to be the tracks that (particularly in trance) tend to be missing from most DJs' sets.

I appreciate every DJ has their own sound and it's not up to me to dictate what they should and shouldn't be playing, but a set of the Discover & Vandit or Anjuna back-catalogues is just fucking boring - I suppose I'm just trying to give people a bit of a suggestion of the kind of thing that can be used to break the monotony, rather than just throwing out all of the tracks you think are your best... while hopefully trying to reclaim a word

I see what you're saying but to me filler is a song that really shouldn't be played at all and speaks of lazyness on behalf of the DJ.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild I see what you're saying but to me filler is a song that really shouldn't be played at all and speaks of lazyness on behalf of the DJ.

Ok, in that case scrap that word and use the description I've used above

I agree the word "filler" DOES tend to bring about negative connotations these days, but that's only because people have lost the idea of what a filler track is about! If it shouldn't be played, then it isn't filling anything... so it's just a crap record, not a filler, in my view at least.

Filler is the crap they put in hot dogs and bologna that isn't meat. Or the shit they put in cigarettes that isn't tobacco. Etc...

quote:

Originally posted by Zild Filler is the crap they put in hot dogs and bologna that isn't meat. Or the shit they put in cigarettes that isn't tobacco. Etc...

Haha fair point

Excellent post.

quote:

slightly over-emotive

well, i am slightly over emotive. Part of me thinks there's not enough imagination/emotion/sensuality left in electronic music.


actually reading your post, Stu, I think I came to the conclusion that what the problem could be is that too many people have a "bigger is better" attitude with how they buy music and then play it. In other words, they seem to think the best tracks are the ones that are the craziest or that make the night most memorable.

These people think subdued tracks are 'boring'.

Make sets like you would make love.


I think if people would focus more on inherent musical quality regardless of the "bigness" of a track, that we wouldn't see so many boring sets that consist of predictably big tracks.

the key part of deejaying is to make someone something else out of something someone else makes.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec Make sets like you would make love.

AMEN! Really, some chicks are into the whole "OMGORGASMALLTHETIMEGOGOGO!!!!1" thing, but most chicks aren't. A DJ that is playing nothing but anthem after anthem is doing the same thing as a guy going full speed on the chick that likes to take things slow. You're audience gets burned out and is at the bar for most of the set, or your gf is screwing some guy behind your back that knows how to hold off in bed.

There are way too many DJs out there that need work on building up and breaking down their sets. Its really not that hard: just remember to spread out the anthems and play a few lower-energy (the best synonym I could come up with for 'filler') tracks between them.

That way, the chick (the audience) knows to savor the experience (the vibe that you're presenting), because she (they) knows that the climax (anthem) is coming. Its makes that moment of pleasure ('hands-in-the-air') that much more memorable, and there's probably a better chance of her (the audience) remembering you and staying in touch after the morning (showing up for your next gig) because she (they) remember that one amazing moment that you pulled off.

I hope that made some sense

Stu and nefardec have both made some excellent posts in this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec well, i am slightly over emotive. Part of me thinks there's not enough imagination/emotion/sensuality left in electronic music.

Tbh I do agree - I think the reasons why people enjoy a particular set or like a particular DJ go so much deeper than a lot of people realise. You get people saying "what's the point in harmonic mixing when 90% of the crowd won't know it's a harmonic mix?" etc... while they might not know why it is the mix sounds better, they will at least know that it sounds better and this is true all the way down to nailing a mix in exactly the right place and making one track drop into another in exactly the right way.

While there isn't just 'one way' of doing any given mix perfectly or one perfect track order, if you do put your set together in a particular way which really works well the crowd will go away thinking your set was amazing but won't be able to explain for the life of them why.

I just tend to find it a little bit funny when people start to try and describe these things in really deep terms, it can be easy to sound over the top, particularly when reading it on a forum.

quote:

Originally posted by Stu Cox if you do put your set together in a particular way which really works well the crowd will go away thinking your set was amazing but won't be able to explain for the life of them why.

This is very true.

Three of the best sets I've ever heard were by Justin Robertson, Jeff Mills and Trentmoller - and in each of these sets I didn't hear more than one or two tunes that I recognised and there certainly wasn't any anthems played. But there was something about the way they crafted their sets together that just got me locked into the 'zone' that i did not come out of until their set had finished.

Jeff Mills sets in particular was very good as he just played 'fillers' and then mid way through through dropped Age of Love's 'Age of Love' Original Mix - which is something you don't expect him to play and it was amazing and then after that he kept it rolling for another hour or so building up to his last tune Laurent Garnier's 'Man with the Red Face' Live Jazz Mix which totally blew the place apart. Now we've all heard these two tunes many times before, but if they were played in a set alongside 20 other big room anthems, they just wouldn't of had no-where near the same amount of impact as they did.

To be honest, I think that the techno scene has always proved this point very well - you just don't get techno dj's playing anthems all the time.

quote:

Originally posted by agentdansmith To be honest, I think that the techno scene has always proved this point very well - you just don't get techno dj's playing anthems all the time.

Hit the nail on the head there. One of my favourite sets is Remy at 2005 New Year's Eve, and there's not one "anthem" in sight. Just lots of funky, groovy techno that just makes you want to dance.

quote:

Originally posted by agentdansmith Jeff Mills sets in particular was very good as he just played 'fillers' and then mid way through through dropped Age of Love's 'Age of Love' Original Mix - which is something you don't expect him to play and it was amazing and then after that he kept it rolling for another hour or so building up to his last tune Laurent Garnier's 'Man with the Red Face' Live Jazz Mix which totally blew the place apart. Now we've all heard these two tunes many times before, but if they were played in a set alongside 20 other big room anthems, they just wouldn't of had no-where near the same amount of impact as they did.

This is a lost art when it comes to trance, and its such a shame. Now Im not sure that many crowds are actually willing to really get sucked into a trance set done properly. Everyones after the instant gratification a set of anthems gives, that they can dip in and out of without putting the time and effort into really listening and getting hooked on the music, which in the end will always give a more enjoyable experience.

In almost all other genres of music, save perhaps jump up dnb, this kind of anthemic instant gratification isnt expected, or even wanted. People are much more likely to allow a house or techno dj to go off on a bit of a self indulgent tangent, build up a groove, waiting for something amazing to happen. Not so with trance, peiople are expecting anthem after anthem, and djs are afraid to play anything else.

I dont know how it happened, whether people starting expecting all anthems first or djs starting playing that way, but somewhere along the line things got fucked up. The old saying "If you always shout, how will anyone kn ow when you have something important to say", kind of applies here doesnt it. Im sure this is the reason many dont take trance seriously or as "dirty word" as some people have put it.

That took quite a while to write (plus im wathcing batman returns, michelle pfiefer in a catsuit is quite diestracting ) and I may have lost the thread of what I was saying so I hope it makes sense!

this shows how the term trance has lost it's meaning. Used to be you got totally lost in the tunes, now anything without a massive breakdown is considered an undesirable element that you just have to put up with every now and then, much like that crap in hotdogs that isn't really meat.
trance these days is far less likely to have you in a trance on the floor than a lot of progressive is.

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