TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- Amateur DJs: are we too selective?

Amateur DJs: are we too selective?

By 'amateur,' I mean DJ's who play out somewhere in between the bedroom and the main room, and if you're anything like me, you comb Beatport, live sets, and your favorite compilations for only the most indispensable material, crating the best and discarding the rest. At least, that was me. It would seem to make sense that you would shell out for only the music you were most excited about, but even a ton of music picked up this way doesn't leave you with a whole ton of options, as you still sometimes struggle to find an appropriate opener/follow-up/closer that you're either satisfied with or haven't already played to death.

Which got me to thinking: do professional DJ's truly care about most of the stuff they play, especially over the course of several hours? When I buy only the music I like the most, and assemble it into a set...yeah, I enjoy every single one of those tracks, either as builders or bombs, which is, oddly, the problem: it sounds unrealistically good. I've never listened to a compilation or a set where I was seriously into every single track. While I'm not saying that pro DJ's secretly think the bulk of their sets are crap, I doubt that they think every track they play is a winner, and must be playing material that's more serviceable than outright good.

So, should amateur DJ's lower their standards for the sake of having more music/mixing options? Should you give equal weight to music that is merely functional as you do to something you're truly passionate about?

Of course, I don't presume to project my idea of bomb vs functional on the ears of someone who see's the same music in a very different way, but I doubt they're playing only the cream of the crop of which amateur DJ's will accept nothing less.

Re: Amateur DJ's: are we too selective?

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost if you're anything like me

I am, but I don't think most amateur DJs are, judging by most of the idiots around these parts who get one-off bar gigs playing generic tech house. And even then, you've got some downright weird searching habits, so I wouldn't make too many assumptions on this front.

Setting that aside, I do agree that even the best DJs do play a lot of music that is only "okay", and as music lovers they must be aware of it. I think there's one enormous and very obvious difference between professional DJs and amateurs. Professionals get to play these tunes to people every Friday and every Saturday night, and that can only do two things to their perception of music:

1. Seeing a room full of people dance to a "functional" track will make it feel a lot more gratifying than playing it in your living room, especially when it comes alive on a club sound system.

2. Tunes will get boring a lot more quickly, and the desire to play something different will no doubt push many DJs into cycling through music more quickly.

Dance music is really unique in just how remarkably different the same recordings sound in one very specific and ephemeral context that they're designed for. The same applies to DJ sets. I've heard recordings of sets that I danced like a lunatic to in a club and been completely unmoved at home. That has to be remembered when assessing the decision making of these extremely experienced pros.

Re: Re: Amateur DJ's: are we too selective?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J 2. Tunes will get boring a lot more quickly, and the desire to play something different will no doubt push many DJs into cycling through music more quickly.

This is pretty key right here, and goes a long way to explaining why so many DJ's are so completely unhelpful when it comes to identifying and locating old gems. These fuckers go through so much music, music that constantly gets updated with everything from 'pretty okay' to 'amazing,' so it makes sense that they're not able to help you track down that one record they played that one night in October of 2004.

That said, the idea of playing stuff that is just okay flies in the face of one of the earliest pieces of DJ'ing advice I came across: when you spend time in music store, pair down the records you want to the top 20 you can't live without. Then divide that in half, and buy only those. The principle behind this of course being to encourage thoughtful purchasing practices, and to discourage playing disposable material you have no connection to. It's also an obviously outdated practice of practicality, as it was much more costly to pick up 'meh' records than it is to crate those same MP3's.

But, to your earlier point, a lot of stuff that sounds unremarkable as samples could sound utterly devastating in the right musical context, though you'll of course never know until you take the gamble and try.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J And even then, you've got some downright weird searching habits, so I wouldn't make too many assumptions on this front.

I ditched those habits a year or so ago, as they were just way too time intensive to maintain...but I would have kept on with it for at least a while longer had the payoff still been there. I don't know what it was about the 'electronica' section from, like, 2014-2017, but month after month, I was hauling away a crate full of amazing catches that I know I wouldn't have scooped up with tags. But there's just been such an insane amount of forgettable chillout over the past year that I can hardly justify the combined amount of time I spent coming through it for the sparsely scattered good stuff.

Still, every now and then I'll go clickin,' and I'll come across something great that makes me agonize over who knows how much equally great stuff past and future I'll never discover. Music FOMO is very real.

Re: Re: Re: Amateur DJ's: are we too selective?

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost That said, the idea of playing stuff that is just okay flies in the face of one of the earliest pieces of DJ'ing advice I came across: when you spend time in music store, pair down the records you want to the top 20 you can't live without. Then divide that in half, and buy only those. The principle behind this of course being to encourage thoughtful purchasing practices, and to discourage playing disposable material you have no connection to. It's also an obviously outdated practice of practicality, as it was much more costly to pick up 'meh' records than it is to crate those same MP3's.

For the big players, though, when do they ever buy music? They get it all (or most of it) for free from PR people, hopeful amateur producers, friends, etc. I shudder to think what John Digweed's inbox is like.

Re: Re: Re: Amateur DJ's: are we too selective?

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost But, to your earlier point, a lot of stuff that sounds unremarkable as samples could sound utterly devastating in the right musical context, though you'll of course never know until you take the gamble and try.

You have to assume that experienced DJs learn to predict how a record will sound in a club based on all the similar tracks they've played in clubs down the years. Otherwise buying genres like techno would be a complete crap-shoot.

Yes.

Amateurs play what they want to play. They play for themselves.

Professionals play what they have to (aka what's going to get them booked on the regular.) People generally like to know what they are getting into when spending their money. They can be unpredictable, but at the end of the day have to also border on predictable to please the most possible.

Amateur sets don't have to contend with things like: slot (open/main/close are not the same. Name me one twat that ever started belting out smashers to empty dancefloors without looking like a total cunt and ruining the night before it even started) time restraints/long sets (Challenge any amateur to go 4 or 5 hours mixing live without too many hitches and a cohesive flow and structure. Not many can.) Amateurs are limited by who else is on a bill, and needing to adapt to it. Finally, amateurs definitely don't have to dodge shady booth rats, nor tend to get blowjobs while they play. Bonus: pros tend to have a command of many mediums that come in handy if there are (and it happens a lot) technical difficulties. An amateur would just stand there like a goof while their laptop reboots. One plans, the other has set pieces.

Edit: misread part of op lol.

I agree with everything you've all said.

I will now make some exaggerated claims and ramble a bit, but sometimes I get the feeling, purely speculation, that some of the A list Dj-s dont really care about what they play at all. To a certain extent of course. A track they play has to fit a certain criteria and if its found, its a go! I dont think too much thought is put into it. I mean, if you play on the main stage for a 10,000+ strong crowd at peak time, it doesn't really matter what you play, as long as it supplies enough energy and a good beat. You dont see these DJ-s sweating while thinking "what to play next", whatever comes out of the crate will do.

Its not all bad, in a way that sometimes a generic product is all you really want. The crowd will still eat it up. In fact it is the crowd, who has made the top DJ's what they are. If nobody gives a fuss about subtleties there is really no incentive for the DJ's to be too creative.

Interestingly, it is up to the amateur dj's to fill the gap. I dont mean those tech house jocks still cutting their teeth to whom System J referred. I mean music loving enthusiasts, connoisseurs, who pour their heart & effort into the mixtapes they make. People who add such detail to their creations that few will notice or appreciate. You know who you are. You know, people who add some of their own wild creativity to the mix.

quote:

Originally posted by djthunderbird I mean music loving enthusiasts, connoisseurs, who pour their heart & effort into the mixtapes they make.

It was this idea that made me ponder this question in the first place. Whenever I listen to a professional mix CD (back during when I actually bought them), there would be a few amazing tracks, a few bad ones, and in between a majority of 'whatever' tracks. I ordinarily just chalk this up to differences in musical taste, and besides, every track has a role to play in flow and feel.

But when I listen to my own mixes, every track- while not a bomb- is an A-lister (for me), which makes me wonder if I'm ironically doing something wrong. Should you necessarily like every track you play? Are there some tracks you should play not because they're good, but because they serve to push the mix forward, add a certain flavor, and help build up to those payoff tracks that make the whole mix worth it in the end?

Or maybe the pros are doing the same thing I am, and feel the same way about their mixes when they play them back to themselves as I do about mine.

Most commercial mix CDs are hobbled by licensing issues, or at least they were back in the days when they sold lots of copies. Imagine how much time you spend making a perfect 80 minute mix. Now imagine you can't afford to clear five of the tracks on it, or the labels won't release them. Suddenly you've got to go back and find five replacements of equivalent quality that do exactly the same job in the mix and hope you can clear all of those.

I generally find the most consistently excellent mixes to be the old Essential Mixes, back in the days when playing a two hour set to a wide audience outside a club was a special occasion. Without any concerns of licensing tracks, DJs tended to be at their best.

quote:

Originally posted by Dykes_on_Jay Yes. Amateurs play what they want to play. They play for themselves. Professionals play what they have to (aka what's going to get them booked on the regular.) People generally like to know what they are getting into when spending their money. They can be unpredictable, but at the end of the day have to also border on predictable to please the most possible. Amateur sets don't have to contend with things like: slot (open/main/close are not the same. Name me one twat that ever started belting out smashers to empty dancefloors without looking like a total cunt and ruining the night before it even started) time restraints/long sets (Challenge any amateur to go 4 or 5 hours mixing live without too many hitches and a cohesive flow and structure. Not many can.) Amateurs are limited by who else is on a bill, and needing to adapt to it. Finally, amateurs definitely don't have to dodge shady booth rats, nor tend to get blowjobs while they play. Bonus: pros tend to have a command of many mediums that come in handy if there are (and it happens a lot) technical difficulties. An amateur would just stand there like a goof while their laptop reboots. One plans, the other has set pieces. Edit: misread part of op lol.

the last show i went to, there were two openers, first one was on point, in terms of building up the room, second some fanny pack wearing clown playing emo fugazi techno ala arts label and what not(i hate models? who knows) right before detroit's DJ bone...

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost It was this idea that made me ponder this question in the first place. Whenever I listen to a professional mix CD (back during when I actually bought them), there would be a few amazing tracks, a few bad ones, and in between a majority of 'whatever' tracks. I ordinarily just chalk this up to differences in musical taste, and besides, every track has a role to play in flow and feel. But when I listen to my own mixes, every track- while not a bomb- is an A-lister (for me), which makes me wonder if I'm ironically doing something wrong. Should you necessarily like every track you play? Are there some tracks you should play not because they're good, but because they serve to push the mix forward, add a certain flavor, and help build up to those payoff tracks that make the whole mix worth it in the end? Or maybe the pros are doing the same thing I am, and feel the same way about their mixes when they play them back to themselves as I do about mine.

Yea, exactly. Every track has a role to play in flow and feel. Isn't it like the ingredients in your favorite entree or dessert? You might not like every ingredient on its own, but when you combine it with all the other ingredients, it serves a purpose to make the entire dish delicious.

Something I've been thinking a lot about lately when mixing (in my bedroom) is the art of building and releasing tension. I've found myself searching for functional/building tracks more when shopping for records instead of only buying the so-called bombs that grab my attention instantly. That takes some patience because the functional/building tracks can take more time to grow on you. Dance music tastes can be so fleeting, too. One minute you could be going gaga over a record and the next you're wondering why you liked it so much.

So do you draw your own map or let the circumstances dictate the direction of your set? The best do both. I remember reading somewhere on here that Digweed said he plans five tracks ahead when playing. I never understood the amount of skill, focus and experience that takes; I can comprehend that now. I also remember another DJ saying that every track can shine; it's a matter of how and when you play it. Of course there's so much rubbish out there, but I think there's some truth in that statement. There's a moment for every track to sound better.

At the end of the day, mixing is an art and music is a subjective taste. That's what makes this discussion so interesting.

Set building/flow/track selection are are the art. The mixing itself is a learned skill. Anyone can learn number what's behind door number 2. It's very easy. That first part less so.

quote:

Originally posted by OrangestO I remember reading somewhere on here that Digweed said he plans five tracks ahead when playing. I never understood the amount of skill, focus and experience that takes; I can comprehend that now.

I don't think he literally means he has the next five tunes planned out at any given moment. I'd say it's more that he knows where he wants to be in half an hour's time, which I don't think is that unusual (although a lot of DJs certainly don't seem to give the slightest fuck about structuring their set).

If I'm playing soft at a given moment there'll always be the idea that I'll take things harder, or if I'm playing deep and dark there'll be the idea to lift things. And to do that I'm probably already thinking of tunes in a similar vibe or in a similar key that can do the job, and what they mix well with. I genuinely don't understand DJs who just seem to pull every tune out of the bag based on how they "feel" in a given moment. I don't get how you can play a set without any kind of larger picture in your head.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I don't think he literally means he has the next five tunes planned out at any given moment. I'd say it's more that he knows where he wants to be in half an hour's time, which I don't think is that unusual (although a lot of DJs certainly don't seem to give the slightest fuck about structuring their set).

I didn't take him literally. The point is he's envisioning where he's going before he gets there. I.e. I have a bomb I want to play and I need to map out the next phase of this set to drop it. I know how people are going to react before they do.

I've tried planning like that before playing a set and it never works out. It's much harder to do while playing because I'm so focused on the technical part of mixing and keeping my hands on the wheel. Vinyls are slippery af. So then I resort to playing how I feel. What can I say, I'm a noob. I guess it's like anything else. You gotta master the technical part of the craft (well, at least somewhat) and know how to use the equipment without worrying before you can focus your energy on the artistic part and start painting beautiful pictures.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I don't get how you can play a set without any kind of larger picture in your head.

That's what separates the men from the boys, so to speak, doesn't it? I am curious as to whether the having of some extent of a larger picture in one's head has changed very much in DJs' experience between the vinyl-only days and today; i.e. the days when one had a record case full of familiar record sleeves and likely the DJ's own markings on them. I imagine it may have been rather common to easily remember what sleeve to pull up from the record case at what part of a lengthy set, or in a particular sequence of tracks.

I remember typical Sasha statements along the lines of often not knowing the names of versions/remixes of tracks he played back when it was all vinyl, and now, in today's digital times, having to become familiar with all the names and titles. (And then discovering he's no longer always the first to know brand new stuff in his field.)

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I don't think he literally means he has the next five tunes planned out at any given moment. I'd say it's more that he knows where he wants to be in half an hour's time, which I don't think is that unusual (although a lot of DJs certainly don't seem to give the slightest fuck about structuring their set). If I'm playing soft at a given moment there'll always be the idea that I'll take things harder, or if I'm playing deep and dark there'll be the idea to lift things. And to do that I'm probably already thinking of tunes in a similar vibe or in a similar key that can do the job, and what they mix well with. I genuinely don't understand DJs who just seem to pull every tune out of the bag based on how they "feel" in a given moment. I don't get how you can play a set without any kind of larger picture in your head.

Key jumps have their place to go from dark to bright with shifts in energy. The tendancy for a lot of people to build by key has, in my opinion, lead to a lot of sets that are superbly mixed, but flat and plodding. The up and down old school rollercaoster > a set mixed and built like the story arcs we learned in grade 5.

quote:

Originally posted by Dykes_on_Jay Key jumps have their place to go from dark to bright with shifts in energy. The tendancy for a lot of people to build by key has, in my opinion, lead to a lot of sets that are superbly mixed, but flat and plodding. The up and down old school rollercaoster > a set mixed and built like the story arcs we learned in grade 5.

Key mixing is just another technique. It depends entirely on how you use it. You could mix an "up and down rollercoaster" in one single key, or you could completely flatline for two straight hours playing every key under the sun.

I have a pretty simple formula. If I'm going to mix out of key, I'll either make it a short transition or I'll mix drums on drums, bass on bass. If you're mixing techno, you can pretty much forget about it. If you're playing melodic music, you're going to sound like a joker without it. From my memories of your sets, you never played anything with much of a melody anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by OrangestO Yea, exactly. Every track has a role to play in flow and feel. Isn't it like the ingredients in your favorite entree or dessert? You might not like every ingredient on its own, but when you combine it with all the other ingredients, it serves a purpose to make the entire dish delicious.

Well that also serves to change the way you search for new music in a not insignificant way, too. 'Do I like this?' is the basic litmus test that most people- including DJ's- use when deciding to throw money at new music, and you can take it a step further to think in terms of 'do I like this enough to find some use for it,' but taking an even more multi-faceted approach that sets your actual musical preference to a distant secondary concern isn't one I'm accustomed to taking when shopping around.

It took me a few years after I started DJ'ing to start looking at music in terms of its functional side, when I realized that my sets just consisted of wall-to-wall bombs. I think a perfect example when I was playing techno and tech house was Klartraum. Nearly every track these guys released was a textbook example of something that was good enough, but more serviceable than anything else. Tight kick, heavy bass, and nothing too eventful, these tracks did a great job of just moving things along. I liked it well enough, but it was hard to forge a connection to something that just lacked any discernible personality. Going beyond that to playing stuff I don't particularly like but can envision a use for within a larger scheme just doesn't feel like a motivating way to spend the little time I have to trawl, even if it has value.

Interesting thread - one of the better topics I've read on here for a while.

A few thoughts:
1. Some 'pro Djs' appear to love or care for almost all the tracks they play, but they're not the norm and even still wouldn't agonise over track selection the way that amateurs do. Some names who come to mind who seem to be very selective: Dozzy, Move D, Patrick Russell, David Mancuso, DJ Sprinkles. On the whole I've found these djs to play less 'filler/functional' music and focus more on quality tunes.

2. Pro Djs who mix compilations would be very selective over tracks - Moodymann edited over 30 tracks for his DJ Kicks compilation, Joris Voorn would've agonised over the tracks on his Balance comp.

3. During the 80s, 90s and early 2000s DJs were playing more 'big sets' in terms of every track being good/big. As System J said, the Essential Mixes from the 90s are pretty consistently packed with big tunes. Have a look at Sasha and Digweed, Tiesto, PvD and Oakenfold sets up until early 2000s - big tunes after big tunes without a lot of filler.

4. Playing filler/functional tunes has probably increased over the last couple of decades with the rise of the internet and mp3 djing. Most vinyl djs will still be quite selective because they have to be, digital djs can pack whatever on a stick.

5. Because of the internet there is greater visibility over who is playing/has played what tracks, therefore djs are searching for lesser known tracks to sound more unique/fresh and are stitching these between bigger tracks.

6. Re key mixing: a rollercoaster set mixed perfectly in key still won't sound as rollercoasterish as one that isn't.

7. I also think crowds are more accepting of hearing average music these days and are content with hearing just a few 'big tunes/big moments' in a night, rather than hearing top quality tracks throughout.

This made Moody's DJ Kicks for me.

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