quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 Tiesto's "Magik" series definitely had themes to each CD but the music didn't neccessarily reflect those themes and this is what I feel more DJs could do. Select track titles carefully and select styles of tracks carefully to essentially program a mix to fit a specific theme or concept.

I did try this once, although I never actually finished the mix cause it went a bit off course and I got pissed off with myself haha

I could upload it if you want to listen?

As for set structure, I dont think you necessarily have to follow any set rules, you just need to make sure that you dont tire out your dancefloor (ie banging out anthem after anthem after anthem) and that you have the energy level for the time of night/event. Prime example of that was Tiesto at Global Gathering 2004. Comes on after Armin had played a good set of crowd pleasers and went into chuggy prog (after a ridiculaiiise intro i might add). Now I thought strange change of direction but he must be going to take us somewhere but not by the end of hios set it was still the same chuggy stuff. I dont know about you but I dont think the headline midnight act in the trance tent of a major festival should be playing chuggy prog stuff for the entire set. Totally killed the atmosphere in the tent.

___________________

Dave King - Tales Of The Future [Trance]
Dave King - Personal Classics
MIX ARCHIVE!!!

quote:

Originally posted by kush paintings I'm taking a screen play course, so I'd be interested to see just how many films break from the 3 act structure, and how many do so successfuly. PM me if you want to discuss more. Ok, so I can see that structure that you just described, but one that I always thought might work was this... *Using a 12 track mix @ average of 5 minutes per track Track Purpose 1 Intro 2-3 Build energy/momentum 4-5 First climax 6-8 Bring down momentum 9-10 Build energy/momentum 11-12 Peak climax (more energy than first) This can be basically broken down to 3 Acts, like in a movie: Act 1: Tracks 1-4 Act 2: Tracks 5-10 Act 3: Tracks 11-12 When I mentioned proportions earlier, the vast majority of movies, and nearly all effective ones use similar proportions (I think I made it seem overly rigid at first). Since my proposed structure for mixes falls very closely to this, I will describe the proportions: Act 1: Develops the mood and sets the stage, it is about 1/4 of the total time Act 2: Is the body of the piece and the longest part (slightly more than half of total time), this is where the "journey happens" Act 3: This is the conclusion, this is what everything has been building to and presents an emotionally effective conclusion, usually the smallest part (less than 1/4)

Shakespeare wrote plays in four acts (Hamlet, Othello etc). I can also find any number of films that contradict your structure. Apocalypse Now, for example, has an incredibly brief climax in comparison with the running time, the whole thing lasting perhaps five minutes in a film of almost three hours. The climax of Hard Boiled is vast by comparison, taking up a major chunk of the running time. Spielberg's recent War of the Worlds had a very brief intro- all the major characters, the context and some of the supporting cast were all in place in a very short time and the action quickly got under way. By contrast, Conan The Barbarian takes an incredibly long time for the main narrative thread to set in, with a sprawling introduction. Almost half of The Birds is essentially an introduction, and there is no real climax at all to that film- Hitchcock deliberately filmed it so, even neglecting to finish with "The End" because he didn't want the story to appear resolved. Pulp Fiction makes complete mincemeat of your theory, as does Reservoir Dogs.

Splitting films and narratives into pre-defined structures is a flawed method. Either your "acts" (or "functions" if you're being more specific) are too precise and are contradicted by many films, or they're too general and don't tell you anything meaningful about the structure they describe, because so many things can happen within each segment that you're completely missing how the narrative operates. In this case the theory becomes too self-important, and you begin to redefine the film to suit the theory- the opposite of what should be happening.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

quote:

Originally posted by kush paintings *Using a 12 track mix @ average of 5 minutes per track Track Purpose 1 Intro 2-3 Build energy/momentum 4-5 First climax 6-8 Bring down momentum 9-10 Build energy/momentum 11-12 Peak climax (more energy than first) This can be basically broken down to 3 Acts, like in a movie: Act 1: Tracks 1-4 Act 2: Tracks 5-10 Act 3: Tracks 11-12 When I mentioned proportions earlier, the vast majority of movies, and nearly all effective ones use similar proportions (I think I made it seem overly rigid at first). Since my proposed structure for mixes falls very closely to this, I will describe the proportions: Act 1: Develops the mood and sets the stage, it is about 1/4 of the total time Act 2: Is the body of the piece and the longest part (slightly more than half of total time), this is where the "journey happens" Act 3: This is the conclusion, this is what everything has been building to and presents an emotionally effective conclusion, usually the smallest part (less than 1/4)

I think the 3 act theory is something I would find much more applicable to my sets.

___________________
Fortuna Favet Fortibus.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Shakespeare wrote plays in four acts (Hamlet, Othello etc). I can also find any number of films that contradict your structure... Spielberg's recent War of the Worlds had a very brief intro- all the major characters, the context and some of the supporting cast were all in place in a very short time and the action quickly got under way. Splitting films and narratives into pre-defined structures is a flawed method. Either your "acts" (or "functions" if you're being more specific) are too precise and are contradicted by many films, or they're too general and don't tell you anything meaningful about the structure they describe, because so many things can happen within each segment that you're completely missing how the narrative operates. In this case the theory becomes too self-important, and you begin to redefine the film to suit the theory- the opposite of what should be happening.

Well, first off, let me say that I am not saying you build a mix first for structure and second for content. Of course, just as with any movie you have to go into it knowing the story you are going to tell, the mood, etc. However, there is plenty of freedom left in the three act structure. I do realize, my proposed mix structure is far more rigid. War of the Worlds, for example does fit the 3 act structure, quite well actually. Again, I realize that the proportions will change in accordence with the story (with the Birds you have a clearly defined ACT 1 and ACT 2, and then a purposely left out ACT III). With War of the Worlds ACT 1 is short, ACT 2 truly takes up a lot of bulk, and there is a typical ACT 3. However, the movie can clearly be defined into 3 acts. I could go on forever naming movies that use three acts. The point is, as you showed, Shakespear, Hitchcock and Speilberg, masters of narrative, all are aware of structure. What makes them innovators, however is their ability to use common structures and play with them to suit the needs of their works. They don't abandon general form altogether, rather they mold it to their needs.

Relating this back to the structure of a mix, what I am trying to get at is that the so called "masters" of djing seem to not share such focus as these masters of other forms of entertainment. I believe it is in this sense that home listening mixes are bound for a revolution, a shift from being glorified promo cds to actual mixes geared to guide a home listener.

___________________
Lost Souls

Not really. If you've read The War of the Worlds you'd know the structure is in no way typical intro-journey-resolution. The book is split into two halves and the film adapts from this reasonably closely. The film version of WOTW reverts to a more conventional narrative (like you describe) than the source material, but the intro and outro are relatively brief and the central passage of the film (basically the literal journey of the characters) is split into two halves, just like the book. So if you look at WOTW realistically without trying to bend it to your structure, it has either two or four "acts". The three act interpretation is overly simplistic and doesn't say much about the plot of WOTW, which is why I disagree with that particular aspect of your reasoning.

However, you originally said the acts were very specifically proportioned- what I initially disagreed with. You're now admitting they aren't so rigid at all. I'll agree that most films (and most narrative arcs) follow the structure you define to some degree, but that's one of the oldest defined principles of narratives- over two thousand years old.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

Ok seriously guys- MD...

I don't want to close this thread, as I think it has a lot of potential, but please, let's stay on topic. I dropped it way back.

___________________
Fortuna Favet Fortibus.

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations Ok seriously guys- MD... I don't want to close this thread, as I think it has a lot of potential, but please, let's stay on topic. I dropped it way back.

Heh. This is actually good revision for both of us.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Heh. This is actually good revision for both of us.

i don't doubt it, and this is why we have a button!


Click it!

___________________
Fortuna Favet Fortibus.

dude, that's what djing is all about.

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

Great topic... I put a lot of thought into most of my mixes, but I don't usually base the stories on "acts" specifically. Usually I am aiming for something more sublime, but there will still be peaks and troughs as needed. I usually think about the music I am working with, analyze all the various qualities, and try to create smooth transitions across several different qualities simultaneously. There is so much more than the trance standard of incrementally raising the abstract "energy" level over time.

I realize there are different ways of going about it, I just came up with one that I felt was the most prevelent (IMO) and shared it. I would love to hear about others (IN DETAIL), perhaps giving examples of mixes that use it.

___________________
Lost Souls