|
DJ's who whore their own productions and DJ's who don't (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Clovis86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by iammesol
Ishkur... Top DJs don't have this precious thing called... time to sort through all those. |
Thats their JOB. |
|
|
| d:rek |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ishkur
The best DJs in the world have up to 500,000 records.
500,000!
If a DJ is really putting a lot of effort into being the tip-top pinnacle of his profession--like, say, someone considered #1--then it doesn't matter if you listen to a new set of his once a week or ten times a week, you really shouldn't hear the same song twice from him in any inordinate amount of time (if he's doing his job correctly, with the connections he has and the records he obtains).
If, on the other hand, all you hear are his own productions and his friends/labels productions 10 times a week, then what you're bearing witness to is not a DJ, but a spamwhore. |
People that pay to see the DJ spin don't want to hear some obscure song because the DJ didn't want to play the same song twice in any inordinate amount of time. If the DJ played songs that nobody came to hear, he wouldn't be doing his job correctly. (Not to say that hearing new music isn't enjoyable) |
|
|
| Allied Nations |
| quote: | Originally posted by iammesol
Ishkur... Top DJs don't have this precious thing called... time to sort through all those. |
That statement was silly.
C'mon, admit it... |
|
|
| PutBoy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Demoted
For the last time, I don't think we're all necessarily saying it's a bad thing to promote one's self. We're just stating that ones that do it as opposed to others who actually adhere to the traditional dj standards like playing other people's music. |
Read the topic! Dj's who _whore_ their own productions? Since when does that not imply that it's a bad thing?
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
yeah, i'm sure the 'top' dj's would be starving otherwise. |
No musician that actually creates their own music makes a tonne of money. Only names like britney spears and christina aguiwhattheshername does that.
Beside, the only reason (yeah, the only reason) they make money in the first place is because they promote their own work by 'whoring'. So, yeah, they would either starve or get a day job if they didn't 'whore'. |
|
|
| sandstorm03 |
| quote: | Originally posted by PutBoy
No musician that actually creates their own music makes a tonne of money. Only names like britney spears and christina aguiwhattheshername does that.
Beside, the only reason (yeah, the only reason) they make money in the first place is because they promote their own work by 'whoring'. So, yeah, they would either starve or get a day job if they didn't 'whore'. |
:conf:
britney & christina are musicians and make music? |
|
|
| Ishkur |
| quote: | Originally posted by d:rek
People that pay to see the DJ spin don't want to hear some obscure song |
Yes they do.
You want to hear the same song as last week, played the exact same way that it was on the CD, go to a concert. The original appeal of raves was that you didn't know what you were going to hear; it was a mystery. It was an ADVENTURE. Sure, you had an idea what kind of music you were about to hear, but you didn't know what specific songs, or in what ways they would be applied. There was an allure to it...an enigma, an discovery of sound and colour and emotion that would exist for just one night, then dissapear by next day, never to be recaptured. The music was meant to be cheap; disposable, simple one-ideas that were fly-by-night....you get them, play them, and move on...so there was no image in the music. Everything being temporary, existing so long as is needed, and then dispersing. The people, the idea, the party, the movement....the music. Always searching, driving, looking for more music to encapsulate as one music moments.
The scene was never meant to dwell on one song, or one DJ, or one artist playing, for any amount of time longer than the song was playing on any given night. The unresolved, infinite track means that music is to have no image, no substance, no face, no name, no nothing...the songs are supposed to blend together so there's no separation of ego and image. All music just one constant, ceaseless soup. The death of the rockstar, the death of the message, the death of meaning, the death of music, the end of album-oriented marketing, the end of purpose, past, and idolotry.
There is only a NOW. Blip culture. |
|
|
| sandstorm03 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ishkur
Yes they do.
You want to hear the same song as last week, played the exact same way that it was on the CD, go to a concert. The original appeal of raves was that you didn't know what you were going to hear; it was a mystery. It was an ADVENTURE. Sure, you had an idea what kind of music you were about to hear, but you didn't know what specific songs, or in what ways they would be applied. There was an allure to it...an enigma, an discovery of sound and colour and emotion that would exist for just one night, then dissapear by next day, never to be recaptured. The music was meant to be cheap; disposable, simple one-ideas that were fly-by-night....you get them, play them, and move on...so there was no image in the music. Everything being temporary, existing so long as is needed, and then dispersing. The people, the idea, the party, the movement....the music. Always searching, driving, looking for more music to encapsulate as one music moments.
The scene was never meant to dwell on one song, or one DJ, or one artist playing, for any amount of time longer than the song was playing on any given night. The unresolved, infinite track means that music is to have no image, no substance, no face, no name, no nothing...the songs are supposed to blend together so there's no separation of ego and image. All music just one constant, ceaseless soup. The death of the rockstar, the death of the message, the death of meaning, the death of music, the end of album-oriented marketing, the end of purpose, past, and idolotry.
There is only a NOW. Blip culture. |
yeah I def go out to hear the obscure songs, that I'd never think that a dj would play. Cause in reality its thoes obscure songs that are the only ones different from the rest of the tracks, thus why they are obscure... :)
but to hear tracks like that now, sometimes u need to listen to a lot of crap though. |
|
|
| PutBoy |
| quote: | Originally posted by sandstorm03
:conf:
britney & christina are musicians and make music? |
No, that's what I said. That they do not create their own music. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by PutBoy
Read the topic! Dj's who _whore_ their own productions? Since when does that not imply that it's a bad thing? |
Some people like whores. |
|
|
| Floorfiller |
there is a difference between playing a track of your own or a new remix you did or whatever and ONLY playing your tracks all night. even if you're a very active producer...you can still play a good chunk of your work, but when that's all you play...it's a little ridiculous.
i think the most important element of playing lots of your own work is the diversity factor. when you're gabriel & dresden or steve angello and you just drone on for an hour or two with tracks that really have no diversity to them...it gets old and boring pretty quick.
it's funny because the people that tend to whore their own productions are usually not that great at producing to begin with. |
|
|
| isoterra |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ishkur
Yes they do. |
real world calling ishkur, you're late for your appointment. |
|
|
| dj_bas |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ishkur
Not read--saw. The movie Scratch. Go see. Who was it that was sitting in his basement, with the records piled around him? I think it was DJ Krush ...there was literally about 700,000 records in that room. Piled 12 feet high. Z-Trip has about 400,000 records. They all have gargantuan numbers of records.
At this point, they aren't really DJs insomuch as they are musical archeologists...they hunt the nooks and crannies of the hobby shops, the obscure labels, the bargain bins, the record pools, the invite-only mailing lists, to become part of an inner circle that does nothing but lives and breathes music, each one of them a living encyclopedia of the entire history of recorded music, going all the way back to the 40s when the first 45s were released.....the old 7 inch singles.
Does not Tiesto do that? Would not the best DJs in the world do that? Is that not why they became DJs in the first place? ...because of their seemingly obsessive-compulse love for music? |
Why are you comparing Krush and Z-Trip to Tiesto? Krush and Z-Trip will play maybe 30 or 40 records in a single set because they do alot of beat juggling, sampling, scratching etc, they're not mixing 7 or 8 minute tracks. And if a track is good, a track is good and djs are going to play it. There's no getting around that. I have a few songs that I absolutely love to hear out, so I play them in alot of my sets. I have 2 sets, recorded, for different radio shows where I played 2 of the same songs. Not in any kind of order but they're in there. I feel those tracks are what represent what I was feeling at the time. By your definition, it seems you don't want djs to have a favorite song. |
|
|
|
|
