|
DJs: "signature sound" or "anything goes"?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| SYSTEM-J |
I imagine some other people have been reading the minor scandal over on Resident Advisor about Transitions 4 (link), although that isn't what this thread is about. One issue came up out of it that everyone seems to have ignored in the furore to condemn or defend RA was raised by the original review of Digweed's new Transitions.
This is taken from the review:
| quote: | | I reckon there are two types of DJs in the world: those like the Wighnomy Brothers, who change their sound depending on their mood, or how drunk they are (aren’t they playing deep house these days?), and those like Diggers, who somehow manage to make every record they purchase sound exactly the same. The Wighnomys are inclined to take an unusual record off the decks, hold it up to the dancers, and ask everyone to give its producer a round of applause. Digweed, on the other hand, seems to only select records that sound Digweedian; he’s not too fussed about the names on the tins (I once heard him spin an Avus track on his radio show and then ask callers to email him if they knew who it was by.) In the end, I suspect this is the difference between journeymen DJs and stars: with the former, you clap the records, with the latter, you clap the DJ himself. Like Richie Hawtin, Sasha and other stars, the signature sound comes first. |
There's a faint tone of criticism in the above. Since the review was a negative one and was subsequently pulled, it's not hard to work out that the review had the stance that DJs having a recognisable sound and personality to their sets was a bad thing. The argument seems to be that it's restrictive and makes the act of DJing less about the music and more about the DJ.
Now, I've never seen it like that. I've always thought that having a recognisable, characteristic sound to their sets was the mark of good DJs. It's one of the main reasons we have humans select and play music instead of jukeboxes we load with good music. A DJ is more than someone who sorts the good from the bad.
My question is simply: which side do you fall on, and what do you think of the whole issue? |
|
|
| noikeee |
| I don't think it really matters. If you have a very good signature set of sounds, there's no problem with sticking with it. And if you can adapt yourself to different sets of sounds, awesome, as long as you can manage to make all the different variations sound good. |
|
|
| d-miurge |
That's the exactly the point of a DJ being an artist imo. I consider a DJ as a good DJ (=as an artist) when he has the sufficient technical skills to express his internal necessity through the tracks he plays, etc.
I love to feel a 'DJ-colour' more than a 'all-these-artists-colours'.
Edit: that's why I only spin big clobs |
|
|
| Clovis |
| I think Digweed needs to lay off the Guy J. |
|
|
| elFreak |
the whighnomy bros>digweed by far..and im not talking about the mixing.
<3 the ing insane out of place tracks they finish with.
with digweed , you know what he will play...with them its always a suprise and keeps you on your toes.
i've heard them finish with paul anka.
beat the bun. |
|
|
| nefardec |
I think it's the perfect blend of both that makes a good deejay.
It's great to have a style, but you don't want to be predictable.
Digweed doesn't have a style, he has a pattern. Digweed doesn't have a sound, he has a routine.
I love hearing a record and saying, man Dan Bell would play this, but I like to be surprised when I actually hear their sets. |
|
|
| stevësto |
everyone should read the whole original review and not just that snippet. i agree with the original review more, its more honest too. but i dont understand how WB doesnt have a "WB sound" anymore than digweed has a digweedian sound. i can listen to their sets not seeing the filenames and know which is which, even during parts of their sets where its just standard transitions. besides that, WB are out there doing turntablism tricks with minimal records like scratching, rewinds, beat juggling, power downs, hell even tapping on a stopped record to create a thumping drum effect. how cool is that?! they are innovative and breed new energy and life into a very eclectic mix of genres. digweed on the other hand is just ... prog. continuous, seamless, prog, with a few prog-like minimal house/tech tracks thrown in that have that border community type style. he sounded much better in 2000 and around that time because the prog records were better back then. but nowadays there's not much support for that style, so the quality is down (imo), so its not surprising digweeds sets are going to not sound as great as they did back then.
but i digress; i dont mind if someone has a particular specific sound throughout, what i care about is a dj being an artist. so i fall on the side of preferring a dj to have a characteristic sound, as long as that description can be broadened: for example i think WB has just as much a characteristic to their sound as digweed does. but i worry many people might equate characteristic, recognizable with sets where all records sound similiar and are mixed seamlessly. i mean, after all, how could an eclectic set with abrupt transitions be considered a characteristic sound, right? wrong! i hope people are not narrow minded to think in order for a dj to be an artist and present records in an artistic way to take a listener on a journey that it has to be seamless transitions and have a similiar sound throughout. |
|
|
| nefardec |
definitely - one night at francois k's deep space party and an open mind and you will realize how many ways a deejay can take you on a trip.
david mancuso manages to do it to me even without mixing his records at all!
I've been really influenced by FK and by deejays like kenny larkin, nomadico, move d, dan bell, etc who do a lot more with their music through their mixing techniques
i think a good deejay knows when to make it smooth and when to create disruption. It's all about drama. |
|
|
|
|
