|
What Makes a DJ Set Flow (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Halcyon+On+On |
| You don't get a lot of flak. |
|
|
| enydo |
| I don't? Oh, alright. |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
| quote: | Originally posted by JonDC
But it doesn't though - Tiesto had more fans than Sasha - he used to fill up big football stadiums etc with people going mental. He engages his crowd just as well or better than Sasha, despite not 'flowing' as well.
|
That's why I wrote "on paper". It's clear that the flow of a set isn't the only thing that a DJ can use to keep the crowd engaged (Sven Väth is famous for this, for instance). That, however, does not change anything about the criteria we used to judge whether a flow is good or not, and that these criteria are all based on how we picture a dancefloor reacting to the mixing choices a DJ makes, regardless of whether a DJ can keep himself afloat on pure hype and cult of personality or not.
| quote: |
To me you seem to be suggesting that flow = effectiveness. But I think it is one of the elements that makes a set effective, but not the only one. And how important it is to the overall effectiveness depends on the needs of the crowd. Flow is important to engage me personally (I'm a bit obsessed with it) but not everyone |
Of course, you can't get into a set unless the music being played is up to your specific personal standards. It has little to do with the flow itself, however. A set with tremendous flow will still be near impossible to get into if you think all the tunes are awful.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Well, I think those effects are quite universal. We still talk about ambient sets as having flow, don't we? When I make a mix that isn’t intended for dancing I still take the same things into account. For example, letting a track wind right down to almost nothing and then cueing the next track right from its start takes a lot of intensity out of the music, whereas mixing those tracks so one starts to reach a crescendo as soon as the other is starting to wind down will create a far more concentrated effect. The intensity here might be a mood, an emotion or an ambience rather than physical intensity, but the principles are the same. |
I dunno, to me this still sounds like you're employing the terms and viewing your mixing from a dancefloor perspective, as in how to mix to keep the energy at a level that will keep the dancefloor moving (or give them a carefully placed break for emphasis, for example). The argument being made here is that there is a flow to a DJ set outside of this dancefloor norm. So far, I don't see anyone describing what this flow is in terms that do not refer back to the usual dancefloor dynamic. |
|
|
| Trance-M |
| quote: | Originally posted by rubez
also, harmonic mixing should die in a fire. the dj should not be looking at any criteria for what to mix in next other than what feels natural. |
Isn't harmonic mixing more difficult? I thought you need some skills which just not everyone has.
Playing two or more (unexpected) tracks at the same time still is awesome I think. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
I dunno, to me this still sounds like you're employing the terms and viewing your mixing from a dancefloor perspective, as in how to mix to keep the energy at a level that will keep the dancefloor moving (or give them a carefully placed break for emphasis, for example). The argument being made here is that there is a flow to a DJ set outside of this dancefloor norm. So far, I don't see anyone describing what this flow is in terms that do not refer back to the usual dancefloor dynamic. |
To me it sounds like you just can't seem to envisage these techniques outside of a dancefloor. Let's use an obvious example - a classic manoeuvre. Playing a series of tracks with building tension in their progressions, overlapping them so the structure of one takes over from the last, then playing a track that reaches a crescendo, allowing it to play out almost to completion and then playing something extremely sombre to compound the comedown in emotional intensity... all that is flow. In terms of DJing we would most commonly hear that kind of sequence executed primarily in terms of rhythmic intensity, but the dancefloor does not have dominion here and none of it needs to involve thoughts of a dancefloor at all.
That kind of development is found on a more micro-level in an individual piece of music itself, frequently in pieces of music that have nothing to do with dance or electronic. You could probably name a number of classical symphonies that follow the structure I just described. As a DJ you are piecing together smaller pieces of music in a certain way to make them form what is essentially a larger piece of music, its movements executed on a larger scale. For me, good flow is about making tracks work together musically in this sense. None of that necessarily need involve a dancefloor. |
|
|
| rubez |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trance-M
Isn't harmonic mixing more difficult? I thought you need some skills which just not everyone has.
Playing two or more (unexpected) tracks at the same time still is awesome I think. |
i think one of us has the wrong idea of what harmonic mixing is, possibly you :stongue:
i would say there is only skill involved if you can tell the key of your tracks without any aids at all. that's a musical ear right there. still don't agree with it though. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| "Mixing in key is like being able to kick a football if you’re a footballer." -Sasha |
|
|
| rubez |
well, i've never tried it or even been remotely interested in it. all i've seen were those stupid pie chart things, and i see beatport has the key labelled on their tracks.
i see it as a cheap way to sound good, and highly restrictive on the creative front. |
|
|
| Syntonic |
Mixing in key sounds like a chore but is essential in my opinion. I think any kind of dissonance is disruptive and goes against the whole flow control for me. After a while of training your ear this way it's becomes very noticeable when there is a clash.
Why do you think Sasha & Digweed sets sound so finely stitch?
I can see how it would feel restrictive but if you like long transitions and want to be subtle with mixing and want to avoid crashing tunes in, it's something to consider. |
|
|
| rubez |
i am saying pro actively mixing in key is a bull - no need to give yourself tunnel vision.
you should not be focused on it at all. maybe on a subconscious level that's what you are doing. but you should be focused on selecting the perfect track to bring in... that of course may well be in key, and that would not be coincidence. |
|
|
| Syntonic |
| When you do it long enough, it becomes reactive and you just do it without looking at the wheel. You must've dug through rows of vinyl and noticed keys on the label? It was big back then and way before that. People were using cheap Casio keyboards just to key a record and now we have Mixed In Key. |
|
|
| JonDC |
| quote: | Originally posted by rubez
i am saying pro actively mixing in key is a bull - no need to give yourself tunnel vision.
you should not be focused on it at all. maybe on a subconscious level that's what you are doing. but you should be focused on selecting the perfect track to bring in... that of course may well be in key, and that would not be coincidence. |
Again, I agree with you, as that is the main reason I don't bother to key my tracks
But some people can make doing the research by working out the keys, and using that as a tool to pick the prefect next track work for them. You have to be cogniscent of the fact that it isn't a fool proof way to structure your set, clever enough not to let it completely restict you. The purpose of this thread is to work out how people 'select the perfect track to bring in' as you put it |
|
|
|
|
