|
What Makes a DJ Set Flow (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| JonDC |
| quote: | Originally posted by rubez
too much key mixing makes for a bland, inoffensive set. don't mistake that for flow. |
I definitely agree with this - super smooth mixing is not synonymous with great flow |
|
|
| djdk |
| quote: | Originally posted by JonDC
I wouldn't have said so - I've done loads of transitions that I know are out of key which I think sound class. That's obviously up for debate though! |
Indeed, there are many different harmonic interactions that sound good, simply staying within the same key is just one of them (I'm guessing thats what you're getting at by saying out of key rather than properly dissonant, unless youve a sideline playing avant garde jazz? :p)
| quote: | Originally posted by rubez
you should know in your mind if the two proposed tracks will work well... if you don't, you're not a dj. |
Interestingly I find that when Im thinking of what to play next my brain has a nasty habit of transposing tracks subconsciously to match what I'm listening to. This can cause problems, when actually they dont match at all so having a key written down kinda helps me with that. |
|
|
| JonDC |
| quote: | Originally posted by djdk
Indeed, there are many different harmonic interactions that sound good, simply staying within the same key is just one of them (I'm guessing thats what you're getting at by saying out of key rather than properly dissonant, unless youve a sideline playing avant garde jazz? :p)
|
Haha- yea 'not in key' would have been a better phrase than 'out of key' |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
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.
|
I most certainly can envisage these techniques outside of a dancefloor. There are lots of musical pieces that go through several movements on their own, employing these techniques along the way. What I'm saying is that the records played by a dance music DJ (which is what the OP is focussing on here) are not designed to operate outside of the dancefloor dynamic in such a fashion. They are all adhering to the traditional dancefloor dynamic, and function as tools for the DJ to govern it. As such, I don't see how you would attribute some sort of "flow" to them that actually does function outside of the context they were specifically designed for. That's why nobody's playing the techno equivalent of, say, a Tangerine Dream composition in a club. The way such a composition employs the techniques you just mentioned (or "flows") isn't compatible with the dynamic the club's dancefloor has.
| quote: | | 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. |
Agreed, but making tracks work together musically isn't necessarily related to the things the OP has mentioned thus far (energy levels, groove, simple vs complex tracks at given points in the mix etc. etc). As long as your approach to mixing and creating a "flow" uses these criteria, you are still inextricably linked to whether it would benefit the dancefloor or not, regardless of whether you actually have a dancefloor in front of you, and regardless of what kind of music you are playing.
I'd say that if you're going to discuss a flow that is not governed by whether it keeps people dancing, then throw all the terms associated with that dynamic out, and focus on other things, such as aesthetics, political messages, composition techniques and so on. DJ _rupture does this excellently on his mix Gold Teeth Thief. The rapid shifting back and forth between dancehall, hip hop, drill n bass and dub would be a disaster on a dancefloor, but the mix flows anyway due to the overarching theme and the aesthetics (fragmented arabic instrument samples, sounds of gun shots, stark social commentary, MCs from impoverished neighbourhoods, broken beats)
Or, put simply, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
I'd say that if you're going to discuss a flow that is not governed by whether it keeps people dancing, then throw all the terms associated with that dynamic out, and focus on other things, such as aesthetics, political messages, composition techniques and so on. |
Well, I did speak about aesthetic and compositional technique in my first post, and I think those things are still highly relevant to dance music. They’re the considerations with which DJs create a distinctive sound. You can play something functionally effective at making people dance at a given moment, but it could rupture the aesthetic of your set and that for me would be marring the flow. More importantly, it would answer your original question: How exactly do you separate "functionally effective at making people dance" from "making a set fluid"?
As an interesting tangent, I actually believe that the creation and propagation of a distinctive sound through finding and playing tracks that resonate with people and form a consistent stylistic canon is a bigger reason why people follow certain DJs than how good those DJs might be at rocking a dancefloor. And I also believe flow is a big part of that – the joining together of music from different sources into a unified tapestry is how a DJ creates his or her stylistic canon. |
|
|
| Trance-M |
| quote: | Originally posted by rubez
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. |
I'm not gonna argue, only can tell you that I was listing to Ben Liebrand's yearmixes and mashups in the 80's and all of it was mixed in key. From what I know the skill is called absolute pitch and that it made him possible to combine two rhythms and add the vocals of a third track, even in a live set. This is the reason why he uses 4 CDJ1000's during live sets. You're able to play mashups which I think is hard to do without tonal mixing.
| quote: | Originally posted by 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. |
Cheap and restrictive on the creative front?
Maybe listing to some work of Ben could change your mind about it.
I would think being able to play a mashup like this in a live set is great, adds something and is good for the flow:
http://vimeo.com/75993676
I do believe for some genres it's less important than others, but when vocals are used I prefer harmonic mixing. |
|
|
| Syntonic |
| Does anyone think charisma might play a factor? DJ awe is at an all time high. Sometimes I think intangible qualities like that tend to make people not focus as much on the music. |
|
|
| JonDC |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
I most certainly can envisage these techniques outside of a dancefloor. There are lots of musical pieces that go through several movements on their own, employing these techniques along the way. What I'm saying is that the records played by a dance music DJ (which is what the OP is focussing on here) are not designed to operate outside of the dancefloor dynamic in such a fashion. They are all adhering to the traditional dancefloor dynamic, and function as tools for the DJ to govern it. As such, I don't see how you would attribute some sort of "flow" to them that actually does function outside of the context they were specifically designed for. That's why nobody's playing the techno equivalent of, say, a Tangerine Dream composition in a club. The way such a composition employs the techniques you just mentioned (or "flows") isn't compatible with the dynamic the club's dancefloor has.
Agreed, but making tracks work together musically isn't necessarily related to the things the OP has mentioned thus far (energy levels, groove, simple vs complex tracks at given points in the mix etc. etc). As long as your approach to mixing and creating a "flow" uses these criteria, you are still inextricably linked to whether it would benefit the dancefloor or not, regardless of whether you actually have a dancefloor in front of you, and regardless of what kind of music you are playing.
|
I figure the term 'flow' can be applied to things other than music and mean basically the same thing. Like when I was writing essays at Uni the lecturer would say 'you need to make sure your argument flows well to get a high mark'. It's the same concept - introduce new points that build on the last one to make them seem more pertinent, rather than in a random order, whereby you would have made all the same points but the over all argument is less compelling.
I get your point - I think you are saying that if the essay doesn't flow then it doesn't make people want to continue reading, which is comparable with a DJ set not flowing and hence not making people want to dance. However, I'm saying that there is more to making people dance than just flow - the quality of the tracks for example (like the strength of the arguments you are making in the essay, regardless of what order you put them in). And likewise there is more to flow than just how much it makes you want to dance. And yea, I think the two are strongly linked because to me flow is an important part of why the music makes me want to dance.
I still think it's worth considering the reason that it flows though - what are the things to think about that will mean your set does or doesn't flow? |
|
|
| djdk |
| quote: | Originally posted by JonDC
However, I'm saying that there is more to making people dance than just flow - the quality of the tracks for example (like the strength of the arguments you are making in the essay, regardless of what order you put them in). |
Is that necessarily true though? You can make a compelling argument as a whole with individual points that wouldnt necessarily be convincing if you you structure it right. Similarly, you can play tracks that on their own dont really tick a box on their own but in the context of a set can be stand-out. Theres been numerous occasions when Ive been out and heard a track that I had dismissed previously but heard in a whole new light because of the context around it. |
|
|
| JonDC |
| quote: | Originally posted by djdk
Is that necessarily true though? You can make a compelling argument as a whole with individual points that wouldnt necessarily be convincing if you you structure it right. |
Agreed. I've got a bit of a hangover so might not have written my post very well but I think that's what I said?
| quote: | Originally posted by djdk
Similarly, you can play tracks that on their own dont really tick a box on their own but in the context of a set can be stand-out. Theres been numerous occasions when Ive been out and heard a track that I had dismissed previously but heard in a whole new light because of the context around it. |
That's different though. That argument is that the flow, or positioning of the track in the set, can make it more compelling. I totally agree with that, but I'm saying it's not the only reason a track, or set might make you want to dance |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| What Jon is saying is remarkably simple, and I don't know why we're even still arguing over it. If a DJ with huge popularity plays in a great venue with a crowd off their chops on the finest MDMA available, playing a selection of extremely popular and iconic records, the crowd will go ing nuts. Those records could be played jarringly, with no sense between them, no control of energy, terrible phrasing, no manipulation of groove and the set will still have been "functionally effective at making people dance". And this is something you see all the time with big DJs - no real control or construction or nuance in their sets, but crowds who go mental on factors completely external to that. Flow might be related to the efficiency of a set on the dancefloor but is not a straight synonym and it can very evidently be separated from that yardstick. Anyone claiming otherwise is simply being obtuse. |
|
|
| djdk |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
What Jon is saying is remarkably simple, and I don't know why we're even still arguing over it. If a DJ with huge popularity plays in a great venue with a crowd off their chops on the finest MDMA available, playing a selection of extremely popular and iconic records, the crowd will go ing nuts. Those records could be played jarringly, with no sense between them, no control of energy, terrible phrasing, no manipulation of groove and the set will still have been "functionally effective at making people dance". And this is something you see all the time with big DJs - no real control or construction or nuance in their sets, but crowds who go mental on factors completely external to that. Flow might be related to the efficiency of a set on the dancefloor but is not a straight synonym and it can very evidently be separated from that yardstick. Anyone claiming otherwise is simply being obtuse. |
Ah right yes I would wholeheartedly agree with that |
|
|
|
|
