|
What Makes a DJ Set Flow
|
View this Thread in Original format
| JonDC |
Something that has always fascinated me. DJ sets are about much more than playing a load of good tunes - what makes them really compelling is how well the tunes flow with one another. But I still find myself thinking about what it is that results in a really good fluid set. There are so many things to think about such as harmonies, every levels, mood, the tunes structure, how 'anthemic' the tune is, whether it has vocals, genre, phrasing of transitions etc etc
Do any of the DJs on here have a magic formula they use to try and get their sets to flow? Or is it more art than science?
Would be interested to hear if anyone has a theory on it
I actually made this thread on another forum I use, and ended up with lots of completely irrelevant posts about how to read a crowd. Here I am strictly talking about how to make a set fluid, rather than how functionally effective it is at making people dance.
I'll start with my thoughts...
Firstly, I think 'flow' is quite an abstract concept and difficult to define. It's intangible, but everyone know's that it exists. To me, the best way I can describe it is how close the set comes to sounding like a single track - in the example of a mix CD, that's 80 minutes long - or how ever long the set is - as opposed to a collection of tunes that are purely there for the functional purpose of keeping a crowd dancing or filling up the demo.
However, I don't think it constitutes as good flow if you just play lots of tracks that sound the same. If you just mixed a load of plod along tech-house in the same key, with no melody and no moments for the duration of a set I don't think it would constitute as having good flow, even if it does sound like the same record. There is no art to that - it's got to seem like an exciting single 80 minute (or how ever long) track to get the kudos of having good flow, for me.
There are some very obvious techniques that people use - mixing harmonically and with a steady incline in energy levels is typical. However, there are some more subtle ones that I think can cause a set to have or not have good flow. For me one thing is the structure of the tracks. This is particularly important for trance music because a lot of trance records follow a very predictable formula that isn't conducive to a well flowing set - a couple of minutes of intro followed by an equally long breakdown - basic melody that repeats itself over 4 bars, another breakdown, more of the same and then outro. I think if you play a few tunes that do this in a row, you usually lose the flow immediately. It's therefore important to make sure you are playing tracks that follow a different pattern, or at least have a different type of melody in order to maintain the flow. This is where it becomes a tricky art - because on the face of it, that's at odds with the first requirement to make it sound like it's all part of the same record.
Another one is the length of the tracks - this is more something that I find can ruin the flow rather than a tool to make it. I find that if you play a sequence of very short tracks (4 in a row or something), then you can ruin your flow by following it up with a really long one. This is because if you look at it as being 'all part of the same journey', you might have a lot of variation in a 15 minute section, by virtue of the fact that you've just got through 4 tunes, and if you follow it with a 10 minute track it can sound a bit too repetitive. Obviously this isn't the case if the 4 short tracks are fairly stripped down and the 10 minute record is massively complex
Another thing I find when it comes to mixing up moods / energy levels / styles / genres is I think the start of the set requires more consistency than the middle of the set. I think you really need to get the listener or crowd locked into a solid groove early on by keeping things consistent, and then when you have nailed that it's important to very things by changing at least something every 20 minutes or so. I often find with mix CDs that the good ones are the ones that build for about 45 minutes before a punctuation mark changes the set - usually a fairly big 'moment', and then after that the sound becomes more varied. I could post quite a few classic sets that seem to do this.
There are loads more non-concrete rules I try and follow, which obviously occasionally go out the window because sometimes there are more important factors than flow, and sometimes something that breaks the mould can still work because it is more of an art than a science |
|
|
| Woony |
I think 'flow' is really hard to quantify since it's such an abstract thing. With mixing, there's usually some sort of common, objective ground to decide how good it is. But if you take 10 people to see the same DJ set, you're probably going to end up with 10 different (even if just slightly) opinions and how good the flow was. I've noticed this many times if i'm on the floor with a friend (or multiple) and the DJ plays something that breaks the current sound and usually someone will just shake their head and sigh and the other will smile and really get into the change of pace. Same with playing a track for five vs. ten minutes, some people on the floor probably will get bored and fiddle with their thumbs while others will close their eyes and really drift off.
That said, I think there are some basic rules that usually work. I think 'hit' records should always be played in (mostly) full length, if really puts me off when I DJ does a great buildup to a 'big' track and then mixes out after the first breakdown. Another pet peeve of mine is when a DJ plays a 'cue' record that signals some sort of change of pace like more deep/groovy/banging/trippy and then just changes direction again in the next track. I really admire DJ that just can keep a certain mood or feeling going for as long as it needs to. Some of my favorite dancefloor moments are when you're just thinking 'ahh, this track is perfect right now' and then the DJ just keeps riding that exact vibe for another half hour or longer.
But I think in the end, if you just play a set that sounds like a single loop for two hours, people might say it's boring but no one will bitch about the flow. If you play something really eclectic you'll probably get lots of comments about the flow even though people might enjoy it more. I guess what it comes down to is what will work best for the common denominator on the floor, if you're playing a ketamine-fest afterhour, it probably makes sense to play trippy tribal for two hours straight.
Here's a mix by Ben UFO that I heard the other day that really impressed me in terms of flow. He's someone that can just play a bunch of weird, out there , throw it together and make it sound totally coherent. If you would let another DJ make a mix out of the exact same tracks, it would almost certainly sound like a mess.
|
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
Although everyone will have a different definition, I would define flow in a similar way. To me it means how well two tracks work together as a continuous piece of music. Effective dance music is often about intuition - a good dance record does what the dancer expects it to, which is how you stay locked in the groove. You expect a flourish here, a break there, the bass to kick back in now.
During a transition, if something happens out of phrase or a new instrument or layer suddenly enters the mix in a way that doesn't really make musical sense over the outgoing track, it breaks the flow because it ruins the dancer's intuitive understanding of what's going to happen next. But mixing something in that clashes jarringly in mood or style or even arrangement is just as disruptive. Mixing a really busy maximal trance record after a booming stripped down techno tool is rarely going to flow well because the whole modus operandi of the music will change so radically.
For me personally, a big part of it is about selecting tracks that fit well together in mood, sound, style and so on. I think there's a danger in abstracting music too much into mere building blocks - "anthem", "groover", "builder" - without keeping their vibe in mind. I'm always thinking about the vibe and the atmosphere, which is why I find it easier to mix ambient or atmospheric music, because I can easily process music in those terms. A track might have the right key, tempo, structure and energy levels but I still won't mix it if it doesn't fit the vibe I want. On a technical level I mix in the stereotypical smooth harmonic style of a lot of DJs with trancey-proggy backgrounds. Good flow in my sets is about letting tracks take over smoothly from each other, and you don't need a detailed explanation of that.
What fascinates me is when I hear a DJ who has a totally different mixing style to me, and how they find different ways of making tunes go with other, ways I would never even have thought of. I've been listening a lot to this set from Justin Robertson. It's a great little classics set featuring lots of banging early '90s progressive and house, and I was there on the night (with Acton, funnily enough). But listening to it back at home, what gets me is how Robertson mixes. He uses FX really heavily on just about every transition and he's mixing loads of tracks - the best part of 20 that I can hear, in less than an hour. He uses the FX to execute swift swap-over transitions and manages to keep the energy up throughout, although the mental processes that go into this kind of mixing are a complete mystery to me. I really recommend having a listen to this set:
|
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
| quote: | Originally posted by JonDC
Here I am strictly talking about how to make a set fluid, rather than how functionally effective it is at making people dance.
|
You're discussing dance music. How exactly do you separate "functionally effective at making people dance" from "making a set fluid"?
| quote: | | There are some very obvious techniques that people use - mixing harmonically and with a steady incline in energy levels is typical. However, there are some more subtle ones that I think can cause a set to have or not have good flow. For me one thing is the structure of the tracks. This is particularly important for trance music because a lot of trance records follow a very predictable formula that isn't conducive to a well flowing set - a couple of minutes of intro followed by an equally long breakdown - basic melody that repeats itself over 4 bars, another breakdown, more of the same and then outro. I think if you play a few tunes that do this in a row, you usually lose the flow immediately. It's therefore important to make sure you are playing tracks that follow a different pattern, or at least have a different type of melody in order to maintain the flow. |
| quote: | | Another thing I find when it comes to mixing up moods / energy levels / styles / genres is I think the start of the set requires more consistency than the middle of the set. I think you really need to get the listener or crowd locked into a solid groove early on by keeping things consistent, and then when you have nailed that it's important to very things by changing at least something every 20 minutes or so |
| quote: | | I find that if you play a sequence of very short tracks (4 in a row or something), then you can ruin your flow by following it up with a really long one. |
You suggest that there is some other yardstick for measuring the "fluidity" of the set than dancefloor energy, but to me it seems like all the points above are still rooted in the traditional dancefloor dynamic a DJ is (supposedly) beholden to. When the set in question consists of music designed specifically for the dancefloor, I don't think you will have much luck establishing how a set is fluid outside of making people dance. |
|
|
| 2techs |
 |
|
|
| JonDC |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
You're discussing dance music. How exactly do you separate "functionally effective at making people dance" from "making a set fluid"?
You suggest that there is some other yardstick for measuring the "fluidity" of the set than dancefloor energy, but to me it seems like all the points above are still rooted in the traditional dancefloor dynamic a DJ is (supposedly) beholden to. When the set in question consists of music designed specifically for the dancefloor, I don't think you will have much luck establishing how a set is fluid outside of making people dance. |
I don't agree with you at all. A competent DJ that is lacking in creativity or flare might be able to make a huge crowd of people dance by ramming crowd pleasing anthems down their throat for hours on end. And you would certainly get this from a DJ at a student night for example. In that environment, 'flow' isn't the first thing on the DJs mind, the crowd would dictate that other factors are more important. A really good dance music DJ, in my opinion, would couple reading the crowd in terms of music they want to hear with tunes that work and flow together. These two things are distinct factors in programming a set.
Another point is that we don't just listen to dance music in clubs. If you got to the mixes section of this forum there will be loads of threads with people praising or criticising DJs on their flow, but they are just listening to the set, not dancing.
I don't think there is a tangible yardstick to measure flow - I actually made that quite clear by explaining that it's an abstract concept. It's certainly not as simplistic as 'how well it makes people dance' though |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
| quote: | Originally posted by JonDC
I don't agree with you at all. A competent DJ that is lacking in creativity or flare might be able to make a huge crowd of people dance by ramming crowd pleasing anthems down their throat for hours on end. And you would certainly get this from a DJ at a student night for example. In that environment, 'flow' isn't the first thing on the DJs mind, the crowd would dictate that other factors are more important. A really good dance music DJ, in my opinion, would couple reading the crowd in terms of music they want to hear with tunes that work and flow together. These two things are distinct factors in programming a set.
|
I don't see what difference this makes. Sure, the music the student crowd DJ plays might be e, and it wouldn't be very challenging or ambitious to keep the student crowd moving, but it still sounds like he's reading the dancefloor and managing its energy to me, even if it means playing nothing but hits for three hours. I'd say the big shot dance music DJ who plays nothing but big tunes for an hour to keep a several thousand strong crowd at a massive arena invested is in a pretty similar situation. He's just playing better music, in your opinion.
| quote: |
Another point is that we don't just listen to dance music in clubs.
|
No, but the function and purpose of dance music remains the same, namely to make people dance. The peaks, valleys, tension and release I create in a set by playing this kind of music in a specific order all relates to how I imagine a dancefloor would react. What else would these things be meant for? What meaning do these terms have outside of the dancefloor context?
| quote: | | I don't think there is a tangible yardstick to measure flow - I actually made that quite clear by explaining that it's an abstract concept. It's certainly not as simplistic as 'how well it makes people dance' though |
I guess I don't have quite as complex a view of dance music as you, then. To me it's very functional and simple stuff, built around the structures and sounds that create the desired response on the dancefloor, which are easy enough to measure with enough experience. There's nothing wrong with that, and that's not to say dance music producers don't make music outside of these parameters. |
|
|
| JonDC |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
I don't see what difference this makes. Sure, the music the student crowd DJ plays might be e, and it wouldn't be very challenging or ambitious to keep the student crowd moving, but it still sounds like he's reading the dancefloor and managing its energy to me, even if it means playing nothing but hits for three hours. I'd say the big shot dance music DJ who plays nothing but big tunes for an hour to keep a several thousand strong crowd at a massive arena invested is in a pretty similar situation. |
But surely you could listen back to that set, which may have performed it's function perfectly well on the night, and think 'the flow on that set isn't as good as a vintage set from John Digweed, for example. Lets take it up a step to a more sensible comparison than the student night DJ. Compare say tiesto with sasha. Tiesto has been successful playing to the biggest crowds in the world and making them dance all night but most chin strokers on the likes of this forum wouldn't say his sets have the great flow that Sasha is famous for. What is it about the way he puts his sets together that makes the difference? |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
No, but the function and purpose of dance music remains the same, namely to make people dance. The peaks, valleys, tension and release I create in a set by playing this kind of music in a specific order all relates to how I imagine a dancefloor would react. What else would these things be meant for? What meaning do these terms have outside of the dancefloor context? |
You don't believe music can have peaks, valleys, tension or release in its own right? |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
| quote: | Originally posted by JonDC
Lets take it up a step to a more sensible comparison than the student night DJ. Compare say tiesto with sasha. Tiesto has been successful playing to the biggest crowds in the world and making them dance all night but most chin strokers on the likes of this forum wouldn't say his sets have the great flow that Sasha is famous for. What is it about the way he puts his sets together that makes the difference? |
The difference is that Sasha has, in theory, constructed a set that would engage the kind of dancefloor he's playing for more successfully than the set Tiesto put together. However, the criteria we use to judge this are all based on how well it makes the dancefloor move. If we think Sasha's set "flows better" than Tiesto's, it's because we picture that Sasha's smooth mixing and placement of tracks would sustain and control a dancefloor's energy far better than when Tiesto plays a random techno track sandwiched between two soft epic trancers.
I fail to see how the concept of a set's flow is so much more abstract than this. If you ask me, it's the EXECUTION of this concept and how (un)predictable a dancefloor is that makes mixing truly interesting.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
You don't believe music can have peaks, valleys, tension or release in its own right?
|
Not sure what you mean by this? I wasn't arguing that music cannot have these effects unless we play it in a specific order, if that's it. I was just arguing that achieving these effects in dance music, and thus creating a "flow", is achieved by playing the tracks in a specific order, as the functional nature of the tracks themselves would designate them to such specific points in a set (I guess all those 14 minute epic house monsters would be an exception to this). |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
Not sure what you mean by this? |
You asked what meaning those terms have outside a dancefloor context. Surely they can be applied to any piece of music whether it is intended to be danced to or not. How do you apply your logic to ambient sets? |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
How do you apply your logic to ambient sets? |
I still don't follow. Are you saying the "flow" of a set that the OP is trying to pin down is related to effects like tension/release etc. as they apply to music NOT designed for a dancefloor? That wasn't the impression I got from the talk of mix CDs, grooves, energy levels and so forth, but it sounds interesting, nonetheless. |
|
|
|
|
