|
In Sync with the DJ (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Paradox Lost |
| quote: | Originally posted by rubez
this antiquated skill exist for a reason.
without them, the entry level bar goes down once again. now we have douchebags dj'ing who wouldn't have been able to otherwise (it's all about the music, right?)
heaven forbid the dj should actually have to rely on a bit of skill. |
Well if you have a bit of skill, then you should be able to distinguish yourself from an auto-syncing douchebag. And if audiences can't tell the difference between you and said douchebag, then what does that say about the craft as you practice it? Or what your audience cares about? |
|
|
| rubez |
can't agree with the automation of a dj set. these days all you need to do is press a button.
instead of 'being creative', ing focus and sculpt the best dj set you can - without the ty bells and whistles.
it's becoming a conveyor belt / auto pilot scenario. |
|
|
| Paradox Lost |
| quote: | Originally posted by rubez
can't agree with the automation of a dj set. these days all you need to do is press a button.
instead of 'being creative', ing focus and sculpt the best dj set you can - without the ty bells and whistles.
it's becoming a conveyor belt / auto pilot scenario. |
But there have always been plenty of DJ's who can beatmatch and yet lack competence in the areas you described. Learning how to beatmatch may have been a technical barrier that kept out many creatively incompetent DJ's, but, again, if creatively cueing and sequencing are skills that actually matter and make a difference, then a DJ in possession of them should be able to distinguish themselves from someone who does nothing more than match beats.
Not that I'm suggesting this about you, but I think it's mainly mediocre DJ's who feel threatened by this new generation of auto-syncing jukeboxes, because they reveal just how equally by-the-numbers they were the whole time, and can no longer play the technical trump card. |
|
|
| rubez |
i'm not a dj...
it's not the beatmatching, it's the automation as a whole. the cue points, warp function (whatever that is!) probably harmonically matches it all in key too. wouldn't be surprised if you can drag and drop a bunch of tracks into the software and it sorts the order for you, making 'suggestions'.
dj's can 'prepare' (save) an entire set beforehand and save it before even stepping foot in the club. it can become a case of touring and pressing play at each venue, mucking around a bit if you can be arsed. |
|
|
| Paradox Lost |
| Sure, but at the risk of repeating myself (too much), all these automated functions still fall short of automating creativity, and fortunately, that's something you still need to have in order to be a good DJ. Maybe the success of DJ AutoDJ just indicates how low your average dancefloor standards are, and that it's good enough to just be 'good enough.' |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| It's really ing simple: don't go to see the DJs. There's no shortage of great ones out there to hear instead. |
|
|
| Lews |
I quite honestly don't understand how people are still arguing about this in 2014. All the button does is make things a bit easier.
I love old music as much as anyone, more than the average person, but this insistent, romanticized view of the past is getting bloody annoying. |
|
|
| Woony |
My two cents: He's not wrong, but how many DJs actually use the sync button in a way that improves what is coming out of the speakers? Doing more things doesn't necessarily correlate with having a more interesting set. In fact, a lot of DJs (see Richie Hawtin) arguably manage to make their set worse by doing more things. I see people talk about the possibilities all day long but when it comes down to it, DJs that use their sync button in a genuinely creative and reasonable manner are a rare breed.
I don't know if anyone else has had the same experience, but the best digital/sync button DJs I've seen are those that get rid of the traditional way of DJing entirely and just run Ableton in a "live set with other people's tracks" manner (Peter Van Hoesen, Surgeon. I think Kirk Degiorgio runs Ableton, too but I haven't seen him yet) |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Floorfiller
I think the whole "using sync lets me be more creative" argument is nonsense. first of all, doesn't seem like that many djs do "creativity" well. just because you layer sounds from multiple tracks doesn't mean it sounds good. second, why don't they just try and channel that creativity into the studio and make more creative tracks in the first place? i'd much rather hear more diversity in productions than some dj trying to play a bunch of samples over each other. why does creativity have to be live? it doesn't it's just an excuse to be a lazy mixer. |
I have to agree with this. J00f is saying nthing new; Richie hawtin took this same stance over 5 years ago as probably the first major name to unapologetically talk about using the snyc feature.
His argument was that it's lets him be more creative. Sadly, this doesn't translate in to better music or mixes. It just means more time to add extra things which in my opinion, detracts from the music rather than adding to it.
You also have to realize that guys like j00f have been doing this a very long time (I remember seeing John play loads of times on the local london circuit to 200 people in tiny venues such as a converted house before he made it) so beatmatching to tracks is just an opportunity to up a mix and have some twat go "you klanged! OMFG, going to post this on twatternapchat!".
But, and here's where I feel the real difference is, there's a tangible connection that is made by a DJ having to work the equipment that isn't there when autopilot is engaged. The more that is automated, the more is lost.
Look at DJ's like Carl Cox or Jeff Mills or Louis Vega or Sven Vath - when they are working it, the performance is the music. It's about being connected, but oth the music and the crowd and simply don't get that when more and more functions are automated.
There's a'ways been an argument that outsiders of EDM see DJ's as jukeboxes, just people playing other people records. DJ's embracing Technology in this way is making that statement true.
Yes, I know people are going to try to chime in and say "but not having to worry about basic function lets them do other more expressive things etc etc etc" but in my experience, it's just lets them slap on more toy FX from ty pioneer mixers, or internal FX from Traktor or more layers of samples, none of which have done little to enhance the music or improve upon two turntables and a mixer.
It's a similar argument to laptop DJing not making a marked improvement on quality music or performance. More options and technology has not equaled better music. |
|
|
| djdk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Woony
My two cents: He's not wrong, but how many DJs actually use the sync button in a way that improves what is coming out of the speakers? Doing more things doesn't necessarily correlate with having a more interesting set. In fact, a lot of DJs (see Richie Hawtin) arguably manage to make their set worse by doing more things. I see people talk about the possibilities all day long but when it comes down to it, DJs that use their sync button in a genuinely creative and reasonable manner are a rare breed. |
I do think there is a certain amount of a "I have this new technology, how can I use it" attitude amongst certain DJs and they force it into their workflow.
What John mentions in that article is more "I want to play this tune, can I do it" and the technology allows him, which he wouldn't have been able to do before.
You watch people like Mills, Cox or Dave Clarke and they've been doing precisly that for years, it just they have the exceptional talent to do it using nothing but turntables. Not many people can do that but perhaps more people have the creative spark but were limited previously by their manual mixing talent.
I would perhaps suggest that the number of people who have that creativity is larger than the small subset who could do it manually but still much smaller than the DJ population at large.
Or as Jack so succinctly put it "If it aint in you, it aint coming out" |
|
|
| Woony |
| quote: | Originally posted by djdk
You watch people like Mills, Cox or Dave Clarke and they've been doing precisly that for years, it just they have the exceptional talent to do it using nothing but turntables. Not many people can do that but perhaps more people have the creative spark but were limited previously by their manual mixing talent.
|
Again, this might make sense in theory, but is it really true? Can you name any sync DJs that play amazing sets but were previously limited by manual mixing? I'd argue that almost all technically exceptional sync DJs are also technically exceptional manual DJs. To me the people that play good synced sets are precisely those who can also play flawless manual sets because they understand what makes a set technically good instead of just mashing buttons. Not to mention that playing a great synced set still takes plenty of technical skill. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Woony
Again, this might make sense in theory, but is it really true? Can you name any sync DJs that play amazing sets but were previously limited by manual mixing? |
Again, this goes back to the "If it isn't in you..." argument. If you're a good DJ, the medium isn't really important. All these same arguments were made 10+ years ago about CDJs versus vinyl - that it made things easily, that it was soulless, that it didn't improve anything. Now nobody bats an eyelid about CDs.
I think the problem is people think the argument is that sync, or Ableton, or digital DJing in general makes things "better". I don't think anyone's really arguing that these things are going to raise the bar of DJing as an art-form. The only thing that can do that is human talent. It's the same argument about DAWs and software synths making production too "easy". Again - if you have no good ideas you'll make no good records. Electronic music was founded on the principle of technology freeing up the musician from their individual limitations. If we'd had this attitude in 1981, there wouldn't be techno, house or club culture now because we'd argued synths didn't "improve" music over traditional instruments, and that they made things too easy and too soulless.
I don't think John 00 Fleming is arguing he's a better DJ now he has the sync button. What he's arguing is that the sync button allows him to do things that he couldn't do before, that it has a valid application and that people shouldn't reflexively write off a DJ just because they've made use of a feature. I just don't understand all this hostility towards different DJing techniques, whether it's harmonic mixing, sync buttons or Ableton. I'm pretty sure it all comes down to a simple bottom line: the people complaining just aren't going out and having fun whilst seeing good DJs, and they channel that frustration into State Of The Nation rants about whatever technological fad comes into the cross-hairs next. |
|
|
|
|
