|
In Sync with the DJ (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| blackplasma |
| Pioneer-sponsored DJ John 00 Fleming likes Pioneer products shock. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by blackplasma
Pioneer-sponsored DJ John 00 Fleming likes Pioneer products shock. |
I didn't realise Pioneer invented auto-synching. |
|
|
| Mr.Mystery |
| quote: | Originally posted by 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. |
And, at the end of the day, does it even matter? You're in the club to enjoy the music, not to analyze what the DJ does. |
|
|
| Trance-M |
Ben Liebrand made this one, Bitch as one (We Come One and Smack My Bitch Up) just with CDJ1000's in August 2001. That's creative in my view:
| quote: | | This minimix introduces a new form of DJ-ing, as it was almost entirely made with the new pioneer CDJ1000 CD players. All sample style, loop, reverse, backspin and repeating effects were made live with these CD players. |
Regarding his Modular1 track live performance Ben's reply here at the Pioneer DJ Forum is interesting: http://forums-archive.pioneerdj.com.../2751075014/p/2 |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
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.
|
The "if it isn't in you" argument is valid....but who says the medium isn't important? I'm surprised you of all people are saying that. For instance last weekend I downloaded a bunch of mixes from various years between 1996 and 2006. Some were retrospectives of older music and some were of the time and some were new at that point. All mixed on different mediums (so in essence, many of the mixes had tracks from the same periods but some were mixed on vinyl and some CDJ and some DVS). You could hear the difference from a mile away and the vinyl sounded more pleasing with more dynamic range and much nicer lower end.
yes, the average drunken punter won't notice vinyl vs cdj vs dvs in a ty club playing schranze, but go to a deep house night with turntables, a great mixer (like a rane or vestax) and the difference is staggering and quite a thing to behold.
That's one part of the argument....
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
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.
|
I think j00f is actually suggesting that the sync button makes things better, because he can focus on other creative things and not waste time on something he can do in his sleep....
...and herein lies the problem; I have yet to see evidence that the extra 10 seconds he saves per mix results in a greater end product or experience. Pioneer's FX on the DJM 500 which changed everything in terms of DJ equipment sales did absolutely nothing to enhance music, if anything quite the opposite. I was sick of that bloody phaser and wah within a month of hearing it, but it meant that now dj's were spending some of their precious mixing time noodling with crap FX rather than track selection or creative mixing techniques between two or three records.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
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.
|
True, you had(have) to have talent - that's not a debate - equipment does not (yet) write or produce the tracks for you - but the both the expense, inherent limitations and steep learning curve of equipment acted as a filter. only those with real talent, dedication, musical ability, the means, the time (etc, etc, etc) ever made a record, then because the medium was expensive, the record label (or the cost of you getting it pressed yourself) was another quality filter.
You can succinctly argue that the easier technology made it, the more tracks were made and the quality of productions dropped accordingly and in direct relation to the quantity.
BT even said in an interview in the mid 00's that he used to spend months on a single track, even years on an album, but due to market pressure stemming from the ease of equipment usage and production, you just couldn't do that anymore. You used to push out one track a month if you were "prolific". Now there are producers pushing out several albums under several different monikers a year.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that there hasn't been great dance music right up to today, just that more options and a simplification of workflows have not created better music all in all. The only tangible thing that you can really quantify is that it's made it more accessible to people who either didn't have the time, talent or investment to get there without it.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
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. |
Without being too cynical I think J00f is talking about the sync button because pioneer paid him to. I just cannot see how 10 seconds less per mix (which at an average of even 20 tracks per hour (short for trance) saves him all of 9 minutes per three hour set. If he goes for a piss mid-set, he loses more than that.
But we're all talking about it, so mission accomplished, pioneer. |
|
|
| Trance-M |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Without being too cynical I think J00f is talking about the sync button because pioneer paid him to. I just cannot see how 10 seconds less per mix (which at an average of even 20 tracks per hour (short for trance) saves him all of 9 minutes per three hour set. If he goes for a piss mid-set, he loses more than that.
But we're all talking about it, so mission accomplished, pioneer. |
Any proof of that?
Why would they ask him to talk about a sync button, like that's something new.
IMO Jay said it all right with his post at the second page. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
The "if it isn't in you" argument is valid....but who says the medium isn't important? I'm surprised you of all people are saying that. |
It wasn't a general statement, more specific to Woony's argument that he can't think of any average DJs who became better when they switched from manual mixing. Any DJ we'd mention in this thread would have been mixing for years to get to that level of exposure, and at that point it'd be pretty apparent if they had it in them or not.
| quote: | | You can succinctly argue that the easier technology made it, the more tracks were made and the quality of productions dropped accordingly and in direct relation to the quantity. |
This is the core of the whole argument really, and it goes back to my earlier maxim. People complaining about these "easy" new technologies invariably cite the number of tracks or mediocre DJs who have sprung up. Again, the answer is really simple - don't listen to them. The good DJs are still good, and talented creative musicians are still making as much great music as in whichever hallowed year of the 1990s you care to mention. Digital technology and the Internet has done this to every medium, whether it's dance music, DJing, journalism, literature, photography or novelty coffee mugs. It's easier for the untalented layman to get involved and then put their mediocre up on the Internet for sale. The real trick is to navigate through this changing, ultra-profuse environment and find the stuff that is still good. The ratio may be worse but the overall quantity of good music is still the same.
6 or 7 years ago I wasn't going out to parties I enjoyed, I couldn't find music I liked and I wasn't happy. Read my posts from that period in the TA archive and I'm constantly complaining about the direction of electronic music and putting the golden age of the '90s on a pedestal. Flash forward to the present day and 8 out of 10 parties I go to are great, I've got a Hold Bin with 800 tracks in I can't afford to buy yet and a Spotify playlist with another 2,000 or so I've still got to check out. I'm totally happy because I've discovered ways of finding great music and I have the social circle and the knowledge to find the good clubs and promoters and ignore all the . This is the bottom line. The world is changing and you're going to have to work harder to find the good stuff. That doesn't mean it's still out there, and being a luddite who curses any technological progression is just going to leave you bitter and miserable on a music forum while the outside world marches on. |
|
|
| T99 |
I love arguments about sync. Makes me forget all those tedious Vinyl vs CD / Analogue vs Digital arguments.
I wonder what will replace the sync argument. I personally can't imagine but I'm 100% certain that someone somewhere will find something to moan about. |
|
|
| rubez |
i don't think anyone would argue the better driver could perform better without traction control. don't really see this much differently.
if all it come down to is picking good tunes, then the floodgates just opened wide... anyone here could do that, since you know thats mainly subjective - depending on a willing audience especially.
the worst part of software is that you get to 'see' where to mix. it becomes less about instinct and more a matter of fact. |
|
|
| Trance-M |
| quote: | Originally posted by rubez
i don't think anyone would argue the better driver could perform better without traction control. don't really see this much differently.
|
Without getting into details, that's not a good comparison I think. |
|
|
| Mr.Mystery |
| quote: | Originally posted by rubez
the worst part of software is that you get to 'see' where to mix. it becomes less about instinct and more a matter of fact. |
What a bizarre argument. How does seeing a waveform remove instinct? I can just as well "see" the music from vinyl grooves.
Using your driving analogy - why drive blindfolded if you don't have to? |
|
|
| blackplasma |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I didn't realise Pioneer invented auto-synching. |
Where exactly did I say that Pioneer invented auto-synching? |
|
|
|
|
