Laptop vs. traditional turntable djing.

nomos

Administrator
Not to mention that you're not even allowed to mix or edit... (via kode9)

"The Licensee hereby warrants, represents and undertakes that it shall:

"(1) Dub each Track in its entirety provided that the Fade-down
Section of any Track may be subject to the use of premature fade and
cross-faded or overlapped with the Track following immediately
thereafter provided that the period of audible cross fade or overlap
does not exceed 2 (two) seconds;

"(2) not Dub Tracks in such a way as to accelerate the rate of
the Fade-up Section at the commencement of any Track;

"(3) Dub Tracks so that all reproductions of Sound Recordings on
a DJ Database or Back-up Database will be of sufficient technical
standard so that the quality of the original Sound Recording is
reasonably preserved for any person listening to the Service;

"(4) not mix, remix, Segue, edit, change or otherwise manipulate
the sounds of any Sound Recording so that the sounds on the Dubbed copy
of the Sound Recording are different from those on the original Sound Recording"
 

Rambler

Awanturnik
autonomicforthepeople said:
Not to mention that you're not even allowed to mix or edit... (via kode9)

"The Licensee hereby warrants, represents and undertakes that it shall:

"(1) Dub each Track in its entirety provided that the Fade-down
Section of any Track may be subject to the use of premature fade and
cross-faded or overlapped with the Track following immediately
thereafter provided that the period of audible cross fade or overlap
does not exceed 2 (two) seconds;

"(2) not Dub Tracks in such a way as to accelerate the rate of
the Fade-up Section at the commencement of any Track;

"(3) Dub Tracks so that all reproductions of Sound Recordings on
a DJ Database or Back-up Database will be of sufficient technical
standard so that the quality of the original Sound Recording is
reasonably preserved for any person listening to the Service;

"(4) not mix, remix, Segue, edit, change or otherwise manipulate
the sounds of any Sound Recording so that the sounds on the Dubbed copy
of the Sound Recording are different from those on the original Sound Recording"

This doesn't prohibit live mixing of tracks (although at first glance it looks like it does). You need to wade through the legalese a little bit, but the key word here is 'Dub'. Quoting from the opening definitions:
“Dub” means re-record, reproduce and/or copy or otherwise duplicate sound recordings

Therefore, the terms quoted above are all in respect of making a re-recording of the tracks that you are using to DJ with. The law allows you to make back-up recordings of these for your security, but in doing so you must respect the integrity of the original track. Remixing, editing, etc, the track and then re-recording it is not a right granted under this particular license - it's involved with a whole bunch of other intellectual property business that has to be dealt with elsewhere (as all remixes, cover versions, etc are). And although you're allowed to mix live, the license doesn't grant the right to record that mix - you'll need to license the individual tracks from their authors in order to do that. (As has always been the case.)

I'm no expert, but I think this looks much the same as a conventional DJ license would, but it had to be rethought in order to accommodate digital music (as everything has to be these days.)
 

nomos

Administrator
A-ha. Yes you're right. Although, "(4) not mix, remix, Segue, edit, change or otherwise manipulate the sounds of any Sound Recording" would still preclude a lot of what laptop mixing ends up being about.
 

Rambler

Awanturnik
Possibly, but my reading is that still applies to a 'Dubbed'/recorded version, not the live set itself. The principle that's being applied and codified into law is that as a digital DJ you have to treat your digital files as though they were records in a box: do what you like while you're actually playing your set, but when you've finished, they all go back in the box exactly as they came out. The 'DJ Database' that the license keeps referring to is the exact digital analogy of the record box - your iTunes library, eg, that remains unchanged once you've finished your set.
 
Last edited:

bassnation

the abyss
Rambler said:
Possibly, but my reading is that still applies to a 'Dubbed'/recorded version, not the live set itself. The principle that's being applied and codified into law is that as a digital DJ you have to treat your digital files as though they were records in a box: do what you like while you're actually playing your set, but when you've finished, they all go back in the box exactly as they came out. The 'DJ Database' that the license keeps referring to is the exact digital analogy of the record box - your iTunes library, eg, that remains unchanged once you've finished your set.

its still pretty crap and excludes the possibility of doing studio mixes, mashups, etc. ironic really, as dance music is built on sampling and recontextualisation.
 

Rambler

Awanturnik
Yeah, but that's always been illegal (without licensing the material from its authors), and remains so. Besides, mashups etc have nothing to do with live DJing, so why should this license cover that?

[But, to temporarily derail the thread, I do completely support better, more flexible legislation that doesn't criminalise most of the best music being produced around the world. This isn't it, but it's not meant to be.]
 

bassnation

the abyss
Rambler said:
Yeah, but that's always been illegal (without licensing the material from its authors), and remains so. Besides, mashups etc have nothing to do with live DJing, so why should this license cover that?

[But, to temporarily derail the thread, I do completely support better, more flexible legislation that doesn't criminalise most of the best music being produced around the world. This isn't it, but it's not meant to be.]

i take your point, but i'd argue re-edits and the like have long been an element of djing, since larry levan in fact. its a very narrow definition of djing to exclude that kind of thing.
 

Rambler

Awanturnik
As long as you don't record the result, you can do what you like while playing live. Exactly the same as turntable DJing now. To quote the PPL's FAQ documentation:
Does the licence allow me to create mixes?

All that the Digital DJ Licence allows you to do is copy onto, and store on, the DJ Database (and Back-up Database) sound recordings in their original form (that is, the version that you downloaded or that was on the record that purchased from the shop). You are not entitled to edit or alter the track (including combining two or more tracks to create a new track).

This does not stop you creating a mix from different tracks when you are performing as a DJ. However, neither you nor anyone else will be able to record this mix.

My emphasis. And that's from the people who issue the licences.

Frankly, digital DJs should be MUCH more worried about the PPL's plans to enforce DRM onto their licencees:

What formats can I use?
At present you can copy store the sound recording in any digital format. However, please note that in the near future PPL will be requiring the storage of sound recordings in digital form to be protected by Digital Rights Management.
 

Grievous Angel

Beast of Burden
Live is the shit for doing pre-recorded mixes.

No it doesn't sound quite as good as the original file even if you put the quality up to maximum (which is four times as processor-intensive), and of course the live sound isn't as good as the rendered sound. Using the "beat" preset just sounds shit.

However, Live dj sets can be absolutely kicking -- see the Dust boys for examples. Surgeon uses Live, not Traktor, hence his live TG remixes etc.

Shaka is THE DON. He is THE greatest DJ ever.

I'm thinking of getting a Linn LP12 and a dedicated phono amp to transfer my dubstep to AIFFs.
 

bassnation

the abyss
Rambler said:
As long as you don't record the result, you can do what you like while playing live. Exactly the same as turntable DJing now. To quote the PPL's FAQ documentation:


My emphasis. And that's from the people who issue the licences.

Frankly, digital DJs should be MUCH more worried about the PPL's plans to enforce DRM onto their licencees:

jesus, i missed that. they can fuck right off.

signs are people aren't so willing to put up with drm, that the tide is changing since the sony debacle.

does anyone think the regulation will work?
 

Rambler

Awanturnik
Thread getting pulled a little off course here, but I don't think on the small scale the legislation will work (do all bars and clubs pay their PPL licenses now?). But on a larger scale, yes it will, because that's how the system works in larger venues etc. It will slot into place exactly as the current legislation does - the license you need will just depend on what gear you turn up with on the night, and many venues will probably stump up for both (for big venues it's a bargain - at least half what a conventional license would cost).

Don't know how they can get the DRM thing to work though - dread to think how this might affect small labels and bedroom producers getting their stuff out to laptop DJs.
 

bassnation

the abyss
Rambler said:
Don't know how they can get the DRM thing to work though - dread to think how this might affect small labels and bedroom producers getting their stuff out to laptop DJs.

the practicallities of this is going to be very difficult. for a start there are many conflicting drm technologies which don't really work consistenly - apples fairplay, microsofts offerings etc.

second thing, hows it going to deal with legally purchased mp3s from somewhere like bleep who don't supply drm'd audio files?

hopefully they'll come unstuck with this particular idea, because its a right old can of worms.
 
Last edited:

Rambler

Awanturnik
Absolutely - I think the DRM bit sucks (all DRM sucks). I can't see labels like Bleep who don't use DRM, with the consent of their artists, being easily forced into changing that policy.
 

nomos

Administrator
2stepfan said:
Using the "beat" preset just sounds shit.
Indeed. And 'Complex' is buggy. I usually go for re-Pitch unless I really need to tune something.

2stepfan said:
I'm thinking of getting a Linn LP12 and a dedicated phono amp to transfer my dubstep to AIFFs.
Should I be doing this instead of 1200 > Behringer mixer > tiny hole in my PowerBook?

Question: How is Traktor in a pinch, say for dropping the odd track into a turntable set using a laptop rather than a CD deck? Is there any obvious advantage to using a (cheap (ie. the cheapest)) CD deck?
 
Last edited:

bassnation

the abyss
autonomicforthepeople said:
Indeed. And 'Complex' is buggy. I usually go for re-Pitch unless I really need to tune something.

Should I be doing this instead of 1200 > Behringer mixer > tiny hole in my PowerBook?

"beats" is ok providing you aren't taking it too far beyond the normal range of the song or sample. and even then, fucked up timestrecthing can be used as an effect if its done right. you can sometimes mitigate the shitness of the stretch with filters too.
 
Last edited:

bassnation

the abyss
autonomicforthepeople said:
Should I be doing this instead of 1200 > Behringer mixer > tiny hole in my PowerBook?

no matter how good the turntable ultimately its vinyl and the very nature of how record players work is going to add some analog scuzz to the recording, even with the linn.

but after all, this is why people like vinyl so not sure it matters.
 

nomos

Administrator
true. though i'm curious becuase the other week i recorded my DMZ 5 12" into the computer and the resulting file sounds noticeably flat compared to the mp3 of the same tune from Bleep. i'm not sure why that would be. would a fancy firewire audio interface be the answer?
 
Top