DigitalDjigit
Honky Tonk Woman
droid said:
That's exactly my point. If they are going to sell it for money then it better be something beyond a normal dj mix with 2 decks.
Classic Mix Compilations
- Thread starter ewmy
- Start date
That's exactly my point. If they are going to sell it for money then it better be something beyond a normal dj mix with 2 decks.
bassnation
the abyss
droid said:
yeah, exactly. depends what you are trying to achieve. if i'm doing one in sonicfoundry acid, it will be with lots of re-edits, remixes etc - no point in just doing a straight-up mix cos it kinds of misses the point.
having said that, theres something about using decks which just brings so much more energy into it.
i also use traktor with an analog mixer which acheives the same sort of sound with decks, which leads me to believe its more about the eqing, cuts and chops than the audio source itself.
funnily enough thinking about giving up djing, just don't have the time or the money to keep up with all the new releases these days.
dominic said:
well, without cars, screw wouldn't have been any kind of "generis" let alone "sui" and, fuck it, i say that any kind of enjoyment of any music is good and profoundly disagree with all this highfalutin claptrap about how people "should" listen to it. cringe away at people's choices, let your skin crawl at their enjoyment, i couldn't care less for that kind of snobbery.
D
droid
Guest
DigitalDjigit said:
Id be happy just to hear a half decent set, with good programming, technical skills and selection - irrelevant of whether it was done traditionally or Pro-tooled. Its actually a very rare thing to hear a near-perfect or perfect mix. The majority of commercial and amateur mixes usually fall down in one of these categories, and IMO the majority of 'normal' mixes are fairly substandard - not because of being limited to 2 decks, but because of lack of talent/imagination/hard work on the part of the DJ...
Pro-tools isnt a magic sponge. Its doesnt automatically add anything - and its not going to cover up fundamental problems with your set. All it does is allow the DJ to create without actually performing live (thus removing most of the hard work and risk), which creates another level of removal from the audience. The Pro-tools DJ has gone from trying to recreate a live set in the studio realtime on the decks (one level of removal), to sequencing his set non-realtime (a second level of removal). Whilst this may sometimes generate interesting results, i cant help but think that this method is so divorced from the original context of DJng to a live audience, that it has more in common with production...
And who wants to spend their time 'producing' other peoples music?
bassnation
the abyss
stelfox said:
reminds me of a taxi journey i had the other day where the driver told me he hated all music. "what, all of it?" i asked, a little flummoxed at the thought of this and he was like "yep, just listen to radio four and even then its a bunch of wankers talking about pig farming". he was possibly the most dour person i've ever met.
(not that i'm saying you are in anyway like that dominic, just want to make that clear
)DigitalDjigit
Honky Tonk Woman
droid said:
It's kinda like recorded jazz. How is it improvisation if it is the same every time you listen to it? Obviously Pro Tools results in perfect technique. It should also improve the "artistic" qualities since you can discard what doesn't work, try different combinations. It should produce a much more interesting and coherent product than live-performance espeically since unlike in a normal musical performance there's no interface problem. It's very hard to program something that sounds like live instrument playing but mixing music doesn't present that problem.
Any producer involved with a sample based form of music, mash-up makers...
Melchior said:
Yeah, that one's really excellent. The thing that always surprised me about it--and something that i had always heard--is that Levan's mixing skills were not that great. There are clear fuck-ups: beat-matching is off, a couple of weird transitions. However, it doesn't really matter because the music is great and so is his pacing.
On the disco front, the "Disco Forever" mix by Dimitri from Paris is actually nice also, especially for the deployment of "Barely Breaking Even" and the Charanga '76 version of "Ain't No Stopping Us Now."
not to invite the charge of snobbery . . . .
but i generally prefer to hear records all the way through UNLESS i'm dancing to them somewhere or it's some kind of "live" transmission as in the case of pirate radio (even if archived)
(i think the more appropriate charge would be ludditism -- or is it rockism of a certain kind? -- i.e., making a fetish of "live" performance -- i.e., i'm simply not that interested in hearing a computer-aided dj mix where 5 records are playing at once, let alone a plain-jane computer-aided mix with only 2 records playing)
(you can't be an effective prosecutor if you don't know how to charge properly)
but i generally prefer to hear records all the way through UNLESS i'm dancing to them somewhere or it's some kind of "live" transmission as in the case of pirate radio (even if archived)
(i think the more appropriate charge would be ludditism -- or is it rockism of a certain kind? -- i.e., making a fetish of "live" performance -- i.e., i'm simply not that interested in hearing a computer-aided dj mix where 5 records are playing at once, let alone a plain-jane computer-aided mix with only 2 records playing)
(you can't be an effective prosecutor if you don't know how to charge properly)
D
droid
Guest
DigitalDjigit said:
Mash ups - yes
Sample based music - not the same thing at all. The transformative aspect of sampling I think nullifies the fact that your using 'other peoples music'. 'Babylon' is its own, self contained tune, not a 'mix' of 'Amen Brother' and 'Rockers'. A tune is more than the sum of its samples after all...
Should/could - but generally doesnt. Divorcing yourself from the realtime world when mixing IMO is just too much of a seperation. All thought and no instinct - wheras a good mix should be the perfect balance of both... pre-planned to an extent, but executed live (with style and verve of course).
ewmy said:
I thought that the soulwax sets were done purely on two decks? I've certainly read an interview where they claimed as such, and seen them play out live with just two decks and recreate large parts of their mixes...
What I really dislike is mix CDs that go on about how they've involved lots of complicated digital mixing and re-editing, that just couldnt be done with 2 decks, but when you listen to them you just end up thinking that it could have been done fine with 2 decks... im thinking of the DJ Food and DK Solid Steel mix here - good CD, but I get the feeling that I could have managed quite a lot of it on just 2 turntables. And Tom Middleton's "Cosmos" - boasting about how much "key mixing" he does. Fuck off, any DJ worth his salt should be able to do that.
On the postive side, i like:
Kruder and Dorfmeister's DJ Kicks - Can't believe no one's mentioned this. Very formative.
DJ Spinbad Rocks the Casbah - bit obvious maybe. but so much fun, and showing off some incredible skills. I have no idea if it was digitally re-edited, if it wasn't then it's breathtaking..
DJ Yoda - Jewbonics
and Live at the Liquid Rooms
DigitalDjigit
Honky Tonk Woman
I think you guys are seeing things that aren't there. It's like you are talking about souls. There's no such thing and similarly there's no difference between a live mix and a non-live mix (aside from the later being more technically perfect). The only thing that a "live" situation adds is an element of lucky surprise where a mistake turns out to sound good. However the ratio of these good mistakes to bad ones is definitely in the favor of bad ones. Even a programmed mix is an expression of creativity and surprises pop up there too. How many deejays go into a live setting with a premade set list?
Mixing non-live is pretty much exactly the same as any sample based production. It's just a matter of how finely you slice the tracks and which parts you sample. Sample based production usually takes the more spare parts (just a beat or just the vocal etc.) whereas in mixing you are probably more interested in a more distinctive part of the track (the beat + the synth line). But really they are the same thing. There's no conceptual difference.
Didn't you enjoy that '90-'92 mix I posted? That was done on computer. There was no way I could have done that on the decks. I cut out parts of tracks, had 3 of them going at once and all sorts of other stuff.
You think "live" matters but it doesn't. You are letting these things color your judgement of the music. In a blind test non-live would win most of the time.
Mixing non-live is pretty much exactly the same as any sample based production. It's just a matter of how finely you slice the tracks and which parts you sample. Sample based production usually takes the more spare parts (just a beat or just the vocal etc.) whereas in mixing you are probably more interested in a more distinctive part of the track (the beat + the synth line). But really they are the same thing. There's no conceptual difference.
.dominic said:
Didn't you enjoy that '90-'92 mix I posted? That was done on computer. There was no way I could have done that on the decks. I cut out parts of tracks, had 3 of them going at once and all sorts of other stuff.
You think "live" matters but it doesn't. You are letting these things color your judgement of the music. In a blind test non-live would win most of the time.
Canada J Soup
Monkey Man
Can't believe I forgot about this one...I discovered it years after it came out, but ended up listening to it incessantly nonetheless. Got me digging out a lot of Fantazia era tapes I hadn't listened to in years.
Agreed 100%. I'd much rather hear something done live...there's a manic quality to a mix done on the fly that you could never have with a straight track-to-track mix made using ProTools. What makes DJing fun is the combined feeling of "it's all going to fall apart any second now" with the surety of "I could chop and EQ these tracks forever without needing to touch the tables." There are also those occasional moments of improvisation (no, really) where something you'd never have thought of works perfectly. Very little of this is going to happen with a ProTools mix, and I really think it shows in the finished product. Unless manually impossible edits and transitions are part of what's being assembled I feel like it's kind of lazy and pointless.
One of the things that has been interesting me about DJing recently is how the studio tech is creeping into the live arena. I've never been a Sasha fan, but I'm interested to see what he can do with that custom Abelton Live controller he's been dragging around. Similarly, Hawtin's use of two PowerBooks with Final Scratch and Abelton Live all linked together by a MIDI'd up Rane mixer sounds like it could lead to some pretty unique new live mixing (esp. with the kind of stuff he plays these days).
Last edited:
DigitalDjigit said:
don't take this the wrong way -- but probably the biggest factor in my enjoyment was that i consumed the mix within the "gift exchange" economy of the dissensus forum
i.e., i enjoy all the mixes that get posted on dissensus b/c of how they're "shared" with everyone here -- i.e., there's something "personal" about it
and probably the second greatest factor was my nostaliga for the 90/92 period
how well or poorly you may have produced the mix had little-to-nothing to do with my enjoyment -- though i was impressed, if i recall correctly, by how quickly you brought certain tracks in and out
and so my position in this context isn't all that different from how i relate to a dj mix when i hear it live at a party or club -- i.e., the dj makes the party happen by playing the records (regardless of whether he knew in advance the order in which he'd drop the records or, on the contrary, improvised his set entirely on the spot), and everybody on the floor makes the party happen by dancing -- so there's an exchange going on
and the mixes that i most enjoy hearing in private are stuff like ron hardy at the music box or, thank the stars (and the person upthread!), the old rave and pirate mixes now archived at hardcorewillneverdie.com -- mixes where the mixing is comparatively sloppy (you imagine the djs are very high on drugs) but the vibe is palpable -- or else i'm simply projecting the vibe and energy -- but no matter the explanation, that's how i feel about it
levan was playing non-sequenced records with live rhythm sections (always a little "out" unlilke modern electronic music) on really slippy linn audio turntables (probably the least tactile dj interface possible as they bounce about everywhere) with no pitch control whilst absolutely wankered, so i say that charges of his mixing being schonky are really daft. without him, mancuso, siano et al we wouldn't be anywhere near where we are to day. his musical choices were pretty much impeccable and he was a true originator.
as a side note, i found the K&D DJ Kicks the other day and put it on. It was really dull in retrospect. Shame coz I remember it being really nice.
as a side note, i found the K&D DJ Kicks the other day and put it on. It was really dull in retrospect. Shame coz I remember it being really nice.
Last edited:
Diggedy Derek
Stray Dog
That 90-92 mix was wicked.
live at the liquid room probably is the best
if you like that,my other favourite techno mix is surgeon live a tresor in 1998,its on all the file sharing networks and is quality,well worth a download
other favourites include erland oye's dj kicks,richie hawtin's decks,efx,and 909,and the dj rupture mixes
if you like that,my other favourite techno mix is surgeon live a tresor in 1998,its on all the file sharing networks and is quality,well worth a download
other favourites include erland oye's dj kicks,richie hawtin's decks,efx,and 909,and the dj rupture mixes
DigitalDjigit
Honky Tonk Woman
robin said:
I have to say that was one of the worst mix cd's I have ever heard. His singing is nice and all but what's up with cutting off "dexter" after two minutes? The whole thing just didn't have any flow to it and wasn't mixed well at all.
Does anyone happen to know which version of "Radio Jolly" is on that CD? It sounds nothing like any other version I heard.
DigitalDjigit said:
There is certainly something paradoxical about listening to a recording of a live event. A "live recording" might be an interesting document, and work well as a slice of time, but the experience of listening to the recording can never match that of actually being there.
That said, I'd dispute the idea that non-live is would win most of the time in a blind test. Live mixes - like all live performance - tend to be great when the deejay/artist/whatever has started to feed off the crowd (and vice versa). I don't think it's possible for an artist of any description to reach truly sublime moments without an audience to help them there. And as paradoxical as the idea of a "live recording" might be, I do think that at least some of those sublime qualities can be transmuted to a storage device.
I mean, I'm aware that makes me sound like a bit of a wanker, but there you go...
stelfox said:
Yeah, I agree - it's lost a lot of it's charm, hasn't it? Nevertheless, I reckon the DJ-Kicks series as a whole are pretty fackin' amazing. As a record of the many different sounds that have come and gone in the last 10 years, <a href="http://www.k7.com/data.pl?ls=DJ-Kicks" target="_blank">they're hard to beat</a>.