I couldn't agree with Matt more. as i listen to my old wizard, hotmix 5, ron hardy, derrick may mixes it is difficult to overlook the fact that their innovative status and their unique sound came from their style of mixing a diversity of often elusive records in a creative way.
it is sad to see that the some of the surviving members of these innovators are now playing dj sets that barely cross a couple of genres, in a boring "smooth mixng" style. perhaps this a result of the commercialsim of the music; forcing djs to play sets that are perhaps easier to swallow for the musically shallow minded consuming majority......who knows; it's weird that some djs have left behind the skills which made them popular in the first place. claude young is an example of someone that is not afraid to cross genres and to try virtually everything on the decks. everytime i've seen him here in sydney.....he plays with doubles of every record, he hardly lets a bar pass without doing some sort of beat juggling or scratching (using virtually every appendage he has). he f***cks up a small portion of the time but he always walks away saturated with sweat. The man earns his money. sometimes it seems the art of djing within the house/techno community does not assume skill and creativity as a barrier to entry. on 17/5/02 10:09 AM, Matthew MacQueen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I'd still be interested in other theories as to why a culture >> of skilled, performing DJs is strong in the US and not so >> strong in Europe - I know mine is pretty flawed, but in >> the absence of alternatives (other than "euro-faggots suck" :) >> I'm generally confused as to why it is the way it is. >> Although I guess another theory could be explained in only >> two words - "hip hop"... > > and 'battles', yeah. > > I've been following this thread with a lot of interest and actually trying to > put some thoughts toward an explanation. Bear with me.... > > Contributing factors from a roots perspective are (as far as Detroit jocks go) > when you grow up listing to the Wizard 'quick mix' style on the radio, you > benchmark that as quality skills, something as a kid you think in your head > "now that is what a stellar DJ does." Or booty jocks, etc. it's part of what > you hear on the radio or in your environment, and influences you, as obviously > a lot of that (even Mills) influenced and by pop dance of the 80s of which > hip-hop and Mojo's eclecticism is a big part. A whole generation of people in > Detroit who heard 'hot-mix' and/or "quick mix" style shows and the Wizard on > the radio learn that skills = more than selections and more into the realm of > "what creatively/aggressively can you do with 2+ records"... including early > experimentations by Derrick May and even Richie with what could you do with a > Reel-to-reel machine during a radio show or DJ gig, etc. Also what the > HotMix 5 were doing in Chicago was all about cramming as many hot 'street > tracks' into a show, and that also means stuff like doubles, drop-ins, > phasing, cut-n-scratch, EQs, 33/45 tricks, effects, etc. And Yes I am talking > about with (proto) techno and house music, italo, etc. > > I'm with the camp who would rather see someone try and fail at something more > 'reaching' and funky and experimenting with really CREATING more than the sum > of an intro and an outtro of 2 records that flow seamlessly together. Yes > there is a time for that, but to me it's a lot easier and 'safer' than really > trying to ask yourself as a DJ "how can I go beyond just these 2 records, as > the artists intended them?" > > Esp. when you have records that are maybe hard as nails and 'straight' > techno.. you have to inject some funk into them with the way you play them in > a mix, because on their own, (just cleanly mixing one into the other) tends to > be pretty funk-less, or at best just a tad boring or uninspired... That is > why to me I love hearing Claude Young, because what he plays tends to be > harder than I'd buy/play, but the crazy funky stuff he does in the mix really > ads that funk that's IMHO missing from some of the individual tracks > themselves. Rob Hood and Jay Denham are less tricky than Claude, but without > a doubt their DJ styles also adds trenemdous soul and funk beyond what the > records themselves were 'born with'. IMHO, far too many DJs select a set by > what is easy to mix, not by how great the tracks really are *on their own > merit*. > > I guess to me the idea of just smoothly blending 2 great tracks is an average > way to play, (the cost of entry to DJing, if you will) but what really set up > you up as a creator / crowd mover became what you could do beyond that... > either with experimental selections (cross-genres/years/styles!!) or more > aggressiveness or experimentatin through other various techniques. > > So - in summary? - there's new generations of DJs who never were really > exposed to that as an archetypal kind of radio aggressive Hot Mix DJ, and I > think they have newer/different influences and DJ 'role models' than the > previous generation who grew up wishing you were The Wizard, who was for most > people (who heard him) the guy you wished you could DJ like. :) So not > saying one style is right or wrong, but that might explain some of the > US/Detroit style of really getting aggressive and 'tricky' in a mix, without > it coming off as mere novelty, but elevating the art of what a DJ *DOES* as an > artform, more than what a simple machine or software can do now. DOes anyone > know what I'm trying to say? > > While "we may equate machines with funkiness", you also can't program ProTools > to 'inject funk' in a mix. Well, not yet. ;) > > peace, > Matt MacQueen > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
