---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Phonopsia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I've always thought DJ's make too much of 'reacting to a crowd',
when really
>it's a matter of having the right crowd for the assembled lineup.
Once this
>bit is accounted for, it's all a matter of execution, and then
*exceeding*
>your limits with what you hope to do - regardless of whether the
set is
>fully, partially or not planned.
i definitely disagree. when i play records, i bring a variety of
sounds. if one thing in particular is making people react, then i
run with it. i remember one gig i started out by playing some carl
craig, dan bell, and recloose records. people really werent
feeling it too much so i moved into more broken beat territory,
then when i started dropping the ragga influenced broken beat and
2-step, heads went wild. so i kept playing that kind of stuff. had
i rocked strictly the 313 style techno, the reaction and
satisfaction with my set would have dropped a ton.
>a masterful Dj will be fluent in all aspects and
>employ each accordingly.
its always a good idea to bring as many tools as you can to the
table. recently my sets have been consisting of alot of vocal
tunes or songs that progress within their own structure, so i
havent had much diversity in my mixing style. when im rocking the
strictly instrumental tracks though, i cut between the records a
good bit to increase the energy before dropping in a big tune.
>When Ron Trent played at least 25% of his 4-hour set from CD @
>the Works @ DEMF 2002 no one said a word.
titonton played in pittsburgh last night. he played pretty much a
record then a cd. aside from one skipping CD, no one would have
noticed that at least half his set was CDs. as a matter of fact,
they were just happy to hear some really exclusive tunes.
><AXE GRINDING DETOUR> I would wager that most of the sets that
people love
>the most are planned. Choose to believe it or not, most touring
DJ's operate
>with a very simlar selection of tunes from gig-to-gig while they
are on the
>road. It is a logistical imposibility to do something different
in every
>port when playing a longer slot (assuming you only have vinyl),
and when
>you're only as good as your last gig, repeating things that work
makes
>sense - especially when your audience could never know you've done it
>before. When people bitch about Mills repeating his sets, I don't
think they
>realize how common this is.
obviously if youre on tour and youre not one of the huge trance
guys that bring 10,000 crates with them, youre limited by the size
of your record box as to what you can play. that said, the order
in which you play records has alot to do with the context in which
theyre seen. you can move a set from a high point to a low point,
from a low point to a high point, from a low point to a high point
back to a low point, etc etc all with the same selection of
records. plus, records all have b sides or alternative mixes that
you can play to switch things up. if i were going on tour for an
extended period of time, i would make an effort to bring as many
versatile records as i could to ensure i wouldnt get bored playing
the same thing every night.
>To tie this back into Brendan of Brelson, y'all should take note
that he has
>been making wicked mixes for ages the manual way, and has chosen
to give
>another mode a try. Both have their value. Hopefully more DJ's
will come out
>of their caves and use the tools that are available to push
things in new
>directions. It's common, you better get used to it, and it will
>ultimately improve the quality of performance. DJing has never
had it so
>good. Cheers!
im totally into people using different technology to their
advantage. as long as the music doesnt suffer because of it, i
dont care what they use really. sh*t, many genres of music have
been ruined by crap knock-off producers putting out bad records on
vinyl. i dont think a good tunes suffers from its chosen medium.
bad tunes are always bad.
tom
________________________________________________________________
andythepooh.com
