>some people just edit out the wack parts and give it an intro. Which brings me to a question regarding edits. Now this may not be familiar to those not intimated with "edit culture", but there is/was a kind of code among the edit heads that: There are four kinds of tracks,
1] dope tracks which need no edits (cause they're already dope and mixable) 2] dope tracks that have a spoiler section or are hard to mix (so you just cut the wackness or add intro beats to facilitate longer mixes, etc) 3] weak tracks that could use an axe. (chop, chop, chop...loop) 4] dope tracks that can be taken to the cosmic level with an axe. (see number three) Nowadays it seems people don't think as much about whether a track needs an edit (or what kind of editing) as much as they think about how many people will buy the edit (theo excluded...but you knew that right?). Is this code outdated? Is it now acceptable to chop an otherwise kicking track for the sake of having done an edit? Do you all feel most of the edits out now (theo excluded, I will not respect dissenting opinions) are done from a need or intention to make them groove into the cosmos or just to have done it? Just something I've been thinking about. Cause coming up, you would get fronted on for doing the wrong kind of edit to the wrong kind of song. Dunno... Discuss? Kamal K. Stoddard Turner Broadcasting Systems
