Finding your voice as a DJ

Tips and techniques of the trade

Moderators: Mr Awesomer, JesseMiner, CafeSavoy

Message
Author
Haydn
Posts: 1277
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:36 am
Location: London

#31 Post by Haydn » Thu May 25, 2006 1:58 am

Greg Avakian wrote:The software I use is "Goldwave"
Thanks

julius
Posts: 818
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:30 am
Location: los angeles

#32 Post by julius » Thu May 25, 2006 1:53 pm

When an artist presents a published product, it may not be his intended final artistic statement, but not every jazz musician is George Lucas.

If I am hearing a live band and they play a lot of inappropriate music for dancing, I am not going to go up to them and tell them their music needs editing, I am probably just not going to hire them again. Same principle with DJed music. If the music needs editing, I'd rather play other good music or let the dancers do what they will with the parts "bad" for dancing, but I would not edit the music. Why? Same reason I don't want to look at only half of the Mona Lisa, or read only the middle chapters of Les Miserables, or miss the first ten minutes of a movie.

The only really persuasive argument I can think of for editing a track is that DJs "edit" the entire song catalog of an artist when deciding what to play for dancers, so what's the difference between that and editing a song? Well, I can't really explain that one. It just feels different to me somehow.

No, I did not listen to your tracks. I may own them, but I haven't checked. My opinion stands regardless of what music is being played, whether it's the seven minute version of Woodside on Live At the Famous Door 1938 or your music.

julius
Posts: 818
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:30 am
Location: los angeles

#33 Post by julius » Thu May 25, 2006 1:56 pm

Greg Avakian wrote: I don't care whether or not "shiny stockings" was written as a dance tune; I love dancing to it. Why would I want someone to control that choice for me?
But aren't you controlling that choice when you edit part of a song out? You're making the decision whether that part of the song is 'danceable' or not.

Nate Dogg
Posts: 886
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 3:29 pm
Location: Austin, TX

#34 Post by Nate Dogg » Thu May 25, 2006 2:43 pm

Just about every other style of popular music has radio edits, dance remixes, etc...

The practices of cutting solos out, trimming a length of the tracks are pretty similar to the long standing practice of cutting a song so it will fit better on a radio playlist. Somebody can be a purist about it and dislike the practice. However, they way I look at it, better to cut an 8 minute song and make it playable than to let the song never get played because it is too long.

I also agree, that due to the plethora of quality recorded music available and the lack of time to make edits. I mostly plays songs as they appear on the CD.

The advantage that DJs have other live bands is that they have they can remix and edit recordings to best suit their needs (NOTE: I am not saying DJs are better, I am saying that each group has its own set of advantages and disadvantages).

If you really dig an eight minute song, you can always play it in your car, only in rare circumstances should we as DJs subject our dancers to them.

Nathan
Last edited by Nate Dogg on Fri May 26, 2006 7:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Greg Avakian
Posts: 382
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 10:27 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

#35 Post by Greg Avakian » Thu May 25, 2006 2:51 pm

Dude, if I thought a band sucked, I'd complain to the event director. If I hired them, I'd damn well tell them. So, if "editing" a band is telling them to quit playing 5 minute solos, I'm all for it! One of the reasons my events have been so successful from the start is my stewardship of them. I certainly would not let a 3 hour dance go by without giving (positive or negative) feedback to the band.

As a DJ, isn't our responsibility to the dancers, not to an aesthetic about artistic expressively? In my role as an event producer -or as a DJ for an hour- I am indeed being trusted to "choose for everyone". That's why I'm hired ...and as the guy on the scene, my judgement supersedes that of the musician whose music I'm playing. I'm not saying that I'm even 1% of the artist whose music I'm playing, but I am the one who gets to decide what song, when it's played and in some cases, how it's played. My job is to watch the room and please the dancers -that is not the job of someone who recorded the music in (say) 1952. I can't expect the musician to produce music for me or my friends who are dancing.
Hey, my e-mail's changed, here's the new one:
SwingDJ@gmail.com
About me: www.geocities.com/swingboypa

julius
Posts: 818
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:30 am
Location: los angeles

#36 Post by julius » Thu May 25, 2006 5:21 pm

Greg Avakian wrote:Dude, if I thought a band sucked, I'd complain to the event director. If I hired them, I'd damn well tell them.
I would hope that that band wouldn't have been hired in the first place. I would hate to be an artist and have someone come up and tell me what to do, but I realize that most jazz musicians probably want to please whoever hired them. It's just not my thing to tell someone what they should or should not do. Anyway, my analogy is, I guess, poorly chosen.
As a DJ, isn't our responsibility to the dancers, not to an aesthetic about artistic expressively?
I think this is really what differentiates our positions. I am by no means an advocate of the position that DJs should educate dancers or play only what they want to play, but I also think that DJs should not just play whatever the dancers want to hear, especially if what they want to hear is, well, bad music. Would you honor a request for <insert worst possible song you can think of>?
I can't expect the musician to produce music for me or my friends who are dancing.
True, but since that musician probably recorded other songs that are in fact fit for dancing in their entirety, this whole discussion is basically about whether dancing to just part of a song makes sense. For example, honest question: what do you do with a song that is good for dancing, but only in the middle? Do you fade it in and out? Chop off the song abruptly? Most good dance songs seem to have some sort of strong ending, typically the "Basie ending" or the "Ellington ending" or what have you.

Let me put the question another way: is there a point, for you, at which editing a song seems like destroying the song?

Tangential note: I have always been frustrated that Mumbles seems to fade out after two minutes. It seems like there is so much more to the song and yet it was purposely let go for some reason.

julius
Posts: 818
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:30 am
Location: los angeles

#37 Post by julius » Thu May 25, 2006 5:26 pm

Ah, another note about long songs (since Nathan mentioned not subjecting dancers to eight minute songs). I seem to recall somewhere (maybe it was me asking an oldtimer directly) that when a band went on too long during a song, it was perfectly acceptable to stop dancing by mutual agreement and go find another partner. Can anybody verify this by asking an oldtimer?

In the modern era, of course, it seems like people have to grit it out if the song is too long, which leads to DJs not playing songs that are too long. Which I think sucks.

User avatar
trev
Posts: 736
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 8:20 pm
Location: Perth, Australia

#38 Post by trev » Thu May 25, 2006 7:23 pm

julius wrote:... that when a band went on too long during a song, it was perfectly acceptable to stop dancing by mutual agreement and go find another partner....
It'd be great if we had a culture where this was acceptable without offending your partner. In my experience the problem with long songs is usually one of physical endurance rather than boredom. Although, I guess dancers can feel creatively limited by the 8th minute too. At Hullabaloo (Perth Lindy Exchange) I put on a 10 minute version of One O'clock Jump as background music to get everyone in the mood before the event started, but unexpectedly people started dancing - i felt sorry for them after the 7 minute mark, but I just couldn't bring myself to cut it, and they couldn't bring themselves to just stop!

How do people feel about changing the tempo? Software makes it easy to speed up or slow down a song without changing the pitch (avoiding the Chipmunk sound). I've done it a couple of times for performance songs (sped one up for the Hot Shots, slowed one down for our team to practice to! ;) ), and once to correct a track that was the wrong speed on a cheap compliation CD, but what do people think about, say, speeding up a song thats normally 110bpm to be 130bpm? Is that disrespectful?

User avatar
Matthew
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 7:31 am
Location: St. Petersburg, Florida

#39 Post by Matthew » Thu May 25, 2006 10:16 pm

Greg Avakian wrote:...As a DJ, isn't our responsibility to the dancers...

...My job is to watch the room and please the dancers...
This is pretty much my approach, at least to the extent I'm running the event. I consider it a specific kind of party, rather than just a time for swing dancing. I work very hard to play music that people enjoy, and to play it in a way that helps them achieve an emotional- and social freedom that encourages them to dance. That's my focus. To that end, I sometimes edit songs, or change the pitch/tempo, and I do it with the dancers - not the musicians - in mind.

User avatar
Greg Avakian
Posts: 382
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 10:27 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

#40 Post by Greg Avakian » Fri May 26, 2006 5:33 am

julius wrote:... honest question: what do you do with a song that is good for dancing, but only in the middle? Do you fade it in and out? Chop off the song abruptly? Most good dance songs seem to have some sort of strong ending, typically the "Basie ending" or the "Ellington ending" or what have you.

Let me put the question another way: is there a point, for you, at which editing a song seems like destroying the song?
That's a perfectly good question/point; if I think an edit is going to suck, I won't do it or use the song. I don't want to hear anything abrupt/choppy. My idea of a good edit is when I can't remember what I cut out of it because it sounds so natural. I don't want to make an edit that most people are going to be aware of. There is plenty of great music to play, so I'm just saying it's fun to have (some) completely unique music and to share that with my friends.
julius wrote: Tangential note: I have always been frustrated that Mumbles seems to fade out after two minutes. It seems like there is so much more to the song and yet it was purposely let go for some reason.
I kind of feel that way about the Lou Rawls/Les McCann version of "T'ain't nobody's business" -it just fades at the end without any respect to phrasing or anything... That's an example of why -as much as I like Lou and Les- their musical values are not always ones I agree with. But then again, that decission may have been made by a producer and not them.
Hey, my e-mail's changed, here's the new one:
SwingDJ@gmail.com
About me: www.geocities.com/swingboypa

julius
Posts: 818
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:30 am
Location: los angeles

#41 Post by julius » Fri May 26, 2006 2:54 pm

trev wrote: i felt sorry for them after the 7 minute mark, but I just couldn't bring myself to cut it, and they couldn't bring themselves to just stop!
I've danced all the way through Ellington's Dimuendo and Crescendo in Blue Live At Newport (16 minutes, I think). Twice. I was feeling pretty creatively dead each time (not to mention exhausted) midway through, let alone at the end.
How do people feel about changing the tempo? Software makes it easy to speed up or slow down a song without changing the pitch (avoiding the Chipmunk sound). I've done it a couple of times for performance songs (sped one up for the Hot Shots, slowed one down for our team to practice to! ;) ), and once to correct a track that was the wrong speed on a cheap compliation CD, but what do people think about, say, speeding up a song thats normally 110bpm to be 130bpm? Is that disrespectful?
I think this is even worse than editing. Someone once observed that Count Basie always patted his foot to start off a song at just the right tempo for the arrangement, no matter what it was. Not only that, but the way a musician plays the swing rhythm changes as tempo varies. It goes from extremely laid back to more even at extremely fast tempos. Obviously this does not have much effect going from 110-130, but tempo matters a lot to a piece of music.

User avatar
Greg Avakian
Posts: 382
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 10:27 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

#42 Post by Greg Avakian » Fri May 26, 2006 9:57 pm

But that's just the point -no one would change a 110BPM to 150+BPM ...right???? The purpose of changing music is not to make it sound weird or unnatural...

Interesting side point: regardles of the artificial means to change tempo, there are some songs which really sound bad when played by a band at a different tempo. For instance, "Swingin' the blues" (I thinlk) will never song great slow. "Jive at five" is another tune that I think just naturally sounds better faster.
Hey, my e-mail's changed, here's the new one:
SwingDJ@gmail.com
About me: www.geocities.com/swingboypa

User avatar
Ryan
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 5:15 pm
Location: LA to NY-Fuckin-C

#43 Post by Ryan » Mon May 29, 2006 12:25 am

julius wrote:I think this is even worse than editing. Someone once observed that Count Basie always patted his foot to start off a song at just the right tempo for the arrangement, no matter what it was. Not only that, but the way a musician plays the swing rhythm changes as tempo varies. It goes from extremely laid back to more even at extremely fast tempos. Obviously this does not have much effect going from 110-130, but tempo matters a lot to a piece of music.
Just a note on this. You can usually only change a songs tempo about 10% one direction or another with modern software before things start sounding mighty odd. So you're never going to get a giant drop or huge spike in tempo that will drastically alter the piece unless the person using the software is REALLY pushing it where it shouldn't go. In fact, going from 110 to 130 in tempo would be pretty drastic (that's about 18% I think).

junglekid
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 12:27 pm
Location: London

#44 Post by junglekid » Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:43 am

I'm enjoying this topic, though it has veered away on a tangent just here.

Personally, I'm happy to edit songs that need a bit of editing. I agree with the non-editing crew to some degree - when it comes to tunes like Cottontail, King Porter Stomp, Every Tub, etc. I wouldn't dream of editing them because nothing in them is extraneous or pointless and the song wouldn't make sense if you cut bits out.

It's those longer songs with strings of dubious solos that sometimes benefit from a bit of a trim - lose one or two of the weaker solos and the whole thing hangs together more tightly. Of course, you have to make it seamless so it still sounds as if it was intended to be that way in the first place. Pay attention to the song structure, tone and energy levels. Sometimes it's not meant to be.

Back On DJs finding their voice - I've noticed many new DJs in my scene (me certainly included) go through a strong 'individual but not good' phase when they start, playing entire sets of the 'cool' tunes that they've been collecting to wow everyone with. It seems that everyone has to get that out of their system before (usually) things improve...

Does that ring any bells? I'm interested to know what weird stuff others rocked out when they were getting started. For me it was mainly overly be-boppy, highly complicated stuff. I still love those tunes, but I don't expect everyone else to...

User avatar
Greg Avakian
Posts: 382
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 10:27 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

#45 Post by Greg Avakian » Mon Jun 19, 2006 2:38 pm

junglekid wrote: Back On DJs finding their voice - I've noticed many new DJs in my scene (me certainly included) go through a strong 'individual but not good' phase when they start, playing entire sets of the 'cool' tunes that they've been collecting to wow everyone with. It seems that everyone has to get that out of their system before (usually) things improve...

Does that ring any bells? I'm interested to know what weird stuff others rocked out when they were getting started. For me it was mainly overly be-boppy, highly complicated stuff. I still love those tunes, but I don't expect everyone else to...
Yes, I think almost all DJs go through this.
It also depends on the time, because 4 or 5 years ago, the music we were dancing to was really different (at least in most parts of the country). It was more playful, but also often more abstract. These days I am much more likely to save anything that is complicated for late night.
When I last looked over my sets at NYE and NADC, they were pretty different from year to year in flavor.

And the event matters too. I would not play the same type of set at ALHC that I did at SONH for instance regardless of what year it was.
DJing at Lindygroove garnered me the nicest phone message from Lance, but DJing at a local exchange that weekend made me feel like maybe I should buy some R&R.

I think a good example of a really awesome -but at times "noodley"- album is Ray Bryant's "Ray Bryant Trio". Besides the killer "Golden Earings", the three songs I would consider fun are "Django", "The thrill is gone" and "Blues changes". I don't think they would go over as well now as say 5 years ago.

They need to be edited too. :)
Hey, my e-mail's changed, here's the new one:
SwingDJ@gmail.com
About me: www.geocities.com/swingboypa

Locked