Contrast vs. Blending

Tips and techniques of the trade

Moderators: Mr Awesomer, JesseMiner, CafeSavoy

Contrast vs. Blending

Contrast
8
47%
Blending
9
53%
 
Total votes: 17

Message
Author
User avatar
Yakov
Posts: 614
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 8:02 pm
Location: Miami
Contact:

#16 Post by Yakov » Thu Aug 07, 2003 3:00 pm

contrast is good when the song you're playing sucks and there's NO ONE on the dance floor. :oops:

-yakov.

User avatar
Ron
Posts: 313
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 4:29 pm
Location: San Diego, CA
Contact:

#17 Post by Ron » Fri Aug 08, 2003 3:10 pm

Both. I try to contrast something each song, but not a cause a jarring contrast. The exception is an abrupt reset from a high tempo to a low tempo.

In my opinion, it shouldn't take more than one transition song to get between two greatly contrasting songs in style (from piano jazz to Neo-swing, or from lo-fi big band to hi-fi groove). I've made the mistake of blending too much, where the last song sounded just like the previous song. Blah. But I might take two or more songs to get between two greatly contrasting songs in tempo.

User avatar
Soupbone
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:39 pm
Location: Seattle

#18 Post by Soupbone » Mon Aug 11, 2003 5:37 am

falty411 wrote: what kind of situation would you say calls for blending?

what kind of situation would make people upset if there is contrast?
I don't think it's situational, per se. It's just that people are in different moods on different nights and then other people are into totally other things on any given night. So, my suggestion is more than anytime one relies too heavily on any given approach, you'll potentially be "upsetting" somebody.

I'm not suggesting, however, that the goal is to expect to make every single person happy. Because we all know that ain't gonna happen, and isn't necessarily a desirable goal to begin with. But, again, using both contrasting and blending throughout a given set when it seems appropriate* has worked for me.

*and that's very much an art, not a science.

Gary
Gary

Image

User avatar
falty411
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2003 9:22 am
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

#19 Post by falty411 » Mon Aug 11, 2003 8:26 am

Soupbone wrote:*and that's very much an art, not a science.

Gary
only in america can selecting a plastic disc and pushing a button be considered an art.

:)
-mikey faltesek

"Dancing is the union of the body with the rhythm and the sound of the music." Al Minns in 1984

User avatar
Soupbone
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:39 pm
Location: Seattle

#20 Post by Soupbone » Mon Aug 11, 2003 9:10 am

falty411 wrote: only in america can selecting a plastic disc and pushing a button be considered an art.

:)
Now, come on... you know what I mean. The word "art" does not always refer to "fine arts."

In this case art = "the faculty of carrying out what is planned or devised"

Where science = "knowledge covering general truths or operations of general laws."
Gary

Image

User avatar
CafeSavoy
Posts: 1138
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 6:25 pm
Location: Mobtown
Contact:

#21 Post by CafeSavoy » Mon Aug 11, 2003 11:20 am

Soupbone wrote:
falty411 wrote: only in america can selecting a plastic disc and pushing a button be considered an art.

:)
Now, come on... you know what I mean. The word "art" does not always refer to "fine arts."

In this case art = "the faculty of carrying out what is planned or devised"

Where science = "knowledge covering general truths or operations of general laws."
i suspect he understands that, but that is just his way of saying he plays the same way regardless of the crowd and the circumstances.

User avatar
falty411
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2003 9:22 am
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

#22 Post by falty411 » Mon Aug 11, 2003 11:32 am

CafeSavoy wrote: i suspect he understands that, but that is just his way of saying he plays the same way regardless of the crowd and the circumstances.
Very true. I always play what I want to hear at that particular moment.

but thats not what i meant, i was just reminiscing on the whole "is djing an artform" conversation from a while back
-mikey faltesek

"Dancing is the union of the body with the rhythm and the sound of the music." Al Minns in 1984

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

#23 Post by Greg Avakian » Tue Aug 12, 2003 8:43 am

I think too much contrast sounds like a juke box. You can't please everybody in a room so jarring half the people each time a song comes on cannot make a happy crowd. It drives me nuts when DJs do this. There's no flavor to the set and it just always feels like the DJ is saying "fuck you, watch out".

I really like the idea of spinning mini-sets of a genre and/or a tempo with something to connect almost every song. Within that framework a few sharp changes can be cool.

User avatar
Soupbone
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:39 pm
Location: Seattle

#24 Post by Soupbone » Tue Aug 12, 2003 9:22 am

Another Atlanta DJ has implied that in his mind there are only two effective ways to deal with tempo: going from slow to fast or going from fast to slow over the course of rather lengthy sets.

I find this to be a crock. But, I'm curious if others out there feel the same way. If so, what's the logic?

Can you imagine going to see a band and they put together their set list using that rule. Ack! I see no reason why a set shouldn't have peaks and valleys as seems appropriate for the energy of the room and so forth.

Yes, this is a little off-shoot of the contrasting/blending discussion, which has wider implications. But, it still seemed appropriate to ask here.
Gary

Image

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

#25 Post by julius » Tue Aug 12, 2003 10:07 am

a live band can vary tempo wildly, so i think DJs ought to too, but bands don't usually switch it up from hot new orleans jazz to new testament basie from song to song, so DJs probably shouldn't either. i think that is a bit jarring, but sometimes it can be good too.

as for not being able to please everybody ... i still hate that phrase. most people have a tolerance for "other kinds of music" and understand that the DJ has to make other people happy too. the DJ's craft involves figuring out the crowd's collective tolerance and doing differential calculus in his head to optimize the satisfaction functions. translation: make the most people happy for the most amount of time.

you don't have to please everybody all the time. you have to not displease somebody all of the time. not that i'm a DJ, or even know what i'm talking about.

User avatar
falty411
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2003 9:22 am
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

#26 Post by falty411 » Tue Aug 12, 2003 10:29 am

Greg Avakian wrote:I think too much contrast sounds like a juke box..
but if you are actually playing all swing music. how contrasting can it be?

its not like going from Rage Against the Machine to Kenny Rogers.
-mikey faltesek

"Dancing is the union of the body with the rhythm and the sound of the music." Al Minns in 1984

User avatar
falty411
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2003 9:22 am
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

#27 Post by falty411 » Tue Aug 12, 2003 10:30 am

Soupbone wrote: I find this to be a crock. But, I'm curious if others out there feel the same way. If so, what's the logic?
completely agree, it is a total crock.
-mikey faltesek

"Dancing is the union of the body with the rhythm and the sound of the music." Al Minns in 1984

User avatar
falty411
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2003 9:22 am
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

#28 Post by falty411 » Tue Aug 12, 2003 10:33 am

Greg Avakian wrote:
I really like the idea of spinning mini-sets of a genre and/or a tempo with something to connect almost every song.
i have heard many DJs theat employ this method. The majority of them seem to stem from the "groove" side of things (for lack of a better term). When I have heard it used, it makes things sound like a big long song, or if playing genre sets......several long songs and gets quite boring.

If i am thinking as a dancer, and not a DJ, to me.....i like not knowing what to expect next. That usually makes me the most excited to dance to something. Like i would be WAY for excited to dance to Gene Harris if Reuben played it in one of his sets then if you pllayed it in one of yours.
-mikey faltesek

"Dancing is the union of the body with the rhythm and the sound of the music." Al Minns in 1984

KevinSchaper
Posts: 277
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 4:29 pm
Location: Eugene, OR

#29 Post by KevinSchaper » Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:03 pm

falty411 wrote: If i am thinking as a dancer, and not a DJ, to me.....i like not knowing what to expect next. That usually makes me the most excited to dance to something. Like i would be WAY for excited to dance to Gene Harris if Reuben played it in one of his sets then if you pllayed it in one of yours.
I was pretty hardcore for classic swing around 2000 and Reuben of all people got me back into digging post-war stuff by playing OP's Night Train at Memories at a late night after camp hollywood.. go figure..

I think it's harder to quickly jump between eras and genres and stuff and find something in the songs that make them still sound ok next to each other, but it's not that hard..

User avatar
Lawrence
Posts: 1213
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 2:08 pm
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

#30 Post by Lawrence » Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:18 pm

Greg Avakian wrote:I think too much contrast sounds like a juke box. You can't please everybody in a room so jarring half the people each time a song comes on cannot make a happy crowd. It drives me nuts when DJs do this. There's no flavor to the set and it just always feels like the DJ is saying "fuck you, watch out".

I really like the idea of spinning mini-sets of a genre and/or a tempo with something to connect almost every song. Within that framework a few sharp changes can be cool.
Exactly... which is why you are so respected as a DJ and others... aren't.
Lawrence Page
Austin Lindy Hop
http://www.AustinLindy.com

Locked