SwingDJs

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

-yakov.

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.

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

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.

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."

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.