Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 4:44 am
How do you keep the DJ flow going, though?
Did Frankie Manning request it?!!gatorgal wrote: On a side note... one of our other DJs got a request from a newbie for the Electric Slide. Not sure which was worse... that he played or that I had it.
Tina
Do you mean like, song to song flow, or like, big arcs where you're bringing the energy up and down?julius wrote:but why bother with flow? nobody has ever satisfactorily explained why it exists. frankly i think it's a post hoc justification for why some albums/DJed sets are great.
It don't think it can be explained, but it definitely exists. It differs from DJ to DJ and set to set, hell even from song to song. It's kinda like the Force.julius wrote:but why bother with flow? nobody has ever satisfactorily explained why it exists.
I've been thinking about this lately. I'm not sure that "flow" is something that really exist. When I dj I create "flow" real time. That is to say on the fly. I look out there, I see what the dancers are doing with the current song and then I react and select accordingly. Of course there is varying degrees of success with this method (as I'm new to this djing thing) but that generally works for me. It is almost a reactionary process. Like I'm a step late and the mood of the night is controlling what I play. As far as the mixing of an album. That is an entirely different monster. I've never been privy to a recording session or the making of an album but I imagine that at post-production time is where the real work of creating flow for the album happens. Everything is planned out. There is a vision that the producer and the band want to convey. So they sit around and work on the album until they get what they want. The dj has no such luxury. There are no do overs. The analogy is good but it breaks down too quickly. Maybe U2 in concert would be a better analogy.Lawrence wrote:It's certainly not new to us. I've paid attention to it since I recorded "mix tapes" long before I ever learned how to dance, no less DJ'ed for a dance. My inspiration probably were Rock albums of the 70s and 80s whose songs were well organized into a good "flow" so that the whole album ended up being better than the sum of its parts, as opposed to the complete absence of "flow" on, say, "greatest hits" albums or many modern albums. U2's Joshua Tree is perhaps an archtype example of a well-organized album that has a great "flow." Even the somewhat individually-lame songs are great when placed in the context of the entire album.julius wrote:Who the hell invented the concept of DJing flow? Why does it exist?
U2 generally follows a set list, with minor changes made night to night. During the Elevation tour, I saw them two nights in a row in two different cities. The concerts were the same expect one song was different at each show. The generally pick the songs for a tour and stick close to that.sonofvu wrote:I've been thinking about this lately. I'm not sure that "flow" is something that really exist. When I dj I create "flow" real time. That is to say on the fly. I look out there, I see what the dancers are doing with the current song and then I react and select accordingly. Of course there is varying degrees of success with this method (as I'm new to this djing thing) but that generally works for me. It is almost a reactionary process. Like I'm a step late and the mood of the night is controlling what I play. As far as the mixing of an album. That is an entirely different monster. I've never been privy to a recording session or the making of an album but I imagine that at post-production time is where the real work of creating flow for the album happens. Everything is planned out. There is a vision that the producer and the band want to convey. So they sit around and work on the album until they get what they want. The dj has no such luxury. There are no do overs. The analogy is good but it breaks down too quickly. Maybe U2 in concert would be a better analogy.Lawrence wrote:It's certainly not new to us. I've paid attention to it since I recorded "mix tapes" long before I ever learned how to dance, no less DJ'ed for a dance. My inspiration probably were Rock albums of the 70s and 80s whose songs were well organized into a good "flow" so that the whole album ended up being better than the sum of its parts, as opposed to the complete absence of "flow" on, say, "greatest hits" albums or many modern albums. U2's Joshua Tree is perhaps an archtype example of a well-organized album that has a great "flow." Even the somewhat individually-lame songs are great when placed in the context of the entire album.julius wrote:Who the hell invented the concept of DJing flow? Why does it exist?
A band can't just press a button and make music appear. That explains quite a bit of a producer and a band's "sit around time."sonofvu wrote: I'm not sure that "flow" is something that really exist. When I dj I create "flow" real time. That is to say on the fly. I look out there, I see what the dancers are doing with the current song and then I react and select accordingly. Of course there is varying degrees of success with this method (as I'm new to this djing thing) but that generally works for me. It is almost a reactionary process. Like I'm a step late and the mood of the night is controlling what I play. As far as the mixing of an album. That is an entirely different monster. I've never been privy to a recording session or the making of an album but I imagine that at post-production time is where the real work of creating flow for the album happens. Everything is planned out. There is a vision that the producer and the band want to convey. So they sit around and work on the album until they get what they want. The dj has no such luxury. There are no do overs. The analogy is good but it breaks down too quickly. Maybe U2 in concert would be a better analogy.
We have the technology... we can rebuid them...sonofvu wrote:You know I actually envisioned dancers hooked up to computers and guys in lab coats walking around taking notes on clipboards.