Riding the wave

[Skippy]

Hey folks,

This question is aimed at those of you out there that "ride the wave" with your sets. ie: start slow, work up and back down again.

What, in your opinion, is an acceptable bpm jump - either up or down, when building the wave?

do you go up in lots of 10bpm or some other approximate figure?

how low do you start and how high do you peak?

do you have a high frequency of shorter waves or a smaller frequency of longer waves?


am I nuts and have I lost the plot?

[trev]

Well, there are no real rules for what is better or worse, but to get really geeky and look at what i've done in the past, i find i make longer 'bpm wave' patterns earlier in the set that increase tempos slowly to help give a sense of increased energy and then drop it down quickly :

ie: 124 - 150 - 161 - 168 - 181 - 120

and later in the evening i often find I alternate faster/slower tracks to cater for the people that are either tired and hanging on, or hardcore and looking for a challenge:

ie: 143 - 79 - 139 - 193 - 140

...but there are many other factors to consider, so this is only a broad generalisation. I'd have no hesitation breaking a so-called 'pattern', and the contrast is often a good thing.

[Skippy]

Thanks Trev,

I agree with "breaking" the pattern from time to time. For me I tend to find myself riding the long wave on both sides. slow/medium up and slow/medium down : 5+ tracks either side of a peak.

Its good to hear what others are doing and how its working for them.

[CafeSavoy]

I think it's a good idea to mostly have songs that transition from one to the other but also to not get stuck in a formula. I like the idea of playing at least two or three similar songs so that people who like that feeling can get more than one song in a row before transitioning on. I think it's more of an art than a science in terms of riding the wave. I think how big the steps and how long the waves really depend on the crowd and the night.

[Mr Awesomer]

I think it's a good idea to mostly have songs that transition from one to the other...

I find that that's what creates the DJs who sound like they are playing one song all night long.

[Toon Town Dave]

Transitions aren't necessary if all your music sounds the same.

Seriously, a good night balances contrast and flow both in style and tempo. Too much flow and not enough contrast does indeed sound like one night long song while too much contrast is just annoying. Annecdotally evidence of most dancers I've talked to indicate they'd be more bothered by too much flow.

To address the original question regarding tempo, in general I don't think small increments work well if your audience can handle a large range. Taking baby steps going between 80 and 280 bpm could take a damn long time and I don't want to be dancing to 280 after dancing 10 bpm increments leading up to it. Going say 120 to 280 might be a bit of a shock. I might do something like 140, 120, 190, 180, 220, 280, 170, 150, 80, 100, ...

Now, if your audience only dances 120-160 bpm (for example) then temp is not really varying anyway.

[mousethief]

zzzz....

Reuben's right - it's a masterpiece of low expectations.

Kalman

[LindyCentral]

I think it's a good idea to mostly have songs that transition from one to the other...

I find that that's what creates the DJs who sound like they are playing one song all night long.

That depends on how limited your conception of a transition.

[CafeSavoy]

I think it's a good idea to mostly have songs that transition from one to the other but also to not get stuck in a formula. I like the idea of playing at least two or three similar songs so that people who like that feeling can get more than one song in a row before transitioning on. I think it's more of an art than a science in terms of riding the wave. I think how big the steps and how long the waves really depend on the crowd and the night.

I think it's a good idea to mostly have songs that transition from one to the other...

I find that that's what creates the DJs who sound like they are playing one song all night long.

I guess some people can't help just reacting reflectively. SSDD. If you don't believe that songs should flow organically and just want to play randomly, that's another method too-- DJ as random playlist.

[Mr Awesomer]

I guess some people can't help just reacting defensively.

I do believe songs should flow organically, and it can be done without sounding the same all night long while still not being jaring and random. I know this cause I've heard a few DJs do it. A few.

[CafeSavoy]

I guess some people can't help just reacting defensively.

I do believe songs should flow organically, and it can be done without sounding the same all night long while still not being jaring and random. I know this cause I've heard a few DJs do it. A few.

Ha ha. Now that we've gotten over the formalities, good point about organic flow with contrast and texture.

[Mr Awesomer]

Why are the lyrics to "Ebony and Ivory" coming to mind? hahaha

[julius]

Sorry Reuben, you're still not black.

[jmatthew]

I usually go for 15-20bpm "jumps."

To avoid the "one song all night" feeling I rotate on "gut instinct" between male and female vocalist and instrumental, between big band, modern and "other" swing, and between "energy levels"

So a six song set for me might be:

100bpm, male vocalist, high energy, modern swing
118bpm, female vocalist, mellow, ballad
145bpm, instrumental, medium energy, big band
180bpm, female vocalist, high energy, modern swing

I also try to "break" the pattern when I feel like the room needs a change. If I've played 2 or 3 high energy songs, it can be good to drop in something slow and bluesie and watch the mood of the room shift. It's a much different reaction to go from a 220 song (after building up to it) directly to a 90bpm song than to build up and then back down.

[Mr Awesomer]

Sorry Reuben, you're still not black.

Wasn't trying to be. If you weren't so yellow you would have known that.