Finding your voice as a DJ

Tips and techniques of the trade

Moderators: Mr Awesomer, JesseMiner, CafeSavoy

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

#46 Post by Lawrence » Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:43 pm

Just read the recent addition to this thread, and I shouldn't be so surprised that I feel somewhat dumbfounded.

Editing songs is entirely appropriate and, indeed, rather responsible and praiseworthy for those DJs who actually take the time to successfully accomplish the job so as to bring to dancers some music that otherwise would never be played because it either is simply too long or has some parts that break the rhythmic flow necessary for our purposes: sometimes even including long, self-indulgent, rambling solos that do little more than give the musician some self-indulgent practice at his scales.

It's not as if we're editing the dancing version of the Mona Lisa: a perfectly elegant yet efficient work of art in its pristine shape that needs nothing to be and always remain perfect for our purposes (the 2:33 King Porter Stomps out there). We're generally editing otherwise unheard of songs that have rarely made it to a dance venue--no less anywhere else--and thereby allowing those songs to see the light of day. To the extent that we are foolish enough to edit the "Mona Lisa" of jazz songs, it's not like we're editing the original copy hanging in the Louvre so as to ruin it for eternity; we're doing the equivalent of clipping a piece of a 50-cent poster for a collage. If we do it well, good. If not, so what?!?!

(Actually, come to think of it, it's like clipping a photocopy of a 50-cent poster, because usually we don't (and can't) alter the "poster").

Any a priori criticism presumes that the editor will do a slipshod job of editing and will inevitably edit out worthy material, which is especially ironic because Greg (who first mentioned his editing) is perhaps the Swing DJ I would trust the MOST with editing a song because of his background and his knowledge of the structure and quality of music such that he would NEVER just butcher the song haphazardly. Moreover, the image of the obsessed and possessive "artist" is a distorted perception of what real musicians are like, and, indeed, what they should be like. They are generally thrilled to have anyone, anywhere pay attention: edited, sampled or what-not. (The only protest that usually comes up involves their share of royalties, not artistic integrity).

But that's just my humble opinion.
It's just not my thing to tell someone what they should or should not do.
Ah... the irony. :roll: :wink:
Lawrence Page
Austin Lindy Hop
http://www.AustinLindy.com

User avatar
SweetLowdown
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 3:56 pm
Location: Coming soon to a coffee cup near you.

#47 Post by SweetLowdown » Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:03 pm

About the most editing I usually do is to edit long intros or monologues out of a live track. I have chopped a couple of medleys into managable pieces if it seemd that there was a good place to divide something, but I'd have to agree that if you're cutting and pasting and re-shuffling too much then the result, though by definition 'danceable', will likely seem a little schizo.

--Kelly

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

#48 Post by Lawrence » Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:22 am

SweetLowdown wrote:I'd have to agree that if you're cutting and pasting and re-shuffling too much then the result, though by definition 'danceable', will likely seem a little schizo.
Again, that's only if you presume that the person who is cutting and pasting knows nothing about what he is doing, as opposed to Greg or someone else who can cut an entire musical paragraph and make the splice blend in so that you really can't tell the difference. Of course the risk is there of ruining the piece, but only if you do it poorly.

Also, the worst criticism I have ever received for playing any of the few pieces I have edited stemmed from a dancer/DJ knowing the song too well and feeling offended that his pre-conceived dance tricks didn't work in my edit. Most dancers have absolutely no clue if a song is edited--even if it fades in during the middle of a song and omits the melody, completely--but most dancers definitely hate it when a good song drags on too long during a dance because a soloist is just practicing his scales and not "getting to the point."
Lawrence Page
Austin Lindy Hop
http://www.AustinLindy.com

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

#49 Post by Ron » Wed Sep 20, 2006 10:02 am

Just thought I'd check in on the Swing DJs forum after so long away, and of course the same discussions are going on! That's OK.

I did a lot of editing of songs a few years back, and man did I work hard to get them to sound seamless. They sound great! The software I used isn't available anymore. Hmm, actually I think it is now Goldwave.

I obviously think its fine to edit a song. I'm definitely with Greg on this one. Basically, if I can take a song that's good but essentially unplayable, and turn it into something a lot more playable, I will be introducing that song to new listeners, and I think that's a good thing.

Heck, I remember 5 years ago Solomon and I were discussing how we each editing They Can't Take That Away from Me by Sarah Vaughn (at least I think that was the one) to fix the bad edit that some recording engineer did. It drops a beat or something, so I spliced together other parts of the song to make continuous 4-beat measures.

I mostly edit to: eliminate long boring intros, eliminate boring drum solos in the middle, and eliminate solos in the middle to cut songs down to under five minutes. I've only done it on 25 songs or so. It just doesn't need to be done on many songs and it can't be seamlessly done on others.

I've done a few speed edits using that SlowDowner program, but like someone said, the songs just don't sound right if you change the tempo too much. But I've been able to take a couple of 105 BPM songs and put them up into a better tempo for dancing, like "All that Meat and No Potatos" by Louis and some woman singer.

Highlights (in my opinion):
o They Can't Take That Away from Me - Sarah Vaughn (128)(rjbedit)
o St. James Infirmary - Lou Rawls (114) (edited all the talking)
o The In Crowd - Ramsey Lewis (143) (edited to fade out earlier)
o Lullaby of Birdland - Sarah Vaughan (118-125)(rjbedit) (edited to take out that random drum solo in the middle)
o Lullaby of the Leaves - Mary Stallings (115)(rjbedit)(I cut a solo in the middle, it sounds so seamless)
o Doodlin - Ray Charles (116)(rjbedit) (edited something in the middle to make it shorter, if I remember right)
o 63rd Street Theme - Junior Mance (86)(rjbedit) (shorter)
o Danny's All Star Joint - Rickie Lee Jones (144)(rjbedit) (to cut short all those breaks in the middle)
o Swingin' Down at 10th & Main - Curtis Stigers (rjbedit/spdedit)(122) (edited to make shorter and speed it up a little)
o Kumquat - Aaron Bell Trio (131)(rjbedit) (to make it shorter, if I remember right)
o Down By The Riverside - Benny Green (128)(5m28s)(rjbedit) (to make it shorter)
o Moaning - Karrin Allyson (113)(rjbedit) (to make it shorter)
o The Best Is Yet To Come - Frank Sinatra (125)(rjbspdedit) (to speed it up a little)

User avatar
GemZombie
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 2:46 pm
Location: Alpharetta, GA (Formerly SLO, CA)
Contact:

#50 Post by GemZombie » Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:02 pm

Allen Hall is a wise man:
MESSING WITH MUSIC



I am a long cycle, low amplitude vacillator between megrims, which make me a tad grumpy, and mania, which makes me a tad grandiose. As I’m sure you have recently noticed, I am now in a curmudgeonly mood, and so, I might as well persevere with passionate bitching.

To wit: I have great respect for music, and so, I am agin’ anyone messing with it. I am talking about messing with recorded music in order to make it more danceable. I disapprove of: 1. changing tempos, with or without changing the pitch: 2. Deletions of long intros, long codas, solos, rhythm breaks, and drum and/or bass solos. 3. Overlaying recording with electronic rhythm tracks. Or 4. Any other alterations possible in this age of electronic legerdemain.

DJs do this in order to make a recording, in their opinion, more danceable, and to be fair, oftentimes, messing with music does make it more danceable. All that said, purist that I am, I believe DJs should play music which is already danceable, and leave the rest alone. I can foresee a slippery messy slope to perdition in the alteration of music for dancers. My contentious question becomes, if you don’t like it the music the way it is, why don’t you just go have it recorded the way you want it it? I told you I was grumpy.

Below are some of my personal experiences with altered music.

1. Changing Tempos: I first heard this done during the middle ‘90s in Shagland, where the DJs would change the tempo of a recording to make it a better Carolina Shag dance recording, or so they thought. Originally, they used variable speed cassette and record playing equipment which could speed up or slow down a recording by as much as 12%. However, if my memory serves me well, they never altered the tempo by more than 8%, as faster than 8% would make vocals sound chipmunky, and instrumentals sound tinny, and slower than 8% would make vocals sound like voices from the ethereal grave, and instrumentals sound like the band was wading through musical molasses. As you can imagine, the result of this type of messing with music made for an isotempo evening of Carolina Shag; the preferred tempos being close to 120 bpm. I object to dancing to the same tempo all night, but then, I am not a Carolina Shagger. Incidentally, I understand that there are new gee whiz electronics which can change the tempo of a digital recording while holding the original pitch constant. I claim this is a devil’s device, and if you go to a Carolina Shag dance and hear Red Prysock’s “Hand Clappin’” and it runs for 20 minutes, you might suspect what happened.

2. Deletions: Ever since the technology allowed it, DJs have been chopping off long introductions, and long codas, and I object, but not strenuously, to this practice. However, when they chop out long bass, or drum solos, I object more strenuously, even though I must admit that those changes make for a better dance recording. However, I really get annoyed when they chop out horn solos, because, in their opinion, they are too lengthy and boring, and, perhaps, make the recording too long for dancing. My advice to them is to play another shorter recording. And, I go semi-ballistic when they chop out rhythm breaks, apparently believing that dancers want relentless rhythm throughout all recordings played for them. Rudy and I had such a night of dance in St. Louis which was a pure delight except for the fact that I was programming in a hold for every rhythm break I knew should be there, but wasn’t. It is embarrassing indeed to be perceived as a leader having multiple major brain cramps in the middle of dances. My preferences are to hear music as it was recorded, even if it means that I cannot dance to all music.

3. Electronic rhythm overdubs: In my opinion and simply put, this is electronic adulteration of music. How this got started is beyond me, but I think it began in WCS where it became de-rigueur to only hear music with a loud prominent backbeat, even though I doubt many WCSers have to be hit over the head with rhythm in order to stay on it. I had heard rhythm overdubbed recordings of swing standards on compilation CDs, but never did I think I would hear one at a Lindy Hop dance, until, that is, the second “Jitterbug Jam” (circa 2002) in California. The DJ there usually played at WCS events, and one afternoon, he played a recording of an Ellington standard with what I recall was a disco rhythm overdub. Sometimes, as we all do, I have to grit my teeth and bear it at a dance, but this was too much, and so, I bull-rushed the stage to asked the event director, Melinda Comeau, to please listen to what was being played. She did, and immediately told the DJ, “Take it off.” I know the DJ; he is a nice guy, and, alas, I am sure he was trying to do us Lindy Hop dancers a favor, but he is too old to have been that misinformed about how we LHers feel about music. (Comment: that was well before Hip Hop insinuated itself into Lindy Hop) Anyway, after a few inquiries, I learned that someone, I never learned who, was doing this overdubbing, and then, making copies for other DJs. At the time, I wondered if Duke Ellington was spinning uncomfortably in his grave, and questioned if it was legal to do this, given money was changing hands for the playing of the music? No answers were forthcoming then.

My recent renewed interest in questions concerning what you can legally do and cannot do to and with music, led me to THE MAN, student of Constitutional law, and senior Atlanta swing DJ, Alan White. (All text in quotes is his—with some paraphrasing—and he graciously agreed to edit this copy). “(The) 1970s Copyright Law (prohibits) commercial benefit by selling reproductions of the same music (the recording company) sold to you.” There is apparently nothing in the 1970’s law which prohibits copying the music for personal use (or giving it away-wink!). As I understand it, according to the 1970s law, if you bought the music, you may alter it as you see fit, but then, it becomes a gray area when altered music is played by a paid DJ, then depends on the legal description of ‘personal use.” Of course, the right to play the music as a DJ presumes that an ASCAP/BMI* licensing fee has been paid by the venue, (not by the DJ), where the recorded music is being played. This money goes to the composers and lyricist who wrote the music. Presumably, musicians who played during the recording were properly paid for their labor at the time, and can expect no royalties, other than those they can negotiate with the recording company (good Luck!). It doesn’t take a PhD astrophysicist to see that enforcement of the 1970s law at the DJ level is a major problem.



* American Society of Composers And Publishers/Broadcast Music Inc.



Much more legal mud entered the recorded music water with the Millennium Copyright Law of 1997 which asserts “when we buy a CD, we don’t own the music; we only own the right to listen to it. You shouldn’t be able to commercially benefit by selling the same music they are selling to you.” “So, (Alan asks) are used CD and record stores illegal?” Radio, being essentially now a digital to analog medium, can play the master recordings free, or be licensed by ASCAP/BMI, to play music, but a court decision prohibits file-sharing (Napster, Kaazza, Morpheus), and draconian costs imposed by the law all but prohibits playing (digital to digital) music on the internet. More to the question of altered music, the law is apparently unclear, but “if you don’t own the music—it seems to me that any alteration that they don’t like could be a violation.” However, again, it is not obvious that even haphazard enforcement of a prohibition on altering music would be difficult at the DJ level, and uniform enforcement impossible? Either, doubtless, not being worth the cost of the effort. When it comes to laws, does not toothlessness abound? And besides, given the venal mendacious conduct of much of the music recording industry and its minions, would you expect many of the labels to take esthetic umbrage at alteration or adulteration of their precious solely owned music?

There, I feel so much better.


User avatar
Eyeball
Posts: 1919
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:11 am
Contact:

#51 Post by Eyeball » Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:49 pm

I think that art trumps commerce in this case and that the end user aka the disc jockey is not anything more than a chop shop if they wind up editing songs.

When did the disc jockey become part of the artistic process?

The disc jockey isn't a musical chef - they are merely the waiters bringing people the meal that has been created and prepared by an artist, not a mechanic.

This is all largely philosophical as the percentage of edited tracks played for dancers must be magnificently single digit or less.

You don't cut the picture to fit the frame. Anyone knows that.

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

#52 Post by Haydn » Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:12 am

I'd say do what ever you want if the result is good to dance to :)

User avatar
Bob the Builder
Posts: 525
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 6:53 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

#53 Post by Bob the Builder » Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:51 am

Yes, I say

How dare anyone change anything:

How dare the arranger change the original composition,
How dare the musician add that syncopation to the end of that chorus arrangement,
How dare the recording producer tell the musician to play in a particular way,
How dare the recording engineer turn down the volume mix of the high-hat,
How date the mastering engineer turn up the 830 to 840 kH by 0.5 dB.

Yes, nobody should ever change anything. Change is only bad.

This thread started of very good, until it got sidetracked.

Getting back to the point of the thread, I would encourage DJ's to start studding artists and recordings outside the US. Sadly I get the impression that many people think non US jazz old time and current artist are second rate. The only people that are second rate are the ones that think that.
There are so many treasures to find, and I mean thousands.

Brian
Image

User avatar
GemZombie
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 2:46 pm
Location: Alpharetta, GA (Formerly SLO, CA)
Contact:

#54 Post by GemZombie » Sun Sep 24, 2006 6:32 am

Let topics change damnit... sometimes the resulting discussion is better than the original... I love organic discussion :)

Re changing music:

Your "how dares" are not at all what we are talking about here...

* I hate changing tempos in recorded music. It's just wrong and I won't do it.

* I don't mind eliminations of long intros, I've occasionally done that.

* Any other editing required to make a song dancable to me means the song isn't going to be played at a dance. Not all great music is dancable... so what? Artie Shaw's Concerto for Clarinet is a great tune, with dancable parts... but I'm not going to rip it to pieces just so I can show people that it's such.

As for your encouragment to look outside the US for good music... I think we do. If anyone is looking for a stepping stone for this, check out the Proper Box set "Jazz in Britain". It has a lot of amazing danceable tunes.

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

#55 Post by Haydn » Mon Sep 25, 2006 6:42 am

GemZombie wrote:Proper Box set "Jazz in Britain"
BBC Radio 4 recently re-broadcast an excellent series of three 30-minute programs about British bandleaders called 'Painting the Clouds with Sunshine' presented by Humphrey Lyttelton

The BBC website keeps some broadcast programs for 7 days, so you listen to the last episode here until Tuesday 26th September (click 'Listen Again To This Programme) ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/musicfeature/pip/7x16d/

User avatar
Jake
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 2:55 pm
Location: Pittsburgh
Contact:

#56 Post by Jake » Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:24 pm

Eyeball wrote:When did the disc jockey become part of the artistic process?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_jockey wrote:1973 - Jamaican-born DJ Kool Herc, widely regarded as the "godfather of hip hop culture", performs at block parties in his Bronx neighborhood and develops a technique of mixing back and forth between two identical records to extend the rhythmic instrumental segment, or break. Turntablism, the art of using turntables not only to play music, but to manipulate sound and create original music, is considered to begin at this time.

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

#57 Post by julius » Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:56 pm

Bob the Builder wrote:Yes, I say

How dare anyone change anything:

How dare the arranger change the original composition,
How dare the musician add that syncopation to the end of that chorus arrangement,
How dare the recording producer tell the musician to play in a particular way,
How dare the recording engineer turn down the volume mix of the high-hat,
How date the mastering engineer turn up the 830 to 840 kH by 0.5 dB.

Yes, nobody should ever change anything. Change is only bad.

This thread started of very good, until it got sidetracked.
I think there is a massive distinction between people who collaborate to produce music changing the music, and people who buy the music changing the music. If a DJ wants to edit a song for commercial reasons (make it shorter, more danceable, slower), OK, but to pretend that it's for artistic reasons is insane.

jmatthew
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 5:16 pm
Location: Corvallis, OR
Contact:

#58 Post by jmatthew » Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:46 pm

I think there is a massive distinction between people who collaborate to produce music changing the music, and people who buy the music changing the music. If a DJ wants to edit a song for commercial reasons (make it shorter, more danceable, slower), OK, but to pretend that it's for artistic reasons is insane.
I think that's kind of naive. Almost every "popular" song recorded today is either recorded to be radio suitable or remixed to be radio suitable by everyone involved in the process.

I can't imagine there's been much music, if any, in the last 100 years, if not much much longer, that hasn't been a symbiosis of artistic desire and commercial incentive... even Mozart had to please his patrons.
I'm not an obsessive personality. I just happen to pick hobbies that seem to consume my life.

www.lindyguy.com

User avatar
Eyeball
Posts: 1919
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:11 am
Contact:

#59 Post by Eyeball » Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:56 pm

jmatthew wrote: Almost every "popular" song recorded today is either recorded to be radio suitable or remixed to be radio suitable by everyone involved in the process.
But as a 'swing dj' that fact has little or nothing to do with what you play, right?
jmatthew wrote:I can't imagine there's been much music, if any, in the last 100 years, if not much much longer, that hasn't been a symbiosis of artistic desire and commercial incentive... even Mozart had to please his patrons.
But that leaves you out of the picture, since you are an end user, and that negates your supposition.

Before the digital era, there was little or no 'post fact' editing, besides a possible fade out on radio or some dj talking over the beginning or end of a piece.

It's the sheer ego and faux artistry that the digital era permits that even lets a discussion such as this come into being.

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

#60 Post by julius » Fri Sep 29, 2006 1:31 pm

jmatthew wrote: I think that's kind of naive. Almost every "popular" song recorded today is either recorded to be radio suitable or remixed to be radio suitable by everyone involved in the process.
As John points out, I'm referring mainly to jazz music. I'm sure many jazz musicians don't care what happens to their music after it gets recorded and they get paid. I know some do, and since I can't quiz all jazz musicians on the subject, I personally would rather not edit anybody's to be on the safe side. That's just my thing. The rest of you go on with your bad selves.

On a tangent and as an example, there is an edit of "Don't Fear the Reaper" (i.e. the one you hear on the radio almost 100% of the time) which cuts out the truly psychotic, harsh guitar solo in the middle, a guitar solo which I think brilliantly contrasts the almost hymn-like verses of the song. Removing the solo makes the song a bland paean to dying. That's an example of pop editing which exists for commercial reasons, but which I find offensive. I don't know if the band made that edit or whether the record company did or whether radio stations did it, but all three scenarios are very different to me, although I find the edit annoying in all three cases.
I can't imagine there's been much music, if any, in the last 100 years, if not much much longer, that hasn't been a symbiosis of artistic desire and commercial incentive... even Mozart had to please his patrons.
But of course. Swing music was clearly composed and arranged to appeal to both listeners and dancers, although some musicians wanted to elevate the form beyond commerce. And yet, if anybody were to claim that Emperor Joseph II had a part in composing Mozart's works, they would probably be called insane.

Locked