Reviewing your BPM graph after a set.

Message

Bob the Builder · #1 Post by **Bob the Builder** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 7:22 pm

I’m wondering if after you have DJed a set, you graphed out your songs verses their BPM level. Would it on average look very simular after every set?
You may start to ask your self some questions?

Do I choose songs on how well it complements the previous song, or on how it ups or downs the BPM of the previous song?

If I want to play a song at a high BPM how do I build up to it, and then come back down again afterwards?

During a standard night of DJing, how much of a difference is there between your average BPM level at the beginning of the night, middle and end?

Can a DJ get bogged down with BMP’s? Is it a better idea to DJ by ear and just use your BPM’s notes, just as a help?

Bob

GemZombie · #2 Post by **GemZombie** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 9:43 pm

I haven't done that... but I bet I have a pretty common average BPM rate... I really should work on a bit more tempo variety in my sets... I get lazy sometimes.

Toon Town Dave · #3 Post by **Toon Town Dave** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 11:08 pm

I'm not an advocate of classifying songs based on BPM, I'd rather classify things more qualitatively as slow, slow-medium, medium, etc. BPM or approximate BPM might be useful for cataloging but I find it less useful for selecting a song. Take two songs of the exactly the same tempo. One may sound fast and the other slow (relatively speaking).

As far as selecting a song, there have been some good discussions on this board about that topic. You do not always have to complement the previous track but you can also contrast it. If every song complements the previous, then a sent can sound rather monotonic (is that a word?) and dancers start to get bored quickly. OTOH, too much contrast in a set will lack continuity and will really annoy dancers. I think there was a discussion on the old yahoo list about DJing little mini-sets where songs complement each other and then add some contrasting music between mini-sets. There was some specific terminology. I'm too lazy to go looking for it on yahoo, perhaps someone else remembers the discussion better than I do.

As far as building up, if all you're worried about is varying tempos, you've got it easy. I've had to do that and vary style on a "swing" night that was Lindy/WCS/ECS + some ballroom which is challenging. Dealing with just tempos, if you are going for complementary, just build up the tempos, perhaps working from medium to fast over a few songs. For contrast, just skip from medium to fast right away. I generally wouldn't play somthing fast after something really slow becasue it's too much contrast ... unless you are going for the "wow that's fast" effect.

Over an evening, if there is a lesson before hand, I'll slowly drag tempos up from what the lesson was for the first few tracks to let people practice a bit and then usually kick in to more variety. With the exception of the first few tracks I don't think there is a difference in the average tempo or distribution of tempos in an evening. I do play music that I would consider more beginner friendly; simpler melodies, clear rhythm early in the evening when there are generally more newbies and I play more interesting stuff later when there are more advanced people on the floor. This works mainly because newbies tend to come early or for the lesson and leave a little earlier and moer advanced people arrive fashionably late and stay till close.

Skippy · #4 Post by **Skippy** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 6:39 am

Hey folks,

my first post. yaaaaa....

I've only just started DJing here in Brisbane, Australia, and have found the small (but rapidly growing) crowds have a very varied taste in what they dance to.

At the moment I'm chosing songs for their danceability, varying from medium songs to medium fast most of the time. Although it's not just Lindy Hoppers who turn up, so I've also had to cater to the Bal and Shag purists.

So, during my one hour slot I've got a bit of everything.

One thing I am doing though is looking at who is dancing what song, if anyone at all. If no one dances or only two couples, I put a black line through it and add it to the "do not play" list. *hehehe*

Most of the songs I chose play into eachother, with the speed going up and down all the time. I try to never play two similar songs in a row.

I've got a lot to learn and plenty more cd's to buy. I'm really finding this discussion board very helpful in learning the skills.

GemZombie · #5 Post by **GemZombie** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 3:24 pm

Remember that a tune that doesn't play well one night, may play well another. It depends on the crowd, and the mood. Sometimes you can almost "set up" a song like that by playing some songs that lead to that specific song.

There are so many unknowns and variables that can cause a song to be danced to or not.

Moreover, it's feasible that a *really* good DJ could create a mood that would make the offending song actually fit, and really make people want to dance to it.

On the other hand, the song could really just suck.

Lawrence · #6 Post by **Lawrence** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:58 pm

I don't even keep set lists anymore (haven't for years), no less keep track of my average BPM rating. Although it might be interesting to know, focusing so much on BPM alone could tend to distract a DJ into avoiding more relevant factors such as creating a biorhythm from song to song or reading the room to determine what should come next.

Nonetheless, having BPMs listed in my indexes is an invalueable tool in finding the right song to play next while DJing.

SirScratchAlot · #7 Post by **SirScratchAlot** » Wed Jun 18, 2003 1:36 am

Toon Town Dave wrote:I'm not an advocate of classifying songs based on BPM, .

YEA, me neither. The song is either a good or Bad selection. I used to label all my music with BPM's but I stopped. I decided to just learn what I have...

better yet , it caused me to play things I would not have choosen otherwise...

GemZombie · #8 Post by **GemZombie** » Wed Jun 18, 2003 5:06 pm

SirScratchAlot wrote:
Toon Town Dave wrote:I'm not an advocate of classifying songs based on BPM, .
YEA, me neither. The song is either a good or Bad selection. I used to label all my music with BPM's but I stopped. I decided to just learn what I have...

better yet , it caused me to play things I would not have choosen otherwise...

I've started doing this as well. On all my digitally stored music I had BPM's in the filenames (and I spent hours doing this). I decided to up and mass rename everything without BPMs. It's made things a bit more interesting when I DJ and It's forced me to *learn* my own collection even more.

Greg Avakian · #9 Post by **Greg Avakian** » Wed Jun 18, 2003 6:34 pm

GemZombie wrote:
SirScratchAlot wrote:
Toon Town Dave wrote:I'm not an advocate of classifying songs based on BPM, .
YEA, me neither. The song is either a good or Bad selection. I used to label all my music with BPM's but I stopped. I decided to just learn what I have...

better yet , it caused me to play things I would not have choosen otherwise...
I've started doing this as well. On all my digitally stored music I had BPM's in the filenames (and I spent hours doing this). I decided to up and mass rename everything without BPMs. It's made things a bit more interesting when I DJ and It's forced me to *learn* my own collection even more.

That's interesting ...for me BPMs are another thing to learn about my music. And because a song can "feel" faster or slower than the actual BPMs, I'd rather *know* what the tempo is so that my"emotional" sense of the night is in line with the physical reality.

I'm definitely an advocate of the "mini-set" theory, but that doesn't have as much to do with tempo as it does with genre or musical style. I'm less rigid about making my music flow as I used to be.

I keep a book with playlists and BPMs for every gig I do. I have a really, really bad memory, so this has been very helpful for me as I've broadened and developed my style in the past year. It's also been very handy for the e-mails after a gig when someone has a question about a song you played. There is no way I could remember anything like that, but that might just be me.

SirScratchAlot · #10 Post by **SirScratchAlot** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 1:44 am

GemZombie wrote:
SirScratchAlot wrote:
Toon Town Dave wrote:I'm not an advocate of classifying songs based on BPM, .
YEA, me neither. The song is either a good or Bad selection. I used to label all my music with BPM's but I stopped. I decided to just learn what I have...

better yet , it caused me to play things I would not have choosen otherwise...
I've started doing this as well. On all my digitally stored music I had BPM's in the filenames (and I spent hours doing this). I decided to up and mass rename everything without BPMs. It's made things a bit more interesting when I DJ and It's forced me to *learn* my own collection even more.

Absolutely, you could be more right. I look at BPM's as a Handicap more then anything. I mean after all if you know the song, you need no other discription.
Not only that but two songs at 250 bpm can have totally different feelings, one can seem really faster then it is, meaning more work, and the other can be totally swinging and more relaxing to dance to.

yedancer · #11 Post by **yedancer** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 9:15 am

I've always DJ'd by ear, but now that I'm trying to do it on a laptop, I'll have the ability to check the BPM quickly. I think it will change my DJing for the better. I've gotten stuck in a little rut of playing the same songs off of the same CDs, because I don't want to risk trying to find a new song I haven't played before, and either pick a really bad one, or not find one and get stuck with no song at the end of the current one.

Greg Avakian · #12 Post by **Greg Avakian** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 9:53 am

yedancer wrote:I've always DJ'd by ear, but now that I'm trying to do it on a laptop, I'll have the ability to check the BPM quickly. I think it will change my DJing for the better. I've gotten stuck in a little rut of playing the same songs off of the same CDs, because I don't want to risk trying to find a new song I haven't played before, and either pick a really bad one, or not find one and get stuck with no song at the end of the current one.

Yep; if it was worth figuring out the BPMs...

GemZombie · #13 Post by **GemZombie** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 10:11 am

Greg Avakian wrote: That's interesting ...for me BPMs are another thing to learn about my music. And because a song can "feel" faster or slower than the actual BPMs, I'd rather *know* what the tempo is so that my"emotional" sense of the night is in line with the physical reality.

I'm definitely an advocate of the "mini-set" theory, but that doesn't have as much to do with tempo as it does with genre or musical style. I'm less rigid about making my music flow as I used to be.

I keep a book with playlists and BPMs for every gig I do. I have a really, really bad memory, so this has been very helpful for me as I've broadened and developed my style in the past year. It's also been very handy for the e-mails after a gig when someone has a question about a song you played. There is no way I could remember anything like that, but that might just be me.

I've recently gotten better at just picking out BPM's by hearing a song, and many songs I can tell you the BPM from memory. So I still have my own internal database to work from

falty411 · #14 Post by **falty411** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 12:09 pm

if you REALLY want to bpm your songs youshould get a Mac and Itunes.

There is a dope plugin for it

KevinSchaper · #15 Post by **KevinSchaper** » Thu Jun 19, 2003 12:53 pm

I don't buy the "more information is bad" argument.

I think the subjective version of that same information is a lot richer than just a number, but it's harder to write that down and it's a lot less consistant when you go back to something 2 years later.

I rely on memory for the year stuff was recorded, but that doesn't make me superior to DJs who have it cataloged, it makes me lazier.