On Demand

Message

swinginstyle · #16 Post by **swinginstyle** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 4:44 am

How do you keep the DJ flow going, though?

Swifty · #17 Post by **Swifty** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 9:07 am

Haha, DJ Flo.

"Can you play some fast songs?"

"Can you kiss my grits?"

gatorgal · #18 Post by **gatorgal** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:25 am

Nathan - I'm with you. THere are no lame U2 songs.

Nice to hear about the new CD though...

Swifty - That is too funny!

Tina

mousethief · #19 Post by **mousethief** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:11 am

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

Did Frankie Manning request it?!!

Kalman

julius · #20 Post by **julius** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:35 pm

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. for example, what if you played Joshua Tree in reverse song order? if it "flows" then it should sound "flowy" whether you play the songs in track order or reverse track order. does that change your perception of the album?

mousethief · #21 Post by **mousethief** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:43 pm

It exists both to vex you and to give us fodder for posting.

In terms of events, I gauge my room by feeling. That might manifest as flow, but only in the immediate sense or when looking back at the success or failure of the night.

In terms of broadcast, flow is very common. You're not connected with the audience and have to present or showcase your music very differently.

Kalman

KevinSchaper · #22 Post by **KevinSchaper** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 2:09 pm

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.

Do you mean like, song to song flow, or like, big arcs where you're bringing the energy up and down?

gatorgal · #23 Post by **gatorgal** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 2:43 pm

julius wrote:but why bother with flow? nobody has ever satisfactorily explained why it exists.

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.

And I'm not trying to be a smart a$$, but that's exactly the metaphor that comes to mind.

Good luck young padawan... (okay, now I'm being a smart a$$)

Tina

djstarr · #24 Post by **djstarr** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 2:43 pm

I think we've talked about flow here a lot -- in terms of playing "mini-sets" of the same genre; of how to best transition between genres, such as swing-era to jump blues to modern swing.

I would define flow partially as building up energy - I remember some posts about tension and release as a way to design a set.

I've been experimenting with song selection a lot; the next track I pick has lately been connecting songs or an artist or theme rather than genre of song. I think a set is better if there is some connected thought between the songs rather than just random selection out of one's book.

But does the concept of flow include mixing things up - i.e. genre and tempo so the set isn't boring? Perhaps anti-flow is also good!

sonofvu · #25 Post by **sonofvu** » Thu Feb 19, 2004 2:20 pm

Lawrence wrote:
julius wrote:Who the hell invented the concept of DJing flow? Why does it exist?
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.

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.

Nate Dogg · #26 Post by **Nate Dogg** » Thu Feb 19, 2004 2:27 pm

sonofvu wrote:
Lawrence wrote:
julius wrote:Who the hell invented the concept of DJing flow? Why does it exist?
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.
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.

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.

There are bands who change there sit list a lot from show to show. They are probably closer in spirit to a DJ. Think of the some of the jam bands out there. They invent stuff as they go along.

Nathan

Lawrence · #27 Post by **Lawrence** » Fri Feb 20, 2004 6:05 pm

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.

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."

Even if you do not think of it in explicit terms of "flow," you just explained exactly the same process by watching the floor and not jilting the crowd off its fun.

Also, an essential, ironic component of paying attention to "the flow" (or "biorhythm" as I call it) is to know when to completely shift gears immediately so as to break a pattern that is getting boring.

mousethief · #28 Post by **mousethief** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:07 am

Biorhythm?

Kalman

sonofvu · #29 Post by **sonofvu** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:05 am

You know I actually envisioned dancers hooked up to computers and guys in lab coats walking around taking notes on clipboards.

gatorgal · #30 Post by **gatorgal** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:44 am

sonofvu wrote:You know I actually envisioned dancers hooked up to computers and guys in lab coats walking around taking notes on clipboards.

We have the technology... we can rebuid them...

Tina