nomos
Administrator
i think that's the crux of it right therebassnation said:doing these kind of mixes is closer to production than it is to djing, although the two things have always crossed over with dance music.
i think that's the crux of it right therebassnation said:doing these kind of mixes is closer to production than it is to djing, although the two things have always crossed over with dance music.
mms said:i prefer decks as i wouldn't want to dj at a computer if i've been at one all day for work, plus i prefer to be more hands on and put some skill and effort and a bit of randomness into it .
plus computer programmes still sound a bit rubbish imo.
watching someone djing at a computer is visually the same as a laptop performance utterly fucking boring and one of the reasons people don't go to see people play live off laptops as much as they see bands etc
spackb0y said:So, is Final Scract etc just as exciting to watch as DJing? If not, why not?
spackb0y said:So far, the reasons people dislike DJs with laptops is;
1) sound quality - debatable, obviously, and more dependent on a decent sound system than the source perhaps?
2) the visual/skillful aspect of watching someone DJ. So presumably someone using Final Scratch or the Rane Serato system would have more "value" or be more "worthy" or whatever we want to call it because of the hands on skill required. The only difference with Final Scratch etc and ordinary DJing is that you never take the records off the decks - cueing and mixing is exactly the same.
But then, you've basically turned your turntables into very large and heavy MIDI controllers. Which seems a somewhat unncessary fetishising of old technology, when there are now whole ranges of complex multi-function controllers with jog wheels, buttons etc to control your music.
So, is Final Scract etc just as exciting to watch as DJing? If not, why not?
spackb0y said:Eh? I thought that the whole point of a DJ being "exciting" talked about upthread was that the DJ was using physical skill to mix. By that criteria, Jah Shaka sticking on a record on one deck would be even less exciting, surely. The reasons he is exciting to watch are more to do with the aesthetic criteria of the genre, which are different to those of "dance" music (ie for these purposes, where the music is mixed continously).
john eden said:No I don't think so. If I go and see Jah Shaka on his own soundsystem then half of the point is the craft he has put into it all over the years, making his own boxes, amps etc. And collecting his own records and dubplates.
minikomi said:What a bunch of fuddy duddies!
i don't want to deal with djs at all when i play - i want to play my guitar at a whim or in an organised manner and strum it and piss about with it, not piss about with a sodding records and turntables get up as it's rubbish.
mms said:right thats it i'm l not listening to any music in any format ever again - i'm just gonna permanently damage my eardrums and sit in an empty quiet room listening to the titinnus.
michael said:
run_time said:some of the most interesting djs imho are those who are using digital mixing equipment to do redits on the fly. This provides the ability to recombine different elements in new forms in a way that would have been unimaginable with vinyl without the exception of dubplates
Asger said:I guess that's the dec. 2005 issue, cause it's not in jan. issue (?) - i've looked in that in a shop down town.
minikomi said: