Why do you guys HATE DJs so much???

[Anderton]

 

All well and good, however being a DJ in itself is not the same thing as being a musician. Talk to a group of professional musicians and tell them your also a musician, what do you suppose the response would be? being a DJ is fine they have their spot in the entertainment business and I enjoy a good scratcher but your not a musician (Unless of course you play an instrument)IMO

 

 

Well it seems this is getting more into semantics - for example, is someone who's primarily an arranger or conductor a musician? They may play an instrument, but the focus of their musical career is not playing an instrument.

 

So, I decided to look up "musician" and here's what my dictionary said:

 

1. One who makes music a profession, especially as a performer on an instrument. 2. One skilled in music.

 

Seems that leaves a lot of "wiggle room" as to what a musician actually is, and would certainly include a conductor or arranger.

[Anderton]

As Henry Rollins said "Dj's are record player players, that use other peoples blood sweat and tears for their own profit."

 

Classical musicians playing Beethoven or Bach are using other people's blood, sweat and tears for their own profit, yet we recognize that the ability to interpret and arrange other people's music is a bona fide musical skill. Ditto someone like Frank Sinatra who (correct me if I'm wrong, he was before my time) didn't write songs but gained fame as an ace interpreter of other people's songs. Does that make him any less of a musician? I wouldn't think so, although others might disagree.

 

What about remixers, who take other peoples' music but put a huge amount of effort into rebuilding that music from scratch into something completely different? Doing it right requires a serious skill set that includes not only music, but engineering and production.

 

The more I think about it, the more I think that musicians can have very different skill sets yet still be musicians. I can't see Eric Clapton doing string arrangements, but that doesn't diminish his skill as a guitarist. Nor is someone who does string arrangements not a musician because he doesn't play guitar.

 

AFAIC, if a DJ takes music and combines it in a novel way that brings new meaning or interpretations to those compositions, and does so with skill and musicality, it's just as valid as a player doing a cool interpretation of someone else's song.

 

HOWEVER - I have to say that the number of DJs who elevate what they do to an exciting and novel artform is relatively small. I can't blame people who've only seen DJs cue up records at weddings thinking that DJs aren't musicians. I don't think those DJs are musicians, either - they just cue up records at weddings

 

What complicates matters further is that the US has not embraced DJ culture to the same extent as, say, Europeans or Asians. So the odds of going into a club in the US and seeing a DJ who makes your jaw drop are much more remote than in other countries.

 

As I said, I never had a particularly high opinion of DJs until I saw some live that blew my mind. It would take me years of practice to be able to even come close to what they did. On the other hand, it would take me 15 seconds to learn how to cue up records at weddings. I wouldn't have to be a musician to do that.

[MoreGuitars]

What about remixers, who take other peoples' music but put a huge amount of effort into rebuilding that music from scratch into something completely different? Doing it right requires a serious skill set that includes not only music, but engineering and production. .

I think this does require a skillset, as a luthier requires a skillset or even a roadie requires a skillset. DJ's just are not musicians. They are skilled leeches:eek:

[nerol1st]

I've done a few remix contests where all you get is the vocals/stems of back round stuff (most of the time it's just vox though). It's not easy at all, and if you have a home studio I strongly suggest trying to do it. I took one that was originally all samples and keyboards from what I could tell and tracked drums, guitar, bass over them (I'm not a DJ, remixer, etc... I record music on the side and play bass, drums, a little piano, and guitar).

 

Yes I suppose any monkey with the bpm could just place loops over the vocals (as I could have) but this is boring, stupid, and most of the time laughable. If your creating loops from scratch how is this any different then creating a song on guitar? It's really not, the tools are just different. People just get pissed because it's mouse clicking instead of guitar plucking.

[3red]

 

I've done a few remix contests where all you get is the vocals/stems of back round stuff (most of the time it's just vox though). It's not easy at all, and if you have a home studio I strongly suggest trying to do it. I took one that was originally all samples and keyboards from what I could tell and tracked drums, guitar, bass over them (I'm not a DJ, remixer, etc... I record music on the side and play bass, drums, a little piano, and guitar). Yes I suppose any monkey with the bpm could just place loops over the vocals (as I could have) but this is boring, stupid, and most of the time laughable. If your creating loops from scratch how is this any different then creating a song on guitar? It's really not, the tools are just different. People just get pissed because it's mouse clicking instead of guitar plucking.

 

 

 

it's also not dj ing

[bangpow]

 

As I said, I never had a particularly high opinion of DJs until I saw some live that blew my mind. It would take me years of practice to be able to even come close to what they did. On the other hand, it would take me 15 seconds to learn how to cue up records at weddings. I wouldn't have to be a musician to do that.

 

 

That's pretty much the long and short of it. If you're talking about some start/stop kind of Top 40 wedding DJ's, then there really isn't that much skill involved.

 

However, being able to match tempo's of two entirely different songs and get the and timing and phrasing right does take practice and skill.

 

Is it as hard as, say, playing the guitar? Nope. But I don't think a lot of people take and hour dj set and look at it's entire body of work from start to finish. There are many intricacies to DJing and I can understand how the uninformed just pass it off as not requiring skill, but there's a lot more that goes into it than most people think on here.

[Anderton]

Good point. I just thought of an analogy: It's like sushi. If I went to you and said "Cold, dead, raw fish can be really great!" you'd think I was insane until you actually tasted good sushi.

[Anderton]

 

Is it as hard as, say, playing the guitar? Nope. But I don't think a lot of people take and hour dj set and look at it's entire body of work from start to finish. There are many intricacies to DJing and I can understand how the uninformed just pass it off as not requiring skill, but there's a lot more that goes into it than most people think on here.

 

 

As a guitar player, I'd say they're very different disciplines. They both require manual dexterity, but with guitar, concepts like beat-matching just don't apply...and with DJing, having a knowledge of harmony and scales is not as applicable (although I do know DJs who consciously sequence songs taking keyinto account).

[bangpow]

 

(although I do know DJs who consciously sequence songs taking keyinto account).

 

 

Yep, some of the very best do. It's a really difficult thing to pull off, though. There's little tricks and things you can do to get around it, though. It goes back to the intricacies of DJing. Knowing when to get and out of tracks and why. You don't want to lay contrasting chords on top of each other or else it will sound like crap.

[Manipulate]

I love how this thread keeps coming up and guitarists say they "get it" and then go on to say "beat matching is easy". That's just ingnorant. That's like saying "keyboards are easy, all you have to do is hit the 'demo' button and stand there."

 

The answer is really simple: Mixing IS NOT using the turntable as a musical instrument; Scratching, IS using the turntable as a musical instrument.

 

Beat matching is arranging. It does not involve the sort of manual dexterity it takes to play an instrument. You aren't making sounds with your movements when you beatmatch. With an instrument, when you move your hand, the sound the instrument produces changes, based on your movements. With an instrument, there is a direct correlation between your movements and the sound.

 

Scratching, on the other hand, takes the same type of dexterity and skill as a playing a guitar, the drums, or a piano. When you scratch, you move your hands, and the sound changes based on the speed of your movements, the pressure you apply, the number of fingers you use, the techniques you use. Scratching is not playing "other peoples music." Its making your own music. The sounds are completley different than what is on the record. Your hand movements directly correspond to the sounds you make. Moreover, its not robbing "musicians" of anything because you guys can't make scratch sounds with your instruments. You can't make scratch sounds with a guitar, or drums, or a keyboard. You can only make scratch sounds with a turntable and a mixer. And just because scratching is not always be melodic, doesn't mean its not musical. Drums are muscial instruments. They're percussive. Scratching is both percussive and melodic.

 

Anyway, all you "musicians" saying "DJing isn't being a muscian because I tried DJing and I can beat match" are missing the point. You guys can't scratch. When you learn to scratch come back and then try to act like you know.

 

Mixing=not using turntable as an instrument

Scratching=is using turtable as an instrument

 

That's the answer. Period.

[TieDyedDevil]

Ignorance. Jealousy. Maybe both.

 

I'm a guitarist. I don't grok DJs. OTOH I recognize that there's a *vast* range of sounds, instrumentation and techniques that qualify as music. Look back through the history of music for a clue:

 

- Gregorian chants

- Indian ragas

- Apalachian folk

- Country blues

- Bebop

- Romantic-era classical

- John Cage

- 80s Casio-pop

- Punk

- Surf

- San Francisco psychedelia

- Western swing

- Math rock

- ...

 

The list could go on for damned near forever.

 

Do you want to argue about instrumentation? OK. How about Gregorian Chants vs. 80s Casio-pop? Are the chants "more pure" because they don't use any instruments? Is the Casio-pop "more advanced" because it used electronic instruments?

 

For my fellow guitarists out there, how about a reckoning of our own technological "purity"? I'm sure you know that Andres Segovia regarded the electric guitar and its players as inferior. Let's take that a bit further. Compare classic rock (let's say early Led Zeppelin) to black metal. Hugely different technologies. (If you don't believe that, ask those guys to swap rigs...) Ignoring personal preferences, is one inherently "better" or more "musical"?

 

For those of you guitarists in the "sampling and scratching isn't music" camp, how about John Cage's use of tape manipulation? Or to put the shoe on the other foot, what about heavy use of effects on guitar to the point where the relationship between what's played on the guitar and what goes into the amp depends entirely upon how the pedals are set? Is that "playing the guitar" or "playing pedals"? And if you can acknowledge the difference, is one better or more respectable than the other?

 

Honestly, I don't grok DJs. But I can appreciate that the craft isn't significantly different from what I do as a guitarist or from what any other artist does with their chosen medium.

 

For those of you who really believe that DJs have killed the live music scene, I have one thing to say: get over yourselves. The consumer votes with his/her wallet. DJs wouldn't have any work at all if no one wanted them. It's not a conspiracy.

 

In a closing note of irony, here's a lyric that was cutting-edge in 1970 when I was a teenager (I'm now 54 years old):

 

http://www.lyricstime.com/paul-kantner-mau-mau-lyrics.html

 

The relevant section is:

 

"Whatever you think of us is totally irrelevant

Both to us now and to you

We are the present

We are the future

You are the past

Pay your dues and get outta the way

'Cause we're not the way you used to be

When you were very young

We're something new"

 

It's true. Rock 'n roll is the past. You can hang onto it and keep it alive within some small circle of fellow admirers for as long as you live, but that's not going to bring it back as the dominant art form. Enjoy your memories. Don't piss on the new culture because it doesn't agree with you (or vice versa).

[Anderton]

Personally, I think that last post is pretty "fair and balanced"...and I appreciate that it's coming from someone who doesn't "grok" DJs, but still understands what it's about.

 

I do disagree about rock, though; I don't know if it's still the dominant art form, but if you compare what's considered "rock" today vs. what it was considered in the 50s or 60s, there's a huge difference. As long as a musical form continues to evolve, and/or as long as a new generation embraces the music of a previous generation, it remains vital. I also find it interesting that I hear more DJs including "rock" elements in what they do.

 

In any event...this thread keeps hashing the same stuff over and over and while it's been a worthwhile subject for discussion, I think it's also important to move on...so I'm closing the thread for now.