Am I Totally out of my mind thinking this is total garbage

[rotebass]

What in any art has merit? Art has merit if someone likes it.

DJ Yoda right hurr

[ellgieff]

DJ Yoda right hurr

*shrugs* I've gotten a little over the no true scotsman fallacy as applied to most art. There's a constant undercurrent (not just here, and not just in DJing, but all over the place) that:

"Art is aristocratic, not egalitarian: talent is not evenly distributed and the effort to learn artistic craft counts for much. Some people truly are better artists, and some people are better at using the artistic talent they’ve got. The rest of us are kept in line by their brilliance, which is justified by a sense of our own inadequacies."

It's bullshit. It's always been bullshit. Art is somebody expressing a part of their being that they might not normally share, that might ordinarily be hidden from the world.

I think it's best when it has passion behind it - but passionless artistic expression is _still_ artistic expression whether it's my preference or not. I despise the suggestion that someone else's art is more "real" or "true" or "artistic" because its expressed in a way that's difficult for most people to achieve. I despise it mostly because of the way it locks many people out of even the opportunity to express themselves.

Techniques can be learnt. Always, and by everybody. So to suggest that technique is what makes one person an artist is to lessen the core of their art - which is the self they are expressing. This is why the "if you don't play on Vinyl, you're not a real DJ" is bullshit. It's why the "if you don't beatmatch and blend tunes together, you're not a real DJ" is bullshit.

"Talent" is a reflection that some people find some things easier to learn than others. But if you find something harder to do than I do, it doesn't mean your expression is less valid - it just means you work harder at it. If you wanted a real merit based system, it would be the people who struggled and still did it who would be lauded, not the people who happen to find something easy to do.

*sigh* I think I may have got a little lost here. I'll let Bruce Lee wrap it up for me (once again, thanks to Tarekith for bringing this quote to my attention):

"Art reaches its greatest peak when devoid of self-consciousness. Freedom discovers man the moment he loses concern over what impression he is making or about to make."

[MWagner]

(off topic but..)

I always liked the way Picasso put it "We all know art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth..."

[mostapha]

I'm not gonna tear you a new one, but try djing a wedding or a prom before you pass judgement.

I've done fraternity parties that were basically mobile gigs. I occasionally bring real gear depending on what the party is supposed to be and how long the "late crowd" is going to stick around (a few of them have been fun) but the vast majority of them (after the first) were done with iTunes party shuffle. People who aren't specifically into EDM don't care that I'm not in the booth for 80% of the time, and no one cares that I'm typically above .15 BAC when I'm doing it.

Doing that as a professional is probably not a good idea, but I just don't see how they're at all the same thing.

There is a flow to the music that controls the mood and energy of an event, just like a club gig, but without the benefit of a set genre. It requires intimate knowledge of many genres whether you like them or not, quickly reading crowds with diverse age ranges and musical tastes, good public speaking skills, a willingness to deal with requests, and sometimes the need to swallow your pride to make your clients happy. These are aspects of working as a dj, and I think this deserves more respect than plugging in a usb stick and playing one genre for a few hours. It also makes me waaaay more $$$!

Agreed. There are skills involved. But I don't think it's at all that complicated. I have maybe heard 500 distinct songs at all the mobile events I've been to or done, and I think that's probably an overestimate. I don't see how picking which era of top40 to play is harder than controlling a floor using tracks that are in general so much more similar to each other. A gig where you can drop Thriller, Gangster's Paradise, Take Five, I'm Sexy and I Know It, and Fast Cars and Freedom is way easier to control. That's 5 groups, probably without too much overlap that are going to the bar at different times…going to the bathroom at different times…etc.

I firmly believe it's harder to control energy when everything is 120-128 BPM, all based on the same kick/hat/snare pattern, and using very similar instruments used in similar ways.

People have been called djs since before there was edm, or hip hop, or beatmatching. If you play recorded music for people you are, by definition, a dj. That's it. Doesn't matter what you use, what you play, or HOW WELL YOU DO IT. People seem to think 'dj' is some special title bestowed upon those with some superior skills and musical taste. It's not, it's just a fucking job title like bus driver or lawyer or porn fluffer, get over yourselves.

Again, with you. But there's an artistic component to dance music (including hip hop) that isn't there in radio DJing or mobile DJing the way I've seen it done. They're doing the same thing (playing other people's music) but there's something about the dance/hip hop DJ vibe that just isn't there with other styles of "djing", and there are a lot of very good musicians, engineers, record producers, and punters that easily accept that fact. A DJ that can't confuses me.

Entertaining the crowd is the job and whether you mix or not is neither here nor there if the crowd are entertained

Agreed. I also haven't been to too many of those things where people who care about music sing much better praises than "it wasn't as bad as [some other guy]". I might have a skewed view based on how bad the ones I've seen are. That's why I'm hoping for someone to tear me a new one for having that opinion.

[tokenasianguy]

Again, with you. But there's an artistic component to dance music (including hip hop) that isn't there in radio DJing or mobile DJing the way I've seen it done. They're doing the same thing (playing other people's music) but there's something about the dance/hip hop DJ vibe that just isn't there with other styles of "djing"

Mobile DJ'ing is an occupation not a style...And by all rights, a mobile DJ should be able to play the way any club DJ does, it's just that they can get away with the absolute minimum not because nobody cares, but because people spend their whole lives going to clubs and usually only get married once, they think that all DJ's carry the same level of skill (or at least the basic mixing ability) that club DJ's do...Except that the wedding scene is full of hacks that ONLY got into it for the money and are only interested in exerting the most minimal level of effort possible (playing from iTunes).

[JasonBay]

*shrugs* I've gotten a little over the no true scotsman fallacy as applied to most art. There's a constant undercurrent (not just here, and not just in DJing, but all over the place) that:

"Art is aristocratic, not egalitarian: talent is not evenly distributed and the effort to learn artistic craft counts for much. Some people truly are better artists, and some people are better at using the artistic talent they’ve got. The rest of us are kept in line by their brilliance, which is justified by a sense of our own inadequacies."

It's bullshit. It's always been bullshit. Art is somebody expressing a part of their being that they might not normally share, that might ordinarily be hidden from the world.

I think it's best when it has passion behind it - but passionless artistic expression is _still_ artistic expression whether it's my preference or not. I despise the suggestion that someone else's art is more "real" or "true" or "artistic" because its expressed in a way that's difficult for most people to achieve. I despise it mostly because of the way it locks many people out of even the opportunity to express themselves.

Techniques can be learnt. Always, and by everybody. So to suggest that technique is what makes one person an artist is to lessen the core of their art - which is the self they are expressing. This is why the "if you don't play on Vinyl, you're not a real DJ" is bullshit. It's why the "if you don't beatmatch and blend tunes together, you're not a real DJ" is bullshit.

"Talent" is a reflection that some people find some things easier to learn than others. But if you find something harder to do than I do, it doesn't mean your expression is less valid - it just means you work harder at it. If you wanted a real merit based system, it would be the people who struggled and still did it who would be lauded, not the people who happen to find something easy to do.

*sigh* I think I may have got a little lost here. I'll let Bruce Lee wrap it up for me (once again, thanks to Tarekith for bringing this quote to my attention):

"Art reaches its greatest peak when devoid of self-consciousness. Freedom discovers man the moment he loses concern over what impression he is making or about to make."

Never tried any drugs, but you're some one I would want to smoke/drop acid/eat shrooms with. Mad props for all of the above

[Patch]

ellgieff - awesome post, my man.

There is a great book that explores this in detail (I've just yesterday started to read it, again) called The Artists Way, by Julia Cameron. It explores in depth a lot of what you have mentioned. Recommended to me by The Phat Conductor/iLL Gates a few years back.

It says that to be creative is normal, and we learn (are taught?) NOT TO BE creative. It's an awesome book. Quite spiritual (mentions God, but God as in Good Orderly Direction) but not directly religious.

Well worth a couple of reads.

[MaxOne]

I'm think comparing djing to art is certainly interesting but I actually think it is more akin to movie making in one respect.

Basically, like movies, it takes a certain amount of technical / mechanical skill to create one and also, although it can be "art" it's more often "entertainment" with the craft itself being "invisible" to the punter.

Most people don't watch a film thinking "that was great editing" but just get swept along by the pace and story. Filmmakers (like other djs do with mixing) appreciate the skill when done well.

Think of the music as the story and content and djing as the camerawork and editing and hopefully the analogy holds.

Wedding djing is like a Disney movie. No ones interested in the artistic camerawork as long as the story is emotionally / sentimentally fulfilling.

[SlayForMoney]

I'm think comparing djing to art is certainly interesting but I actually think it is more akin to movie making in one respect.

Basically, like movies, it takes a certain amount of technical / mechanical skill to create one and also, although it can be "art" it's more often "entertainment" with the craft itself being "invisible" to the punter.

Most people don't watch a film thinking "that was great editing" but just get swept along by the pace and story. Filmmakers (like other djs do with mixing) appreciate the skill when done well.

Think of the music as the story and content and djing as the camerawork and editing and hopefully the analogy holds.

Wedding djing is like a Disney movie. No ones interested in the artistic camerawork as long as the story is emotionally / sentimentally fulfilling.

very well said

[Scaper7]

Thanks for the great post Ellgieff. Too true and well said.