MIXING.....THE DEATH OF MUSIC?

[QUINNY]

I've been thinking about this for an awful long time (well over 25 years) and come to the conclusion that the advent of mixing was a really bad thing for music.

In the UK, the Musician's Union used to have a car sticker that simply read "KEEP MUSIC LIVE". As a DJ, I took this on board and always showed deference/respect to musicians, even though I could be hyper critical of certain records. Always in the back of my mind was the feeling that somehow it just wasn't right that I could earn a living playing records, when many of the musicians who made those records might be struggling to make ends meet.

Getting back to the M.U. slogan, perhaps they had a crystal ball and could see the way that things would go if 'the inmates took over the asylum' and DJs and electronics replaced musicians. It has to be said that mixing has played a huge part in the 'dumbing down' of music. You have radio stations in the USA (and other countries?) that only play certain types of music (an advanced form of mixing?) That's one very important reason why, after nearly 20 years of dance music domination, people are generally less interested/less turned on by what's being released. All dance music since mixing was invented has had to conform to a very basic, very unmusical criteria. That is, it's had to have a certain BPM/certain feel/certain rhythm track to gain acceptance. Pre-mixing (pre- Disco) people danced to a much wider range of musics with a much more unique sound to them.

Don't be fooled. If we'd had every record sounding exactly the same as every other one, we would have played them BITD, especially when mixing was in its infancy. It would have seemed like manna from heaven. The whole idea of mixing was, after all, to make the transitions between records as seamless as possible. Indeed, I suspect that in the USA, more than in Europe, club DJs would deliberately seek out records that adhered to a very rigid formula. Hence, certain clubs, indeed certain DJs (the Saint DJs for example) had a highly defined 'sound' and so we are told soooo often here, in most NY clubs the tempo was absolutely flat out for hour after hour, in order to fuel the drug crazed punters who didn't want to 'come down'. Invariably, this must have meant that a load of crap was played, just to adhere to this BPM straightjacket. How could every c.130 BPM record automatically be better than others that might only clock in at say, 118 BPM? Pre-mixing, this wouldn't have happened, would it?

This is how and why Disco (albeit high energy ultra disco or at the slower, funkier end of the spectrum) came into being. DJs started to bounce more and more records that didn't mix with what was currently doing the business. I never had a penchant for ultra disco and always sought out funkier things, but even they became somewhat formularised (e.g. the Solar sound, which I loved). It used to amaze me that at any one time there would be a spate of records that all had a common thread, until there was a big record that defined the next plateau of 'inventiveness'/audience acceptance. It was almost as if they came out of nowhere, but obviously, producers and musicians had their collective ears to the ground. However, all the signs were there that dance music was being continuously distilled into an ever narrowing genre.

OK, today many genres exist, but within each one the rhythm patterns/sounds/formulae are so narrowly defined and punters actively seek out clubs/record labels/producers that play an almost personally exclusive playlist. That can't be healthy and the advent of mixing (and Disco) has to take part of the blame for this. Music has become a commodity, not the life affirming joy it once was. Mixing was the catalyst that started people (DJs, myself included) looking at music as a commodity and to some extent dispelling music that didn't 'conform'. I don't suppose any of us could have known what we were starting and human existance is littered with people just going with the flow and not questioning what or why they did such a thing.

Perhaps we should have been less willing to embrace mixing and Disco really was not what the music doctor ordered?

[paul]

Hey Quinny,
Always nice to read your post. I have to say they are generally thought provoking even when I may not always agree with them.
I generally agree with the thrust of your argument though I take exception to some points.
I can agree that inadvertently disco mixing played a part in the decline of music today. To me it's like fire though. Fire is great for heating and cooking. The down side is it can burn you and your property. Mixing provided great musical enjoyment at the clubs but I don't know if anyone foresaw that it along with the electronic whiz bangs led to the death of creativity so necessary in great music or just music in general.
I doubt BITD we'd have still flocked to the clubs if all the songs had the same sound. Remember that in the context of the times there was a lot of different kinds of good popular music. An audience used to this would never put up for this for long.
Some of the best mixes to me were the ones that used 2 dissimilar songs like say Lovin' Is Really My Game and Snapshot and do a creative mix.

[QUINNY]

Originally Posted by paul

Hey Quinny,
I doubt BITD we'd have still flocked to the clubs if all the songs had the same sound. Remember that in the context of the times there was a lot of different kinds of good popular music. An audience used to this would never put up for this for long.

Exactly why Disco had such a short run? Too many clubs (and radio stations) did play too narrow a spectrum of music?

I agree with you on this, but I also have to hold my hands up and admit that during Disco there was a levelling in the music to a loosely common denominator and all jocks everywhere embraced the records to a greater or lesser extent. Even a sod like me used to gloss over certain records 'cos they didn't have the 'sound' I wanted or because I couldn't envisage how and where I'd be able to fit 'em into the playlist (albeit a fairly broad based one).

[Paulo]

I am not a DJ, but speaking as a music fan, I really don't think it was the act of mixing that killed the music. This downfall is not exclusive to dance music.

To my taste, ROCK music is also getting worse each decade. It was great in the 60s, exceptional in the 70s, good in the 80s, but became a great cliche from 1990 onwards. Boring. Formulaic.

The same thing happened to SOUL music. It was great in the 60s, exceptional in the 70s and after the 80s had gone, it became boring (in a general way).

The same happened to POP music. 60s POP was sophisticated. So was 70s POP. 80s POP was exceptional. But 90s and 00s is silly and sterile.

The same happened to DANCE MUSIC. 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's...

So here we have 4 strong "streams" of popular music. All of them were born, grew, reached the climax and fell. All more or less at the same time. That's why I don't think mixing has to take the blame for the death of music.

I am not defending mixing. I even prefer to listen to unmixed records, so that I can hear the song in its entirety.

[discopsycho]

I read this with interest. I don't know that mixing has killed music, but it certainly has made a night out at the clubs boring. All the music is basically the same and many of the songs played are by a handful of remixers, so after a few minutes of dancing, one gets bored, if not frustrated.

I like a good dj mix, and that was one thing I liked about disco music, but a good dj mix does not necessarily mean beat matching all the time. A good dj can juxtapose different kinds of songs to create excitement or change a mood. Also, with everything in clubs at 125 to 130 bpms, there is a lot that is not played. Plus, this creates the desire for record companies to have a good song remixed to gain club play, and many times it just takes the soul out of the tune.

I used to dj during the disco era, and now am a "bedroom mixer". Many of my friends have encouraged me to dj at a club, but I resist because I can't see myself beat matching all night long and playing songs I really don't like that much. I have a short attention span, and that would bore me to tears.

I went to a club in the 90's in which the dj mixed, but also changed up the tempo and mood. I remember the first time I heard "The Pressure" by Sounds Of Blackness. The dj just let the previous song end and then started "The Pressure" from the piano intro. That brought attention to the song and cemented it into everyone's mind. THAT is a good mix.

[JussiK]

Originally Posted by QUINNY

ultra disco

Now THAT's great title for a great night out!:-)
But seriously, good mixing is like good writing, it's made of flowing sentences. A relentless onslaught of similar beats can get boring. Then again, if it's done really well, bring it on. Too much oif a good thing can be wondeful.

[QUINNY]

Originally Posted by JussiK

Now THAT's great title for a great night out!:-)
But seriously, good mixing is like good writing, it's made of flowing sentences. A relentless onslaught of similar beats can get boring. Then again, if it's done really well, bring it on. Too much oif a good thing can be wondeful.

And yet you have always praised New York. One place where the onslaught of beat mixing similar beats was unrelenting for hours on end. Surely the very fact that discos in the US were open for anything up to 10 hours (double the average length in Europe?) also ensured that a fair level of garbage must have been played, especially if most jocks were like Bobby Viteritti and refused to play any record twice? Hell, most NY (American) jocks didn't play many slow sets and all the sleaze/morning music was played in lengthy sets of similar BPM only at a certain time. I personally can't square those circles, if you know what I mean.

My method of DJing was to have sets of 1 hour or so that went from maybe 100 BPM to 135 in various combinations, 'cos at any one time there would always be big floor fillers of different BPMs. So it wouldn't have been unusual to have climaxed a set with a record of say 108 BPM, coming down the BPMs throughout the set, 'cos it was a huge floorfiller. I doubt that happened too often in the States, but stand to be corrected.

[Dirk Diggler]

Quinny I read your post with much interest, and if you allow me, I would like to comment.
IMO to job of DJ can be tore down into two parts:
1/Technical (Skills, beat-matching, backspins, scratches, effects, etc, etc etc,...)
2/Programming (Mood-setting, basically tellin' the story)

The beauty is that combining these two is truly an ART.

Imagine you are spinnin' at 120BPM and you really want to put in this other record because of the mood, context, ambiance. Yet the record is 100BPM and has no beats to match the previous track with. A good DJ will figure this out how to blend these two records perfectly together. That's an art.

I've always been DJ, and I spin only Disco. Why? For the same reasons you elaborated on in the opening post. Yeah, of course it's much harder, but the result is 100 times better than any House/Hiphop Mix.
I always approved a perfect beat-mix, and I truly hate DJ's who say it's all about the programming.
Like I said, combine the technical with the emotional.

To come back to the initial question:
Mixing breaks or makes a DJ.
Mixing can enhance ones story he wishes to tell.
Mixing can be boring, if it lacks good programming.

Just my 2 cents, dirk

[QUINNY]

Dirk: All that you write is mostly true...of course.

However, logic determines that most DJs wouldn't have been brilliant DJs. They would have been average. Logic also dictates that the US would have had roughly the same percentage of average DJs to brilliant ones as anywhere else.
In all probability, most of those average DJs would have played using BPMs, possibly more than any other factor, in determining their playlists and sequences. Even the brilliant few would have paid much more than just lip service to BPMs.

Therefore, in all probability, the experience of disco going to the great mass of disco goers, would have been one of hearing 'boring' DJs. That's why I believe the advent of mixing has contributed to the death of music.

The one constant moan that I used to receive from punters (usually those that only went to a disco infrequently) was "can't you play something else, it all sounds the same?" Of course, what they really meant was "play something I know", or "play something from the charts". At the time, I used to take this as a compliment, especially as I used to have such a diverse playlist. Now, with 20 years hindsight, I ain't so sure.

[JussiK]

[quote="QUINNY"][And yet you have always praised New York.

Of course because what they did they did so well!

"especially if most jocks were like Bobby Viteritti and refused to play any record twice? "

What does this mean - does it mean Bobby Viteretti spinned his faves ever only once in a public place? Or refused to play a track twice during a set? Must be the latter option. If someone had come to me to request "Pretty Maid" the second tome that night I certainly would have spinned that title. Nobody ever did, though, I don't think anyone actually requested that at all.