We'rrrreee BaaaccKK...! TagTeam Tussle Vol.2

[qdearl]

The Battle continues!!!
Part 2!
Q.D!
Raheem!
Mix 4 Mix!
Real Old School!

....Time to pay the Piper!


Free Mp3 Hosting, Artist Pages, Dj Sets, Free Music Downloads

Check out this tracklist!!

Give Me Love
Sevilla Nights
Can't Fake The Feelin'
Now That We've Found Love
19
The Whistle Song
Break 4 Love
Hey Boy

....and more!

[Videoskooter]

QD, awesome mix man! The way the different styles are blended is great and...it works!! BTW, great version of "Malaguena"!

[QUINNY]

QD Earl: How can I be supportive yet critical? That's the dilemma I face as someone who's lambasted all the time for being over critical.

Your posts always end with "the problem is...choice".

In this instance, above all, I believe your choice to play around with all the FX under the sun ad nauseum, has spoilt what could have been a reasonable mix. Just 'cos the computer software/outboard equipment allows certain things to be included, doesn't mean they HAVE to be. That is.....less is more!

There are other issues I have with it too (unless it was done in real time, on the fly), but others here would accuse me of being negative, or worse.

[qdearl]

Originally Posted by Videoskooter

QD, awesome mix man! The way the different styles are blended is great and...it works!! BTW, great version of "Malaguena"!

Hey, the 'VS" stamp of approval is always welcomed! Glad you liked it.
That version of Malaguena is from Walter Murphy's seldom talked about '79 release DiscoSymphony and is my favorite. And the rest of the LP is pretty good too.

[qdearl]

Originally Posted by QUINNY

QD Earl: How can I be supportive yet critical? That's the dilemma I face as someone who's lambasted all the time for being over critical.

Your posts always end with "the problem is...choice".

In this instance, above all, I believe your choice to play around with all the FX under the sun ad nauseum, has spoilt what could have been a reasonable mix. Just 'cos the computer software/outboard equipment allows certain things to be included, doesn't mean they HAVE to be. That is.....less is more!

There are other issues I have with it too (unless it was done in real time, on the fly), but others here would accuse me of being negative, or worse.

OK, first let's clear up the details...
Yes, the mix was done(as they all are, with us anyway)on the fly in real time.
No computers or editing software used.
2 CD turntables, and a mixer(in this case, a RANE knob mixer)recorded straight onto VHS tape then transfered to CD and subsequently converted to mp3.

Now, let's talk about "choice"....
First, I disagree that we used the crossover or the Pioneer EFX to the point of repulsion (effects may have been used on half the songs in the entire mix, if that....) or maybe you count the "echo out" effect when we stop a song cold, then it's a little more. (and I personally just think it's a smoother transition than just a cold stop, all the time)
Secondly, going by what you wrote, it seems your opinion is based on "personal taste" ie, you think effects "suck" & some people do. So I can respect that. But there are many who would disagree, And I have to say, you're the first person who's ever complained that we use them too much, we'd always thought we were rather conservative in our use, compared to some stuff we've heard
As to the reason, well speaking for myself, I use them to add something different to a song that's maybe 25yrs old, everyone has heard forward and backwards for 25yrs, but is still liked in general. It gives it a different feel, makes it seem like a brand new song. And before you accuse me of sounding crazy, explain to me the reasoning behind the "re-edit" which every song prior to 1987 seems to be getting these days
It's the same thing, just on a more permanent basis.(they're basically saying "I got tired of hearing the song like it was, I think it should be arranged like this....") and that's fine because sometimes they're right, and some people will agree and some won't "The problem is ....Choice" You can't please everybody, and I don't try to, and with music it all boils down to what is, and what isn't pleasing to "your" ears.

....So what else did you hate about it?

[QUINNY]

Originally Posted by qdearl

OK, first let's clear up the details...
Yes, the mix was done(as they all are, with us anyway)on the fly in real time.
No computers or editing software used.
2 CD turntables, and a mixer(in this case, a RANE knob mixer)recorded straight onto VHS tape then transfered to CD and subsequently converted to mp3.

Now, let's talk about "choice"....
First, I disagree that we used the crossover or the Pioneer EFX to the point of repulsion (effects may have been used on half the songs in the entire mix, if that....) or maybe you count the "echo out" effect when we stop a song cold, then it's a little more. (and I personally just think it's a smoother transition than just a cold stop, all the time)
Secondly, going by what you wrote, it seems your opinion is based on "personal taste" ie, you think effects "suck" & some people do. So I can respect that. But there are many who would disagree, And I have to say, you're the first person who's ever complained that we use them too much, we'd always thought we were rather conservative in our use, compared to some stuff we've heard
As to the reason, well speaking for myself, I use them to add something different to a song that's maybe 25yrs old, everyone has heard forward and backwards for 25yrs, but is still liked in general. It gives it a different feel, makes it seem like a brand new song. And before you accuse me of sounding crazy, explain to me the reasoning behind the "re-edit" which every song prior to 1987 seems to be getting these days
It's the same thing, just on a more permanent basis.(they're basically saying "I got tired of hearing the song like it was, I think it should be arranged like this....") and that's fine because sometimes they're right, and some people will agree and some won't "The problem is ....Choice" You can't please everybody, and I don't try to, and with music it all boils down to what is, and what isn't pleasing to "your" ears.

....So what else did you hate about it?

If you wanna know what I hate about it..... here goes.

O.K. If it was done 'on the fly' then you're to be congratulated to some extent and I can't complain too much, except IMO it has ended up sounding a tad messy to my ears (especially the FX that are (a) often too loud (b) go out of sync and (c) don't add anything of merit to the track) and I have a question for you. Why do a mix like this where nearly every mix is not at a correct point (i.e. end of 4,8,16 bar sequence) when with a little more planning and maybe a few less tracks a much better mix could be acheived? I realise that by doing a 'tag' things might get a little hairy, a little competitive, but it still doesn't justify sloppiness (and NOT mixing to 4,8,16 bar sequences is sloppy in my book...it's what non mixers and poor auto mix software does)?

BTW: I was one of the very first people in the UK to use a delay line in my club set up. It wasn't until 1983/4 when Roland brought out a delay unit with up to 1 second of delay (2 seconds with half the bandwidth), tap to beat feature and a decent (for those days) bandwidth that such things were possible to any satisfying degree. I used to use it on tracks to sustain a short percussion loop, get a short repeat or I used it to add percussion/whistles etc to a track for as long as it stayed in sync. Sometimes it worked a treat, other times not. So I know a little about delays and how they can/should be used. I'll give you a tip. Try thinking in thirds, rather than full or half beats and see what interesting FX you can get on certain tracks (I've mentioned this before, elsewhere: try the drum & bass part of the intro to Billie Jean as a quick example of how the effect can sound....you go from a straight 4/4 beat to a shuffle that does sound TOTALLY different).

You may be one of those who uphold the theory that NOT adhering to sequences doesn't matter, BUT it does. Without adhering to such things it's very difficult to acheive any drama, surprise, lift and release of tension, or real musicality.

Worst of all though, is the fact that the website hosting the mix freezes me out of control on my computer. I have to exit the internet in order to stop it playing and can't access any other info on the page. Grrrrrr!!!!

Oh! and the reasons every pre-1987 track is getting a re-edit are manifold, but at the top of the list must be the chance to make a quick buck out of it, allied to the younger generation's need to tinker with things and/or gain some sort of ownership over the sounds, thus appealing to their peer group. Some of us oldies just don't understand the need to do such things, 9 times out of 10.

[qdearl]

Originally Posted by QUINNY

If you wanna know what I hate about it..... here goes.

O.K. If it was done 'on the fly' then you're to be congratulated to some extent and I can't complain too much, except IMO it has ended up sounding a tad messy to my ears (especially the FX that are (a) often too loud (b) go out of sync and (c) don't add anything of merit to the track) and I have a question for you. Why do a mix like this where nearly every mix is not at a correct point (i.e. end of 4,8,16 bar sequence) when with a little more planning and maybe a few less tracks a much better mix could be acheived? I realise that by doing a 'tag' things might get a little hairy, a little competitive, but it still doesn't justify sloppiness (and NOT mixing to 4,8,16 bar sequences is sloppy in my book...it's what non mixers and poor auto mix software does)?

BTW: I was one of the very first people in the UK to use a delay line in my club set up. It wasn't until 1983/4 when Roland brought out a delay unit with up to 1 second of delay (2 seconds with half the bandwidth), tap to beat feature and a decent (for those days) bandwidth that such things were possible to any satisfying degree. I used to use it on tracks to sustain a short percussion loop, get a short repeat or I used it to add percussion/whistles etc to a track for as long as it stayed in sync. Sometimes it worked a treat, other times not. So I know a little about delays and how they can/should be used. I'll give you a tip. Try thinking in thirds, rather than full or half beats and see what interesting FX you can get on certain tracks (I've mentioned this before, elsewhere: try the drum & bass part of the intro to Billie Jean as a quick example of how the effect can sound....you go from a straight 4/4 beat to a shuffle that does sound TOTALLY different).

You may be one of those who uphold the theory that NOT adhering to sequences doesn't matter, BUT it does. Without adhering to such things it's very difficult to acheive any drama, surprise, lift and release of tension, or real musicality.

Worst of all though, is the fact that the website hosting the mix freezes me out of control on my computer. I have to exit the internet in order to stop it playing and can't access any other info on the page. Grrrrrr!!!!

Oh! and the reasons every pre-1987 track is getting a re-edit are manifold, but at the top of the list must be the chance to make a quick buck out of it, allied to the younger generation's need to tinker with things and/or gain some sort of ownership over the sounds, thus appealing to their peer group. Some of us oldies just don't understand the need to do such things, 9 times out of 10.

To answer your question, let me tell what the mix criteria was in this case,
2 songs per turn, mixed in within 2 min of each other, any genre, no drastic tempo changes, and no fillers.
This was just an exercise in quickness for us, and also to get familiar with what we have on CD and where in the book we have it. We are constantly buying or converting more vinyl onto CD and the order and locations of CD's in our books is ever changing. You have so many more tracks available spinning CD's than when you spin vinyl. (hell, 1 crate of 12 inches may add up to 100 selections, 1 crate of CD books, 10,000 selections) presently I have 4 crates worth of CD books.
Why so many? what can I say, there's a lot of good music out there.
Besides, we spin at very diverse events, a lot of different genres, Disco, Jazz, Top 40, R&B, Old School Rap, Pop, Underground (we've even done one where they wanted to hear Johnny Cash and Toby Keith...)
We also take a lot of on the spot requests, and clients seem to be very impressed when you can pull out some obscure request that no one but them ever heard
Anyway, I'm getting off track here.

I have a question for you. Why do a mix like this where nearly every mix is not at a correct point (i.e. end of 4,8,16 bar sequence) when with a little more planning and maybe a few less tracks a much better mix could be acheived?

As I said, "being at the correct point" was not the rule for this mix, but I don't adhere to the "non sequence" train of thought - and since I think that, this mix is the only mix from me you have heard, I can understand you thinking I might.
But I don't, I have a habit of running 2 songs together for 16 bars or more, which would be a big mess if I didn't do it in time.
Maybe, if you can get your computer to function better on that site, you can check out one of my other mixes, which don't sound at all like the TagTeam ones.

And I never said you didn't know anything about effects, just that you didn't like them
But whether some effects sound good to you or they don't is still just a matter of personal preference, you may not think it adds anything to the mix, but others might think it does, and of course there is no defense for effects that go out of time but, hey it happens...welcome to the world of precise digital processors and analog people driven music.

And we agree, financial gain aside, people re-do songs to appease their egos and show the world they(the new generation) could do it better....

[Videoskooter]

Originally Posted by QUINNY

Worst of all though, is the fact that the website hosting the mix freezes me out of control on my computer. I have to exit the internet in order to stop it playing and can't access any other info on the page. Grrrrrr!!!!

Guys, I'm not joining in on the very technical discussion but, Quinny, there's nothing wrong with that website, I check it out a lot and never have a problem with the functions there. I think it's either your I-connection (modem? bitrates?) or your PC (Cache? Processor?). All the function of their mediaplayer work like they should so maybe you should check out your homesystem.

[QUINNY]

Originally Posted by Videoskooter

Guys, I'm not joining in on the very technical discussion but, Quinny, there's nothing wrong with that website, I check it out a lot and never have a problem with the functions there. I think it's either your I-connection (modem? bitrates?) or your PC (Cache? Processor?). All the function of their mediaplayer work like they should so maybe you should check out your homesystem.

True, but 99/100 other sites don't freeze me out. To go through all that technical stuff would give me nightmares!

[QUINNY]

Originally Posted by qdearl

To answer your question, let me tell what the mix criteria was in this case,
2 songs per turn, mixed in within 2 min of each other, any genre, no drastic tempo changes, and no fillers.
This was just an exercise in quickness for us, and also to get familiar with what we have on CD and where in the book we have it. We are constantly buying or converting more vinyl onto CD and the order and locations of CD's in our books is ever changing. You have so many more tracks available spinning CD's than when you spin vinyl. (hell, 1 crate of 12 inches may add up to 100 selections, 1 crate of CD books, 10,000 selections) presently I have 4 crates worth of CD books.
Why so many? what can I say, there's a lot of good music out there.
Besides, we spin at very diverse events, a lot of different genres, Disco, Jazz, Top 40, R&B, Old School Rap, Pop, Underground (we've even done one where they wanted to hear Johnny Cash and Toby Keith...)
We also take a lot of on the spot requests, and clients seem to be very impressed when you can pull out some obscure request that no one but them ever heard
Anyway, I'm getting off track here.

I have a question for you. Why do a mix like this where nearly every mix is not at a correct point (i.e. end of 4,8,16 bar sequence) when with a little more planning and maybe a few less tracks a much better mix could be acheived?

As I said, "being at the correct point" was not the rule for this mix, but I don't adhere to the "non sequence" train of thought - and since I think that, this mix is the only mix from me you have heard, I can understand you thinking I might.
But I don't, I have a habit of running 2 songs together for 16 bars or more, which would be a big mess if I didn't do it in time.
Maybe, if you can get your computer to function better on that site, you can check out one of my other mixes, which don't sound at all like the TagTeam ones.

And I never said you didn't know anything about effects, just that you didn't like them
But whether some effects sound good to you or they don't is still just a matter of personal preference, you may not think it adds anything to the mix, but others might think it does, and of course there is no defense for effects that go out of time but, hey it happens...welcome to the world of precise digital processors and analog people driven music.

And we agree, financial gain aside, people re-do songs to appease their egos and show the world they(the new generation) could do it better....

O.K. I can see where you're coming from. I can see how an exercise such as this would have some benefit, but maybe they should remain guilty pleasures that you can listen to in your dotage. Personally, I wouldn't see the point of sharing it with anyone, unless I thought it was exceptional (which I don't think it is as you're stuck somewhere between classic mixing and turntablism).

Perhaps, if you're intent with sharing your work, it would be a good idea to do one of these mixes on a computer with software that gave you much more control, especially control over the FX (which by the way, I do like, BUT by degrees, NOT at full tilt all the time)?

BTW: This brings up the old chestnut "in which order do you have your tracks listed"? Personally, at my advanced age I can see the merits of BPM order, especially as I'm forgetting many more tracks details now than I care to admit to. A-Z by artist works for some, A-Z titles for others and for myself (and Nick Nack) BITD we had our tracks arranged in label order.

I agree, there's lotsa good music out there, but IMO success depends on playing relatively few really, really good ones, 90% of the time. The problem is....choice....but only if you let it dictate to you.

[qdearl]

Originally Posted by QUINNY

O.K. I can see where you're coming from. I can see how an exercise such as this would have some benefit, but maybe they should remain guilty pleasures that you can listen to in your dotage. Personally, I wouldn't see the point of sharing it with anyone, unless I thought it was exceptional (which I don't think it is as you're stuck somewhere between classic mixing and turntablism).

Perhaps, if you're intent with sharing your work, it would be a good idea to do one of these mixes on a computer with software that gave you much more control, especially control over the FX (which by the way, I do like, BUT by degrees, NOT at full tilt all the time)?

BTW: This brings up the old chestnut "in which order do you have your tracks listed"? Personally, at my advanced age I can see the merits of BPM order, especially as I'm forgetting many more tracks details now than I care to admit to. A-Z by artist works for some, A-Z titles for others and for myself (and Nick Nack) BITD we had our tracks arranged in label order.

I agree, there's lotsa good music out there, but IMO success depends on playing relatively few really, really good ones, 90% of the time. The problem is....choice....but only if you let it dictate to you.

"Exceptional"? Exceptional how? In technical precision? track choice? style?

From what I've gathered here, technical precision in a real time mix was a myth BITD, even by the biggest names out, you've attested to that.

Did I think the song selection was full of great choices that could be enjoyed by those into this music?
Yup.

Did I think the quick cuts from song to song would cause excitement, adrenaline rush, and smiles, because the selections were exceptional?
Sure did.

Did I think the tasteful use of reverb, echo, flange effects would amuse the listener even more, because you don't normally hear the songs that way?
Absolutely

So yeah, I thought it was worth sharing with the community at large, and so far you're the only one who couldn't get past their personal dissatisfaction with the technical side of the mix (which no one else seems to think is as bad as you described it) and enjoy the music. I mean it didn't stop the party BITD did it?
And since the site keeps track of who listens to what, seems a good amount of people agree with me

Regarding track listing - it's alot easier to use alphabetical, artist, or label, or BPMs when you're talkin' 12inchers with 1 artist, 2 songs, from 1 label.
Different ball of wax when you have a book full of compilation CD's and CD's made with songs recorded as you remembered you needed them on CD

I use all those methods you mentioned per say, but like I said it just doesn't work for everything.
Example: Salsoul Records - sure I've got all my Salsoul CD's grouped, but there's no order to the songs on any given CD, different tempos, a mish mash of artists, short version on this CD, long version on that CD, so it still comes down to remembering what CD has what and where it is.
Of course you could take all your store bought CD's dump them into the computer, and arrange them better, but that's a mission in itself.
To get somewhat of a grip on things I try to at least divide the books themselves (book "1" - Underground, book "2" - Ballads, etc) so of course this means there is some duplication of songs.... but at least I know (since the book contains all the same genre of songs) that it's in there somewhere