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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

[QUINNY]

Viteritti refused to play any track twice in a night. Pretty pompous eh?

[marmite7]

I totally disagree with the claim that mixing led to a decline in music. The standard in music making is the one & only factor.

Surely back in the day, you had producers, singers & musicians laying down the tracks for the love of the music, however in todays' world of the fast buck/pound, it's the money which counts - getting that hit record, regadless of the quality.

I used to frequent gay & straight clubs (late 70's to mid 80's)and found it very frustrating, not to mention annoying, that the DJ in the straight clubs would play a couple of tracks back to back, then interrupt with a birthday message, a shout-out or announce the name of the record he'd just spun. The opposite was happening in the gay clubs, with the DJ mixing up a storm, ensuring your "journey" was smooth & non-stop. The experience was never boring, due to the varied styles of the music being spun. Perhaps "our" DJ was particularly accomplished, as he meandered from Simple Minds - I Travel, Yazoo - Don't Go, Eurythmics - Sweet Dreams, Lime - On The Grid, Simplicious - Let Her Feel It, Shannon - Let The Music Play, Jocelyn Brown - Somebody Elses Guy, D Train - You're The One For Me, First Choice - Let No Man Put Asunder etc. (Different eras I know, but there's no way I can recall one individual night's mixing!!)

It's true to say though, the "type" of music being played in the straight clubs WAS more varied and therefore more difficult to beat mix. Different tempos would obviously make life more difficult for the DJ, but then as someone else has said - it's down to the skill of the individual.

The rave era (89-91) here in the UK was imho, harking back to the old days of straight clubs, where the DJ's would play an eclectic mix, but with the emphasis on mixing. DJ's such as Carl Cox, Oakenfold, Sasha flipping between repetative house beats & breakbeat. (What's now known as Old Skool Hardcore)

The clubs of today however, seem fixated on playing one type of music, and it's true to say that some of the tunes played will be fillers, back is that any different to discos of the 70's?

No-one can like ALL the music played in one night, regardless of the perceived quality. One mans' anthem / fave track is anothers' dirge. True music fans are a fickle lot adn we like what we like, never being influenced by claims that "this track is great".

For every great record that's released, there'll always be a 100 that stink - now or then.

Which brings us back to the fast buck! Pop Idol, X Factor & Fame Academy and the like have proved it's not the music which matters - but the face behind the music! Mass-produced, music by numbers and enough media coverage will ensure the hit (and the money) and hang the quality of the track.

The "real" music will never appear in the Top 100 and I thank god for that.

[markydefad]

It all fell apart once the REMIXERS got total control of "de-constructing" records, IMO. They eliminated all the hooks--don't want nothin' catchy now do we?- and isolated one or two vocal phrases , if we're lucky--and played a relentless synth riff over a relentless beat and called it a REMIX. DJs are not necessarily musicians--they are knob twirling technicians--hence The "MUSIC" disappeared.

Initially, mixing was inspired to keep bodies on the dance floor--to eliminate "the space between" 2 records when people wandered off the dancefloor. This was Tom Moulton's idea--to keep them dancing; inspired by watching dancers in Fire Island clubs. It worked brilliantly for many years--but has subsequently devolved into rote by-the-numbers technical proficiency now--something almost anyone can do--cause all the records are recorded to use the same bpms, the same instrumentation, the same everything. Your basic first graders could probably learn to match the beats on 2 of todays sound-alike records.

It ain't no big deal, no mo. But it used to be very difficult before the dum machine and the prefab remixes made it all one long song that never ended all night long. Don't get me started. :evil: :roll: :-? :o :x

[remicks]

****



****

Ya Marky .... but now I'm started ! :D PART ! :

I've learned a lot from this board these past few months .
I was honestly shocked that all the music that is to me "disco/dance " music pure and simple ....had been so sliced and diced into all these mini compartments
.... having been there from the start ...( almost) .. ...I experienced the change in the music over the years as one long enjoyable continuum ... I welcomed all the " progress " not realizing the trade off involved ... all that was being lost in the process ..I sure hear it now ....as I relisten and divide up the era from 1974 ---1990 .....
All the lush studio orchestrations .... poof gone ..... the clever wonderful teaser intros as heard on "LOVE HANGOVER" and "LAST DANCE " ..gone ..... as it became obligatory to start records with mixable beats.... and also always have at least one escape route for the DJ .... typically after five / six minutes within the song ..... I thought all that to be great and smart at the time ....as a DJ & into mixing ....but now I see how formula some of that became .... when " the formula" gets figured out ....it can get old fast ..and that is true with any style of music or any particular artist ..... be it Motown '60s or Solar or Al Green or Barry White or Chic ....

AND as much as I love the strings and the horns (cow bells ) so wonderfully exploited in the early years ....... just how many times could that sound be reworked before the crowd moans "no more" .... (I think that is where Salsoul had some problems )......

So we could have continued with yet another several years I'm sure ....with the style of disco that made the seventies so terrific..... in fact that massive output of disco in 1979 ..... if regulated somehow .....could easily have been stretched out into a three year supply .... and I'm sure we'd have gotten still more great stuff made with that style that sadly will never be .... :(

HOWEVER ..... in the process we were all getting older and we had no desire to dilly dally with the same o' same o' ... and the new kids on the floor had no desire to hear that " old crap " ( to them) ....Each weekend out had to be as fresh as the one before and somehow even better .....

SO :
I suggest we turn this " woe is me " thing around 180* degrees the other way and say... "THANKGOD " for the synths and all the evolutionary toys that took disco to a whole new place ..... they probably actually rescued disco.....

Personally , I believe my disco experience would have been anti- climatical having invested all those years without it all leading finally to the wonderful works of Patrick Cowley/Sylvester , Gino Soccio , Blancmange, New Order , the entirety of the UNIWAVE and MOBY DICK labels and............of course, ......... ABBA's mesmerizing "LAY ALL YOUR LOVE ON ME "

These all are just as important to disco's rich history as ..... "LOVIN" IS REALLY MY GAME " and I'm sure glad they had their day too.

:D




****

[markydefad]

I love the early 80s synth-stuff...it went wrong in the late 80s when it became:

HOUSE MUSIC--ALL NIGHT LONG

BASICALLY THE SAME SONG--ALL NIGHT LONG.....

My thought:

Geez the drugs must be great nowadays to dance to this same old **** all night long. :o :evil: :roll:

But even the house is better than the Trance now.

[QUINNY]

I totally disagree with the claim that mixing led to a decline in music. The standard in music making is the one & only factor. (1)

Surely back in the day, you had producers, singers & musicians laying down the tracks for the love of the music, however in todays' world of the fast buck/pound, it's the money which counts - getting that hit record, regadless of the quality. (2)



It's true to say though, the "type" of music being played in the straight clubs WAS more varied and therefore more difficult to beat mix. Different tempos would obviously make life more difficult for the DJ, but then as someone else has said - it's down to the skill of the individual. (3)

The "real" music will never appear in the Top 100 and I thank god for that. (4)

1) You've really missed the point. It was mixing that lead to records being made specifically to make life for DJs easier. Records with solid beat laden intros and multiple breaks were demanded by the mixing DJs. It was this demand by them which lead to records becoming more and more homogenised. Hence my thesis.

2). Musicians, producers and record companies have always made records in order to make money. If you're a pro musician why else would you bother, unless you were already rich beyond belief?

3) There is a point at which all the skill in the world wouldn't allow you to mix 2 totally different records together. The skill surely lay in the ability to get from one genre to another through a gradual change involving maybe half a dozen records, with each successive one bringing a slightly different feel, whilst helping to either up or down the temo to eventaully match the target record.

4) What a load of bollocks!! :roll: :roll: :roll: In popular music, musicians write songs and make records for a few very basic reasons. They want to be rich and famous. i.e. They want to make hits!!!!!

[NickNack]

Viteritti refused to play any track twice in a night. Pretty pompous eh?

I haven't read your post yet (looks interesting) but to this --- pompous? --- not really. Whether I was working the 7-hour shift at the 'Rabbit' or the 'endless night' at the Anvil, songs were played once. Didn't seem to bother anyone and I can remember only two occasions in all those years where someone asked me to play something I'd already used. Things were a little different for us over here: 70+ product a week from the records pools, promos handed out by the companies you visited, a small fortune spent on imports. We had quite a lot to choose from. Repeating wasn't necessary by the dj's or wanted on the dancefloor.

[markydefad]

I agree with Nicky. It was standard practice to play hit tracks ONCE in the course of an evening of dancing--at least in the discos of San Francisco. I can't speak for other cities.

And, you couldn't "request" anything at Trocadero. There were people hired to keep "requesters" out of the DJ booth. It was the realm of the DJ--he chose the music--you danced or didn't depending on on your reactions to his choices.

I think other cities may have had a more egalitarian "tell the DJ what to play" vibe. Maybe? Just guessin'.

At Troc, it was like the old line in the Smith-Barney commercials, where John Houseman imperiously sneered....The DJ "EARNED IT"--i.e., the right to play what he wanted. We were happy to follow his lead. If ya didn't dig it, you could leave.

[originalbigm]

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.

And if maybe some of these bar owners had hired half decent bands that could play music we could dance to and didn't take half hour breaks every 45 minutes we might not be having this discussion.However I doubt it.

Initially, mixing was inspired to keep bodies on the dance floor--to eliminate "the space between" 2 records when people wandered off the dancefloor. This was Tom Moulton's idea--to keep them dancing; inspired by watching dancers in Fire Island clubs. It worked brilliantly for many years--but has subsequently devolved into rote by-the-numbers technical proficiency now--something almost anyone can do--cause all the records are recorded to use the same bpms, the same instrumentation, the same everything.

Precisely this was the original root purpose of mixing.I recall many a time going out to a club with a great DJ and dancing up a storm and cursing the DJ because he had kept me up on the floor and not allowed me to sit down because even though I knew the transition was coming it was flawless and another great choice of song and I just had to stay on the floor.The only people that were bored were the prowlers and posers who weren't getting any action.

Whether I was working the 7-hour shift at the 'Rabbit' or the 'endless night' at the Anvil, songs were played once. Didn't seem to bother anyone and I can remember only two occasions in all those years where someone asked me to play something I'd already used. Things were a little different for us over here: 70+ product a week from the records pools, promos handed out by the companies you visited, a small fortune spent on imports. We had quite a lot to choose from. Repeating wasn't necessary by the dj's or wanted on the dancefloor.

Absolutely

And, you couldn't "request" anything at Trocadero. There were people hired to keep "requesters" out of the DJ booth. It was the realm of the DJ--he chose the music--you danced or didn't depending on on your reactions to his choices.

This was the case in many of the better clubs in Toronto.I myself was a little more compromising I would allow requests only if I hadn't already played it or I could slot it in at some time of the evening at my leisure provided the first condition had been met. And if I didn't Dem's Da Breaks

This thread once again represents how different the understanding of the disco experience of the 70's and it's nuances were between North America and Europe.

[Mixmachine]

Viteritti refused to play any track twice in a night. Pretty pompous eh?

Just about every DJ I ever knew always tried to avoid playing tracks twice in a night, only in certain venues like Private clubs (or Parties) with up scale clientele spending big $$$ would you do this, and usually after a healthy tip and a couple of hour later at least, with all the good material available there was no need, many times I reminded insisting a-holes that when one visits a club you go there to “listen” and enjoy what is offered not to dictate what you want to hear, (go someplace else :evil: ) you don’t visit a fine French Restaurant and demand the cook prepares Pizza for you, right?

Anyways, in most larger clubs the DJ most likely was unreachable to the public and only Dance floor reaction and where the DJ wanted to “go” dictated what was spun (Like it should be), one moron that just got through dance lessons while listening to Disco Duck or that just discovered Donna Summers last night was not worth ruining the programming (for everyone else) that is designed to keep the crowds dancing until the ultimate peak hours of the night usually happening near closing.(sending folks home with that feeling of “MORE” and ready to come back the next day or week for an encore :P ).

In other “smaller” clubs musically ‘mixed’ and BPM ascending DJ sets lasting a couple of hours was the more sensible approach (for a DJ), with even maybe a couple slow ballads in between sets to ‘clear’ the floor and send them to the bar to consume liquor while at the same time giving the more “conservative” couples a chance to get off the couch and enjoy a few dancing moments for a while, here in Miami a couple of Salsa hit numbers could also be part of this change of pace, but for the most part playing the same song, especially when you know the same crowd is listening was considered “lazy” and only boring top 40 Djs working ‘square’ bars did this.

Now as far as DJs and “Mixing” ruining the music ?, I’d say, rubbish, I’ll bet nobody saw it coming (I know I didn’t) but what ruined music was the “Digital age” where any musically untalented wiz kid with a PC, software and beat box working from his bedroom is able to create lame “Music” and sell it to his kind while at the same time displacing and discarding legitimate musicians that now can't find any support (by Labels) that will afford them the opportunity to blossom and reach the level of talent needed to make good music.
Digital technology has made it possible for “Mediocrity” to prevail at the expense of true musical talent, with few exceptions this is clearly evident today all around the music world. But that Jinnie is long out of the bottle...
:(

[QUINNY]

Some of you guys are in denial. :-?

Just think why there is a demand for this 'rubbish' that gets put out today and why it all sounds the same. Disco and especially mixing has a lot to answer for. Without it, popular music culture might have been soooo different.

So you had 70 records a week, plus imports etc and so no need to duplicate the playing of a track. They were all brilliant were they? The main reason I never bothered to get onto the promo lists was precisely because too many of the freebies were absolute garbage and I couldn't be doing with playing crap. Quality NOT quantity, eh? Also, what sense of ownership did you have and what sense of committment to a track, if it was one of 70 freebies you just happened to receive that week? This sorta reinforces my theory that it was the Disco era that first saw records/music regarded by many as a commodity, doesn't it? Before Disco, only radio station jocks received freebies in any quantity and radio stations were relatively few and far between by comparison, although maybe not quite so marked a difference in the US.

I have to say that I hated being put upon by punters to play a request for a record I'd already played, very much had the attitude that I was in control (maybe with a small 'c') and tried to play as many of the new records as I could, but to absolutely refuse to play a record twice in an evening is to my English sensibilities rather pompous.

[marmite7]

"What a load of bollocks!! In popular music, musicians write songs and make records for a few very basic reasons. They want to be rich and famous. i.e. They want to make hits!!!!!"

THat's ALL musicians is it Quinney?

All those musicians signed up to small individual labels?

All those musicians making underground dance tunes - with absolutely no chance of making the charts?


"Some of you guys are in denial."

And only your opinion is the correct one?


"Just think why there is a demand for this 'rubbish' that gets put out today and why it all sounds the same."

Strange how the "rubbish" is what sells though! The general record buying public have never been fickle - which is why in this country Steps, S Club 7, Mr Blobby & Renee & Renata can get to #1.


And as for missing the point? I don't think so - mixing, as had already been said, was to improve the "flow" on the dance floor. And it matters not one jolt, whether the DJ plays 100 records of the same tempo OR 100 records from different genres, styles or with differing tempo, it's still down to the individual listener to decide whether the quality of the record is to their liking or not.

Simplistic? Yes.

All mixing has done has increased the melting pot of choice. The quality remains the same - some good - some bad - and some somewhere in the middle.

S'easy innit

[Paulo]

Markydefad wrote:
It all fell apart once the REMIXERS got total control of "de-constructing" records.... They eliminated all the hooks... and isolated one or two vocal phrases , if we were lucky, and played a relentless synth riff over a relentless beat and called it a REMIX. DJs are not necessarily musicians--they are knob twirling technicians--hence The "MUSIC" disappeared.

That's the most accurate thing written in this thread.

In the 70's and early to mid 80's, remixes were done out of original elements recorded by the musicians/producers involved.

From the 90's onwards, this DJ CULT erased the figure of the producers / musicians.

DJs called their versions "REMIXES", but they destroy the original song to a point that it becomes unrecognisable. In fact, in most cases, so much sterile post-production is added, and much of the original is subtracted, that the song becomes something else. It should not be called a REMIX of the original song.

The moment DJs became more important than PRODUCERS/MUSICIANS it all fell apart, in music made for nightclubs.

[QUINNY]

Marmite: After 35 years of being connected to music in a professional guise, yes, I'd say that all musicians that were making records did so to make money. The only way they could make that money was by selling oodles of records. If they struggled it wasn't through choice!! The one great thing about the music business is that you never know what might just happen to be a big hit. That's what spurs on so many musicians. The possibility of becoming rich and famous, because thousands/hundreds of thousands of people suddenly get turned on by what you've done.

Therefore, it wouldn't have been obvious at the time of recording which records would become popular and which ones would remain 'underground'. Every musician would have made a record with the overall aim of making money out of it.....and as much money as possible, because Disco music had no real pretentions of being anything other than popular music for popular consumption. As a DJ, I and every other jock would have played records in the hope that lots of people would appreciate them. We didn't go out of our way to play sounds that were totally underground without a hope of ever becoming accepted and/or popular. Therefore your assertion that the 'real' music never made the charts is a load of baloney.

Betcha your one of those guys who likes records for their rarity value more than any musical considerations, eh?

Paulo/Marky: Records only began to be re/deconstructed when the Disco Mix was invented. There are many instances of LP tracks that sounded completely different in their Disco Mix form, from very early on in the Disco era.

[Mixmachine]

Some of you guys are in denial. :-?

Just think why there is a demand for this 'rubbish' that gets put out today and why it all sounds the same. Disco and especially mixing has a lot to answer for. Without it, popular music culture might have been soooo different.

I thought you were an anti-capitalist, and therefore is perplexing why you wouldn't understand why there is demand for "rubbish" in the music world or any where else, "Demand" is fabricated (through promotion, ads and hype)to sell products, if the only product in existence is rubbish, well, that's what the "Fabrication" has to sell until something better comes along. Just a simple fact of economics.

Records only began to be re/deconstructed when the Disco Mix was invented. There are many instances of LP tracks that sounded completely different in their Disco Mix form, from very early on in the Disco era.

The Disco mix was nothing else but the natural progression of the "Studio" mix that has existed almost since the beginning of the modern 'recording ' industry, producers, studio remixers and engineers are the inventors of the mix, for instance just about every 7" ever released to the Pop market is a reconstruction a re-edit or a remix of the original recording and producers many times "Shopped around" different mixes to radio and industry personalities until they settle on a particular final mix, (they did the same in the Discos era) this different versions were produced in the Studio by the original creators and producers to better the chances of getting a hit, Disco DJs (because of their dance floor expertise) only expanded on this concept which has been taken to bizarre heights with the introduction of Digital equipment..

So you had 70 records a week, plus imports etc and so no need to duplicate the playing of a track. They were all brilliant were they? The main reason I never bothered to get onto the promo lists was precisely because too many of the freebies were absolute garbage and I couldn't be doing with playing crap. Quality NOT quantity, eh?

Obviously your local Record Pool was not up to par, just about every record worth playing was distributed through the pools here, and yes, lots of garbage was released also, but I've discovered by hanging out here that many I thought of as "Garbage" in my neck of the woods are coveted by fans in other regions (of US) and countries, so go figure, one thing I'll agree, lots of "Imports" were nothing but repetitive cookie cutter garbage, especially many coming from your shores. :lol: :lol: :lol: