Did Disco Kill the Art of DJing?

[QUINNY]

I just know you're gonna love this topic, if you can get your heads past your initial reactions. Personally, I'm still on the fence over this as I have strong conflicting thoughts about the subject.

Someone reprimanded me on another thread for suggesting that I was wrong to feel guilty about my efforts at mixing paving the way for what passes for Djing today (and the music associated with that). In all our discussions about the Disco Sucks campaign, no one has said that it was also the product of DJs themselves, who'd seen Disco as the ruination of them and their art. Before Disco, radio (and certainly discotheques in the UK) was largely about personality; during disco (in the U.S.) it was about non-stop music "which could have been put together by robots". The personality jock would have looked down his nose at the guys who could mix records but sounded like dorks if they opened their mouths. I tune into quite a few radio programmes that feature 'dance music' and almost without exception, the DJs sound awful once they try to present. They mix like dreams, but do they communicate effectively by just doing that? In a club probably, on radio, I don't think so.
The culmination of this is today's radio with its limited playlists and computerized output. It's obvious to me that Disco was the music that sparked this off, because it was the first music to really take musical elements and precisely tailor them for a market. Moreover, this market was very interactive with the people producing the product, so that records were made that could almost have been solely for the needs of DJs in one particular city (New York, Los Angeles, London take a bow). The serious beginnings of market targeting and today's proliferation of target marketing and all that it implies? If you feel today's product has an element of dumbing down attached to it, then surely Disco must take some of the blame. I'm not getting particularly heavy with Disco, just facing what I see as an inevitable truth. It was Disco after all, that introduced heavy, metronomic 4/4 beats and interchangeable mix and match tunes to the world. Before it, this didn't exist.

So what do you think?

[rjosk]

well well, the first thing that you got wrong is that Djing wasn´t an art till disco came along, disco (and early hiphop) created the art of DJing. I, myself, would much rather listen to a stupid sounding Dj that plays great music than a smart funny one that plays S Club 7. The bigtime record industry has made the radio boring, not disco.

disco killing the art of djing?? you must be joking, would you like to go to a club where the dj talks for five minutes between songs??? disco didn´t kill the art of djing it expanded and improved it...

[vodkatonique]

I thought that those were 2 different jobs : DJs mixed and MC's grabbed the mic. It would be difficult for anyone of my generation (I'm 27) to actually understand what you're talking about since I've NEVER heard a deejay talk during a set. Right now, a deejay is not supposed to have a personality. He's supposed to have a musical & mixing style that's recognizable and hopefully creates a following, but he must remain invisible. I would gawk at a deejay trying to fire up the night with something else than his music. This is how my generation was educated. I don't think disco killed the dj art. It only helped to refocus it on the mixing ability, which should be the point.

[PaulC]

...

[NickNack]

I just know you're gonna love this topic, if you can get your heads past your initial reactions.

As you can see, we're not :roll: .

Personally, I'm still on the fence over this as I have strong conflicting thoughts about the subject.

This, and others...

Someone reprimanded me on another thread for suggesting that I was wrong to feel guilty about my efforts at mixing paving the way for what passes for Djing today (and the music associated with that).

As well he/she should have.

In all our discussions about the Disco Sucks campaign, no one has said that it was also the product of DJs themselves, who'd seen Disco as the ruination of them and their art.

Radio DJ's, I assume you're referring to, and other than the gift of gab with a crisp, smooth voice, the "art" you speak of is lost on me.

Before Disco, radio (and certainly discotheques in the UK) was largely about personality; during disco (in the U.S.) it was about non-stop music

The fact that radio DJ's could radiate a personality (not necessarily their own) across an airwave was not enough to make listeners tune in. It helped, but if the music sucked, personality or no, that station was hurting. If, as you say, people in the UK went to clubs to see a personality as opposed to hearing good music, well, so be it. In the US, people enjoyed clubs because it got them AWAY from the radio. Some people went to clubs because they wanted to hear what WASN'T on the radio. Other's wanted their radio music WITHOUT the talk. Ruination of an art? More like a simple change in venue and format.

"which could have been put together by robots".

And whose quote is this?

The personality jock would have looked down his nose at the guys who could mix records but sounded like dorks if they opened their mouths.

The only thing I remember radio DJ's getting bent out of shape about was the music industry's initial confusion as to whom should get their promotional product. Radio jocks weren't worried about their art, they were concerned for their jobs (and that possible loss of 'kick-back') as it appeared club jocks could promote new music more effectively.

I tune into quite a few radio programmes that feature 'dance music' and almost without exception, the DJs sound awful once they try to present. They mix like dreams, but do they communicate effectively by just doing that? In a club probably, on radio, I don't think so.

I don't know how it's done today but a DJ's club mixes used to be presented by the resident "personality", if you will. Yeah, the club jock was in the booth but the show was not his, per se. Even playing 'non-stop' music on the air, the station still needed someone to air those plugs and push those call letters. That was the radio guy, not the club man. If toes were being stepped on I didn't see it happening in the beginning. That might be because I never aspired to be a radio DJ, as probably some others have.

The culmination of this is today's radio with its limited playlists and computerized output. It's obvious to me that Disco was the music that sparked this off, because it was the first music to really take musical elements and precisely tailor them for a market. Moreover, this market was very interactive with the people producing the product, so that records were made that could almost have been solely for the needs of DJs in one particular city (New York, Los Angeles, London take a bow). The serious beginnings of market targeting and today's proliferation of target marketing and all that it implies? If you feel today's product has an element of dumbing down attached to it, then surely Disco must take some of the blame. I'm not getting particularly heavy with Disco, just facing what I see as an inevitable truth. It was Disco after all, that introduced heavy, metronomic 4/4 beats and interchangeable mix and match tunes to the world. Before it, this didn't exist.

Even trying to thin this narrative down I can't make the leap you're making. Disco is the blame for today's crap radio? Four/four beats and mixing caused the loss of an art form through target marketing? "Car 54 where are you?" :P Radio is crap because a few conglomerates want it that way. If a "personality" can't keep his personality shining by playing mixed 4/4 then he shouldn't play the music that wasn't targeted for his audience. That's why god made 'radio edits' :) .

So what do you think?

I think your "bait and trap" didn't work because nobody's buying. No, Matilda, we are NOT loving this topic :D .

[originalbigm]

I understand where Quinny is coming from as I travelled to England twice in the 70's (73 and 78).And I noticed that in the club DJ's talked a lot between songs.Mixing and non-stop music was not the art form that it was here in North America where quite often if a DJ yapped too much he was told in no uncertain terms to shut the f*** up as we were here to dance and not to listen.I always admired the DJ who could flawlessly transform the music mix and floor vibe from funk to high energy and other genres.I know that these individuals gained popularity points on this ability alone.If you stopped dancing it was because you needed a rest or a drink and not that you hated the song or the mix had disrupted the flow.

[DISCODISK]

If, as you say, people in the UK went to clubs to see a personality as opposed to hearing good music, well, so be it. .

NO NO NICKY PLEASE TRUST AND BELIEVE ME WE 'DIDNT'

[PaulC]

...

[Outsider]

I always thought that disco helped the art of DJing. Yeah, I don't know **** about being a DJ, but that's the conclusion I came to. :evil:

[QUINNY]

NickNack: No bait, no trap. Just something to get you thinking a little. I can see I've touched on a sacred cow with this topic.
O.K music content is very important to the likes of us on this board, but I doubt if it's the be all and end all to one helluva lot of people.
The link between disco and today's wallpaper is tenable if you consider that non stop (mixed) music (especially 4/4 with little rhythmic or musical variation) can be automated. It can also be made by machines, by non musicians. A Jock who plays decent music and brings a smile to your face cannot (yet) be automated and could be the only spontaneous link in the radio chain. Therefore which should have the most kudos?
I don't think any of you have really thought about this.

Believe me, most discos in the U.K. in the early seventies up to the early eighties did have a jock that talked and had to have some personality. This doesn't mean that they had verbal diarrhoea. I was an exception to the rule in that I mixed and talked much less.

Consider also that disco was largely about deconstruction of music. Disco remixes generally brought the beat to the fore and stripped away anything deemed unecessary. Today's dance music (with exactly matching rhythm patterns, bpm's, identikit sounds etc) is in effect this process taken to the very limit, the conclusion.

[markydefad]

I never heard a DJ talk between records in a club. You mean, like Wolfman Jack yakking on the radio between songs???? That sounds nasty.

Or am I misunderstanding?

I think that being a DJ in the disco era required much more patience & skill to seamlessly blend the disparate records they did. I noticed sometime in the 1980's that even I could make everything flow perfectly in the mix cause everything was the same bpm, the same instrumentation, the same, the same, the same. Just cue the record, catch the beat and swipe the fader--hey, I'm Junior Vasquez!!! :P

Well, at least, Danny (Gag Me With A Tune) Tenaglia!!! Except I played GOOD records!!!! With lyrics!!!! Not just a phrase repeated ad nauseum!!!! :P :roll: :P :roll: :roll: :roll: :P :roll: :P :roll:

[PaulC]

...

[paul]

You do know how to lob those grenades Quinny :lol:
I really couldn't disagree with you more. In a way, I believe you are insulting the very DJs you are standing up for. Yeah, I didn't drop $10 to hear DJ Ego yack in my hear. I did appreciate however his/her ability to be creative in the mix. This is something that is very individual and I sense you ignore. When you say disco deconstructed music, you are really spotlighting one aspect of the way the music is played in the clubs or the way the music was recorded. Sure, during breaks the DJ or recording engineer may extend the beat or the DJ may also mix in another song but that's ignoring the rest of the song on vinyl or the DJ who would let a song play out. I've heard many DJs, presumably on songs they like play it all the way as well as mix and scratch them. Even on less favored songs you heard at least most of it. Believe me, if people, esp. the women heard the music diced and sliced so you only got a minute of each song nonstop, the floor would be empty.
That just wasn't part of the culture back then, at least not at the discos I attended. I also don't buy into the misleading assertion about "Disco remixes generally brought the beat to the fore and stripped away anything deemed unnecessary." Perhaps you need to listen to these records again. For the most part, many of these remixes
contained a lot of syncopated rhythms. Today's music in my view suffer from a lack of musicians and a bottom line
accounting recording industry who I sense discourage risk taking so virtually every pop song sounds the same.
What I've heard radio DJs complain about today are the Clear Channels who survey an audience and have their stations program the top 40 responses for the airplay.

[NickNack]

NickNack: No bait, no trap. Just something to get you thinking a little. I can see I've touched on a sacred cow with this topic.

Well, I'm glad to see you were serious and not just hoping we'd all start screaming your way again. I was beginning to think you were showing a little S&M trait.

The link between disco and today's wallpaper is tenable if you consider that non stop (mixed) music (especially 4/4 with little rhythmic or musical variation) can be automated. It can also be made by machines, by non musicians.

Yes, but all that automation doesn't have to be monotonous. Giorgio, Cowley and the few others inspirational in this 'mechanical' field had one very important gift today's beat-heathens lack: They could write a MELODY. However, what this has to do with the 'art' of the radio jock escapes me.

A Jock who plays decent music and brings a smile to your face cannot (yet) be automated and could be the only spontaneous link in the radio chain. Therefore which should have the most kudos?

Why do you attribute this talent to the radio? When I first starting seeing DJ's in clubs and especially when I realized I wanted to be one, the radio was the last thing on my mind. It never even occurred to me to relate the two. That would happen only when I told someone I was a DJ and they would ask, "Oh, what station do you work at?" Club DJ'ing was so new it wasn't even considered a 'real' job. These guys were doing something totally wild and different and yes, frightening, as I found my first time up in the booth. As for who shoud get the kudos? Well, when I'm bored with the radio I change the station. If I just laid down hard-earned money to hang out for a few hours, I'm not walking out the door that fast. So, who has the harder job in keeping me entertained? Me and hundreds of others staring that stranger dead in the face, waiting, daring him or her to show us the goods? Art? Talent? I think it's behind the club booth, not in the anonymous, safe studio room.

I don't think any of you have really thought about this.

I know I haven't because I can't really identify your argument. You've taken me from an 'art form' (and I don't agree that it is one, "it" being radio DJ'ing) to the doldrums of today's music --- all of it the fault of disco. Talk about :-? ? A modulated voice and a slick style doesn't make art. Ask any 6 PM news anchor in this country. Close your eyes and 95% of the women sound the same. Why? Because they are taught how to speak in a certain manner and tone to get the listeners attention.

Believe me, most discos in the U.K. in the early seventies up to the early eighties did have a jock that talked and had to have some personality. This doesn't mean that they had verbal diarrhoea. I was an exception to the rule in that I mixed and talked much less.

I will always find the need for talk strange in a club environment even though I've seen it work both ways. If the DJ is forced to also be an MC, that I can understand. But, other than saying "Last Call" or announcing those drag queens I kept my big mouth shut! :D

Consider also that disco was largely about deconstruction of music. Disco remixes generally brought the beat to the fore and stripped away anything deemed unecessary.

Other than bringing the beat to the fore, I disagree totally. Not in its early days. Deconstruction is what's happening now, not then. Original music is forsaken today so the remixer can tear it apart and put it back together under his vision. It used to be about enhancement, making the original piece stronger for club play. That could mean anything from a simple extension (remember all those part 1's and 2's :lol: ) to a full blown workout with additional tracks. The best example I can think of right now is Evelyn King's lp version of "I Don't Know If It's Right" vs. the 12". The original is still there but boy does it work 200% better with the remix.

Today's dance music (with exactly matching rhythm patterns, bpm's, identikit sounds etc) is in effect this process taken to the very limit, the conclusion.

Yes, a very boring conclusion. And yet again, what this has to do with the 'art' of the radio jock alludes me. Maybe they could get their art form back if the rebelled and starting playing good music. Whaddya think, Clear Channel? :evil:

[QUINNY]

Oh to be different, to be a free thinker.

I've got to say that some of the responses to this thread have been a little saddening, but enlightening.
I guess it does take a leap of faith to come to the conclusions I've come to on this subject, but at least I've been willing to share my thoughts with you on this and hopefully get the grey matter working. It's a shame that you've almost all twisted my words to mean what you want them to mean, but hey, I'm guilty of this too at times. None the less, you must know that I'd stick to my take on this, although I would be willing to concede some points. You obviously think that mixing has been the best thing to happen to disco music. I once thought the same, but now I'm not so sure. Perhaps I'm yearning for some dance music that couldn't be easily mixed or maybe Jazz has taught me a thing or two about music that I didn't realize when I was mixing records.
Marky's assertion that even he could mix records flawlessly by the early - mid '80's was possibly the most telling reply. He wouldn't call himself a DJ, but he reckons he could make a better job of it than Danny Tenaglia. Hopeless ego, or something near the truth?
At least one person could see where my argument was coming from?

Thanks NickNack and Paul for your input, perhaps if we ever met in a bar and had a few hours we'd get to appreciate each others views.

[NickNack]

Oh to be different, to be a free thinker.

I've got to say that some of the responses to this thread have been a little saddening, but enlightening.
I guess it does take a leap of faith to come to the conclusions I've come to on this subject, but at least I've been willing to share my thoughts with you on this and hopefully get the grey matter working. It's a shame that you've almost all twisted my words to mean what you want them to mean, but hey, I'm guilty of this too at times.

I was really hoping you wouldn't take this tact this time around, Quinny. Discussions with you seem to always end the same, and that's not anger talking, just an observation. If you go back through your threads, we all seem to always twist your words. Anyhow, if I say I'm confused or lost on your argument, couldn't you make an attempt to state it differently?

None the less, you must know that I'd stick to my take on this, although I would be willing to concede some points. You obviously think that mixing has been the best thing to happen to disco music. I once thought the same, but now I'm not so sure.

So I'm getting a feeling that what you've been saying and I've been missing is that MIXING killed the art of DJ'ing, not DISCO. Am I getting any closer? :-?

Marky's assertion that even he could mix records flawlessly by the early - mid '80's was possibly the most telling reply. He wouldn't call himself a DJ, but he reckons he could make a better job of it than Danny Tenaglia. Hopeless ego, or something near the truth?

I caught Marky's statement and I knew exactly where he was coming from because my lover said the same thing to me. I guess being a musician, he picked up on the technical side of mixing very quickly and found it easy. The truth came to light one night when he said he could cover for me while I went back home to get some records I had to have for the night and had forgotten. It was early and the crowd was light so I let him go for it. When I got back a little more than an hour later he was stammering to get the hell out of the booth. "How do you do this all night?" and "I couldn't do this for 8 or 10 hours!" My point: Matching beats isn't everything. The guy behind the booth has to have something going on inside his head to make a night work for the people he's playing for. Otherwise, he's nothing but a robot. Talent and art? I guess so, for the CLUB jock, not the radio guy.

At least one person could see where my argument was coming from?

I hope Marky responds again because if he's never played a full night (and I'm pretty sure he hasn't) then I don't think he proved your point at all. Stringing a few songs together does not a DJ make --- and Marky agreed. Nor should it make this art form any less worthy if you can do it.

(You know, everytime I write something like my last sentence I keep going back to the radio jock who doesn't string them together and it throws me off. Maybe I'm fixated :o and it's confusing me. The DJ art form you're referring to --- is it Radio DJ, Club DJ, ANY DJ? Help me, Quinny. :) )

Thanks NickNack and Paul for your input, perhaps if we ever met in a bar and had a few hours we'd get to appreciate each others views.

Ah, now that would be nice. Think I'm confused now? Wait til I put away three or four Scotch-on-the-rocks. :D :( 8) :-? :cry: :lol: --- That's me!!

[BrunoRepublic]

Oh to be different, to be a free thinker.

You are only "different" in your own mind, Q. You've proven that over and over again. You have your own opinions, as does everyone -- but the "difference" is that you can't seem to grasp how or why anyone's would differ from yours. Your discussion regarding the "morning music" scene is a good example: okay, it was very different from what you experienced, and would not have worked where you were -- but then you take that attitude and dispute that it could have happened anywhere at all. On another note, I don't doubt your claims that Eurodisco was not taken seriously in your circles. But I also don't dispute others who say it was all the rage where they were. Different people experienced different things... or even experienced the same things differently.

You are obviously very set in your ways -- which BTW, I don't really consider a character flaw; most people over 30 are (including myself) and get more so with age -- but it's laughable when you accuse others of thinking 'strictly in black and white terms' or of not thinking freely. Pot, kettle, black...

[markydefad]

Geez, after all these years here...I would figure that most of you would realize my "comments" are usually facetious (exaggerated tongue-in-cheek hyperbole!!!!)

I was never a DJ in any club. I've made lotsa tapes in my living room. By the late 1980's, it was much easier to mix things because of the sameness of the instrumentation.

That's all I'm saying. :roll:

[NickNack]

You are only "different" in your own mind, Q. You've proven that over and over again. You have your own opinions, as does everyone -- but the "difference" is that you can't seem to grasp how or why anyone's would differ from yours. Your discussion regarding the "morning music" scene is a good example: okay, it was very different from what you experienced, and would not have worked where you were -- but then you take that attitude and dispute that it could have happened anywhere at all. On another note, I don't doubt your claims that Eurodisco was not taken seriously in your circles. But I also don't dispute others who say it was all the rage where they were. Different people experienced different things... or even experienced the same things differently.

You are obviously very set in your ways -- which BTW, I don't really consider a character flaw; most people over 30 are (including myself) and get more so with age -- but it's laughable when you accuse others of thinking 'strictly in black and white terms' or of not thinking freely. Pot, kettle, black...

Succint, to the point, and I'm sure some think "spot on" :) ! I've got to learn this writing style. Thanks for bringing a smile to my face in this thread.

[paul]

Geez, after all these years here...I would figure that most of you would realize my "comments" are usually facetious (exaggerated tongue-in-cheek hyperbole!!!!)

I was never a DJ in any club. I've made lotsa tapes in my living room. By the late 1980's, it was much easier to mix things because of the sameness of the instrumentation.

That's all I'm saying. :roll:

Marky...are you beating up house music agaaaain

[markydefad]

Yeah Paul....



"House music all night long" = Same Song All Night Long.

Oh, oh....here we go again!!! :roll:

[vodkatonique]

It's a tired debate. You can say this of every music you don't like or understand, whether it's goth, r'n b, rap or techno. When you love house music, I can guarantee you you're not hearing the same song all night long. You'll hear tribal, you'll hear cut'n paste, you'll hear old skool garage, you'll hear overground, you'll hear deep house, and on and on... You'll dance to those syncopated Clamaran filtered loops, then mellow to some vocal Masters At Work and smile all the way thru those cheeky epileptic Mike 303 samples. Believe it or not, for house lovers Robbie Rivera is different than Kid Creme the same way Costandinos is different than Cerrone for a disco addict. Strangely I don't think anything could make you change your mind, though. Just a hunch. 8)

[paul]

Easy Vodka :D
Perhaps you weren't here when Marky, I and others discussed this. It was generally in a light hearted manner. We are just having a little tongue & cheek fun when we mention House music.

[Greg Wilson]

As somebody who started off using the microphone, as we all did in this country during the 70's (the personality thing being all important back then),but switched to mixing (and was regarded as a pioneer of mixing in a UK context), I thought I'd add my tuppence worth..

Sorry if this puts the cat amongst the pigeons, but there was a really interesting article in Jockey Slut last month, titled 'Can't Mix, Won't Mix', which begins; 'Technical proficiency has never been less cool. These days, laudably, it's all about the music rather than the DJ's dexterity'. It's basic premise is that perfection in mixing has become increasingly bland as many DJ's choose their tracks because they blend in, rather than because they're great tracks.

One of my main critisisms of the club scene in the UK during the 90's was that DJ's increasingly specialised in narrower and narrower areas of House music. Back when I used to DJ the tempo of the tracks we played in the clubs varied from downbeat to uptempo, and all sorts of different styles were featured within the same night. Being a DJ in the 90's, and having to stick to one small section of dance music would have driven me mad (as a black music specialist I played the best of the available Electro-Funk, Funk, Soul, Disco and even Jazz, up to the point I stopped).

I was as vocal as anyone in support of mixing when it began to take off in UK clubs, but I thought it had all gone a bit up its arse when I heard DJ's talking about doing 'sets'. As far as I was concerned it was bands that did sets, not DJ's. The emphasis on how technically good the DJ was went way to far, with many DJ's practising their 'sets' at home, knowing exactly what they were going to play (in what order and where they were going to mix from one record to the next) at their next gig. All very clever but a world apart from my belief that you can only really know what you're going to play next by weighing up the audience in front of you. To all intents and purposes some DJ's may as well have played a tape, it was all so ultra-rehearsed that there was no room for such a thing as spontaneity.

It puts me in mind of a 'DJ' I saw in my hometown when I was just starting out (before 12" singles!). He had a stack of 7" singles piled up all out of their covers (in those days we carried our 7" in wooden crates). Anyway, I was really curious and asked him why his records were stacked that way and he replied, almost proudly, 'this is the order in which I'm going to play them'. Even then, at 15 years old, I knew that this was madness. The club hadn't even opened yet he knew the precise order of the records he was playing!

With regards to Quinny's propersition. For me it is, and always has been, about the quality of the music played, rather than the technical brilliance of a DJ who might be playing so-so tunes. The best DJ's to my mind are obviously the ones who are both technically gifted and play great music. My own feeling is that many DJ's now don't have the programming skills of the guys from way back. Nowadays we have a long-standing dance culture and people will stay on the floor all night, whereas back then if a DJ played the wrong tune he'd be staring at an empty dancefloor. Things just need a bit of a shake-up (but God forbid Quinny, we don't want to be going back to the old days of the personality jock!).

Oh, and Disco undoubtedly enhanced the role of the DJ, without it none of us would be here on this site bothering to argue the point in the first place. In fact there wouldn't even be a site!

If you really believe you're making a valid point here Quinny, why do you waste your time contributing to something as trivial as a Disco site? Surely you should be debating with more serious heads in some Jazz forum or other!

[NickNack]

Hey, hey --- I think I've got it, thanks to Greg and unless Quinny disagrees. So, because a lot of today's music is just 4/4 boring with no great skill required to put it or run them together, the "art" of the DJ is suffering. Quinny, why couldn't you just tell me that? :D

Sorry if this puts the cat amongst the pigeons, but there was a really interesting article in Jockey Slut last month, titled 'Can't Mix, Won't Mix', which begins; 'Technical proficiency has never been less cool. These days, laudably, it's all about the music rather than the DJ's dexterity'.

I hope I didn't give the impression I felt otherwise. It should always be about the music. The mixing skills are secondary.

It's basic premise is that perfection in mixing has become increasingly bland as many DJ's choose their tracks because they blend in, rather than because they're great tracks.

Definitely not the way to go.

Back when I used to DJ the tempo of the tracks we played in the clubs varied from downbeat to uptempo, and all sorts of different styles were featured within the same night.

Amen!

I was as vocal as anyone in support of mixing when it began to take off in UK clubs, but I thought it had all gone a bit up its arse when I heard DJ's talking about doing 'sets'. As far as I was concerned it was bands that did sets, not DJ's. The emphasis on how technically good the DJ was went way to far, with many DJ's practising their 'sets' at home, knowing exactly what they were going to play (in what order and where they were going to mix from one record to the next) at their next gig. All very clever but a world apart from my belief that you can only really know what you're going to play next by weighing up the audience in front of you. To all intents and purposes some DJ's may as well have played a tape, it was all so ultra-rehearsed that there was no room for such a thing as spontaneity.

I've seen this in action and I've seen it fail, miserably. A DJ planning a set might as well enlist the help of Madam Chloe since he's already deluded himself that the set is going to be nothing but flawless. At one time we were auditionig DJ's for the Anvil. One guy came in with his records, promptly pulled out a 'playlist' and grandly set it between the turntables. From his first record people stopped dancing and stayed off the floor for almost an hour. He didn't care, or didn't notice. When the list was finished, he started it over because he didn't know what else to pull. Do I have to say he wasn't hired. The manager agreed with you, Greg: "I already have a tape deck. Why do I need him?"

With regards to Quinny's propersition. For me it is, and always has been, about the quality of the music played, rather than the technical brilliance of a DJ who might be playing so-so tunes. The best DJ's to my mind are obviously the ones who are both technically gifted and play great music. My own feeling is that many DJ's now don't have the programming skills of the guys from way back.

I think many here agree with you. As demanding as the New York crowds were, a good DJ was always forgiven if a mix 'missed' technically but the music was the right choice. As for a lot of jocks today, just try and ask them to mix something with live musicians. They freak!

If you really believe you're making a valid point here Quinny, why do you waste your time contributing to something as trivial as a Disco site? Surely you should be debating with more serious heads in some Jazz forum or other!

"It's not for me to say..." :)