Tweet
"the future of the dj"
thought this was an interesting essay, may be a bit tl:dr for a few, but very interesting nonetheless.
written by benXO (http://www.ben-xo.com/v6/)
written by benXO (http://www.ben-xo.com/v6/)
Monday, June 12, 2006
On the future of the DJ.
Current mood: saturated
On a forum, today, I saw the following post:
I am always annoyed at the debate where people think simply because you can lock the pitch on cdj's that it's not the same as mixing records and it's just not true. you are still able to mix just like you werre using vinyl if you want so whenever people say "yah I saw dj so-and-so last night but he played all mp3s, what the fuck?! I paid to see a dj, not someone who's not even mixing" I'm like errr ..... Confused because they are still mixing obviously and well, I don't know haha but ya.
aaaaanyways, last night [a certain DJ] played here and he was using Abelton and it was as if he was playing a pre-recorded mix, well he may as well have!!! He didn't have headphones and I understand that it "mixes for you" but wtf! what I said above aboot cdj's and people being butthurt and not finding it valid -- I feel that way now because he really WASN'T mixing.
Am I wrong to feel jipped? Do people consider this a valid medium of performance as a "dj"?? Am I being as close-minded as the anti-cdj people?
Now, on any other forum this would just be fuel for the "anti-technology" brigade. "Back to your roots!" they cry. "A real DJ uses vinyl! All CDs? It's cheating!"
I also saw the following reply:
I know for myself, when I first started going out and seeing dj's, I was mystefied as to what exactly they were doing, and when I figured it out and started mixing, it gave me more respect for what really good dj's do. Having said that, I worked very hard to build my mixing skills. I've spent literally countless hours just mixing records and practicing, and it is REALLY frustrating to see dj's play pre-recorded sets after all of the effort I put into it to be able to mix with skill. At first I was frustrated by pitch controled sets, but I feel like there is still room to actually MIX. However, with a pre-recorded set, while there certrainly is some creativity in it, it's just not the same. It's not what I pay to see, and it's almost a slap in the face to ppl who take mixing live seriously as an art. Just my opinion.
Now, these are valid points. The real interesting parts here are highlighted with my emphasis.
The first point is that a DJ is clearly doing something when they bounce around behind the turntables. And since it's a analog, manual process, not hidden away behind a computer screen or in any other way inscrutible, we trust it for what it is, and we take it for face value. You can learn to understand it just by watching. In fact, that's how I learnt to mix, too.
But it is the second point (highlighted) which really prompted me to write this essay.
For many people this fact alone - that it's hard work, learning to beatmatch and mix records well - this fact makes them feel cheated, as if they've wasted all that time and effort and practice, that a computer can mix better than a human.
Now, of course, that's one hell of a loaded statement. Can a computer actually mix better than a human?
The answer is not "yes" and the answer is not "no". In fact, the answer is "last year, no. but in 5 years, yes." and that's the simple truth. Beatmatching is piss easy for a computer.
But DJing is not all about beatmatching. There are 3 primary skills that a dance music DJ MUST posess in order to be regarded as crowd-rocking. These skills are co-dependent, and layered.
* The ability to select tunes which go together. This is skill "type 1".
* The ability to react to a crowd, holding the crowd's interest, telling a story, keeping their attention, altering the pattern, flow and energy of the music to fit with crowd's expectations and desires. This is skill "type 2".
* The ability to mix tunes. This is skill "type 3".
No other skills are required to be a rocking dance music DJ. There are other skills that are optional. Note that outside of dance music (for example: the rock, indie or hip-hop DJ), skill type 3 (beatmatching) is 100% optional, but of course it is not in house or drum'n'bass.
(other optional skills include things like scratching, MCing or singing, stage dancing, etc.)
The irony is that skill 3 is the one that we, here, all learned first. It is the a hard skill to master - for a human - but the easiest to master for a computer. It is the one which we feel the most satisfaction to have mastered, because it requires the most work; there is a clear goal, and a clear benchmark for achievement - but it is also the fact that the goal and benchmark are so clear that makes it the easiest for a computer to master.
Skill 1 is the second most difficult for a computer to master. But it will become possible within the year: I've already seen research material - and articles in Wired - on software that can match tunes by their "energy"; services such as Last.fm and Audioscrobbler can already match tunes by who likes them, thereby generating good suggestions for tunes that go together, and rate their similarity in taste, well enough to suggest the next song in your playlist.
It is also the 2nd hardest skill for a person to master. For a person to master skill 1, they must learn a vast catalog of tunes, and instantly be able to say "these tunes will go together" when flicking through their box. Inevitably, a computer can memorise many thousands more songs and flick through them hundreds of times faster than you can. In under 10 years, iTunes will be better at matching songs for energy level, melody, tempo and funk than you will. Of course, it won't be able to tell you what's good; but like I said, last.fm and audioscrobbler have already worked that one out
Skill 2 is the hardest of all for a computer to master, because interpretting a crowd is a very very complex and difficult task - even for a human. It is not a problem you can solve with software. In order for a computer to solve skill 2 would require lots of video cameras, apart from anything else! So, us humans are safe for now in this department. Having said that - the fully automated DJ will become possible within 5 years, and even "good" within 10.
I believe that in 10 years time, any human who mixes tracks by hand "the hard way" will be looked upon as a little bit loopy by any regular punter, the same way that you look at a mechanic assembling a car and say "why the hell isn't a robot doing that, and doing it better?" or laugh at a guy filling a tin of beans by hand, or shake your head as you watch your dipsy secretary scan through a printout by hand replacing every occurance of your name, instead of using search-and-replace in the word processor - before calling them in to your office to lay them off.
HOWEVER. I also believe that nobody wants to watch a robot DJ (at least not until they look, and behave, like Jude Law in A.I. That is to say, indistinguishably from a human, and with individual character). Rather, all this technology which IS coming and WILL be here within 5 years is instead going to force us humans to step up our game.
How does one step up their game? By doing all the things a robot can't do, or by helping a robot do all the things it can do much much better.
In 20 years you'll be able to get "classic Hawtin", "classic Oakenfold" and "classic Andy C" plugins for your RoboJukebox 1200MkII, injecting the character, style and feel of your favorite oldschool DJs into a box no bigger than your iPod. But from now until then, all the options are open. Ableton Live is just the start. Every 1990's DJ who hasn't caught on to this will be drowning in the new wave of computer-master live performers who are not scared to give anything a try. DJs will be giving full audio-visual experiences from a one man station. That's how it is.
The 2-turntable-mixologist is already conceptually obsolete. There's no point in hanging on unless you want to take the art to it's logical extreme. There's always room for a specialist - the same way that there's always room to watch a human bullet sprint 100 yards in under ten seconds. It's impressive, and turntablism is impressive. But the rest of us just get in our cars and drive it in 3 seconds, and that's not going to change.
As a performer, it's very important to have a deep understanding of your roots, just as every musician should appreciate the genius of Mozart. But the concept of beatmatching will not be a requirement (beyond theory) in 20 years time, just as it's no longer a requirement to play an instrument to be a musician.
There will always be the luddites - in A.I the anti-robot brigade who would capture and kill robots - but change is inevitable, and only those too far down the road to adapt should worry.
There's plenty of life in vinyl yet, but be ready for it to become the niche for the specialist, because in 20 years, your iPod will probably be able to play your next set for you, as you, better than you - if you choose to let it. And if you choose to do it the hard way - well, few will care, many will probably not believe you, and most will think you're a bit loopy for doing it the hard way...
On the future of the DJ.
Current mood: saturated
On a forum, today, I saw the following post:
I am always annoyed at the debate where people think simply because you can lock the pitch on cdj's that it's not the same as mixing records and it's just not true. you are still able to mix just like you werre using vinyl if you want so whenever people say "yah I saw dj so-and-so last night but he played all mp3s, what the fuck?! I paid to see a dj, not someone who's not even mixing" I'm like errr ..... Confused because they are still mixing obviously and well, I don't know haha but ya.
aaaaanyways, last night [a certain DJ] played here and he was using Abelton and it was as if he was playing a pre-recorded mix, well he may as well have!!! He didn't have headphones and I understand that it "mixes for you" but wtf! what I said above aboot cdj's and people being butthurt and not finding it valid -- I feel that way now because he really WASN'T mixing.
Am I wrong to feel jipped? Do people consider this a valid medium of performance as a "dj"?? Am I being as close-minded as the anti-cdj people?
Now, on any other forum this would just be fuel for the "anti-technology" brigade. "Back to your roots!" they cry. "A real DJ uses vinyl! All CDs? It's cheating!"
I also saw the following reply:
I know for myself, when I first started going out and seeing dj's, I was mystefied as to what exactly they were doing, and when I figured it out and started mixing, it gave me more respect for what really good dj's do. Having said that, I worked very hard to build my mixing skills. I've spent literally countless hours just mixing records and practicing, and it is REALLY frustrating to see dj's play pre-recorded sets after all of the effort I put into it to be able to mix with skill. At first I was frustrated by pitch controled sets, but I feel like there is still room to actually MIX. However, with a pre-recorded set, while there certrainly is some creativity in it, it's just not the same. It's not what I pay to see, and it's almost a slap in the face to ppl who take mixing live seriously as an art. Just my opinion.
Now, these are valid points. The real interesting parts here are highlighted with my emphasis.
The first point is that a DJ is clearly doing something when they bounce around behind the turntables. And since it's a analog, manual process, not hidden away behind a computer screen or in any other way inscrutible, we trust it for what it is, and we take it for face value. You can learn to understand it just by watching. In fact, that's how I learnt to mix, too.
But it is the second point (highlighted) which really prompted me to write this essay.
For many people this fact alone - that it's hard work, learning to beatmatch and mix records well - this fact makes them feel cheated, as if they've wasted all that time and effort and practice, that a computer can mix better than a human.
Now, of course, that's one hell of a loaded statement. Can a computer actually mix better than a human?
The answer is not "yes" and the answer is not "no". In fact, the answer is "last year, no. but in 5 years, yes." and that's the simple truth. Beatmatching is piss easy for a computer.
But DJing is not all about beatmatching. There are 3 primary skills that a dance music DJ MUST posess in order to be regarded as crowd-rocking. These skills are co-dependent, and layered.
* The ability to select tunes which go together. This is skill "type 1".
* The ability to react to a crowd, holding the crowd's interest, telling a story, keeping their attention, altering the pattern, flow and energy of the music to fit with crowd's expectations and desires. This is skill "type 2".
* The ability to mix tunes. This is skill "type 3".
No other skills are required to be a rocking dance music DJ. There are other skills that are optional. Note that outside of dance music (for example: the rock, indie or hip-hop DJ), skill type 3 (beatmatching) is 100% optional, but of course it is not in house or drum'n'bass.
(other optional skills include things like scratching, MCing or singing, stage dancing, etc.)
The irony is that skill 3 is the one that we, here, all learned first. It is the a hard skill to master - for a human - but the easiest to master for a computer. It is the one which we feel the most satisfaction to have mastered, because it requires the most work; there is a clear goal, and a clear benchmark for achievement - but it is also the fact that the goal and benchmark are so clear that makes it the easiest for a computer to master.
Skill 1 is the second most difficult for a computer to master. But it will become possible within the year: I've already seen research material - and articles in Wired - on software that can match tunes by their "energy"; services such as Last.fm and Audioscrobbler can already match tunes by who likes them, thereby generating good suggestions for tunes that go together, and rate their similarity in taste, well enough to suggest the next song in your playlist.
It is also the 2nd hardest skill for a person to master. For a person to master skill 1, they must learn a vast catalog of tunes, and instantly be able to say "these tunes will go together" when flicking through their box. Inevitably, a computer can memorise many thousands more songs and flick through them hundreds of times faster than you can. In under 10 years, iTunes will be better at matching songs for energy level, melody, tempo and funk than you will. Of course, it won't be able to tell you what's good; but like I said, last.fm and audioscrobbler have already worked that one out
Skill 2 is the hardest of all for a computer to master, because interpretting a crowd is a very very complex and difficult task - even for a human. It is not a problem you can solve with software. In order for a computer to solve skill 2 would require lots of video cameras, apart from anything else! So, us humans are safe for now in this department. Having said that - the fully automated DJ will become possible within 5 years, and even "good" within 10.
I believe that in 10 years time, any human who mixes tracks by hand "the hard way" will be looked upon as a little bit loopy by any regular punter, the same way that you look at a mechanic assembling a car and say "why the hell isn't a robot doing that, and doing it better?" or laugh at a guy filling a tin of beans by hand, or shake your head as you watch your dipsy secretary scan through a printout by hand replacing every occurance of your name, instead of using search-and-replace in the word processor - before calling them in to your office to lay them off.
HOWEVER. I also believe that nobody wants to watch a robot DJ (at least not until they look, and behave, like Jude Law in A.I. That is to say, indistinguishably from a human, and with individual character). Rather, all this technology which IS coming and WILL be here within 5 years is instead going to force us humans to step up our game.
How does one step up their game? By doing all the things a robot can't do, or by helping a robot do all the things it can do much much better.
In 20 years you'll be able to get "classic Hawtin", "classic Oakenfold" and "classic Andy C" plugins for your RoboJukebox 1200MkII, injecting the character, style and feel of your favorite oldschool DJs into a box no bigger than your iPod. But from now until then, all the options are open. Ableton Live is just the start. Every 1990's DJ who hasn't caught on to this will be drowning in the new wave of computer-master live performers who are not scared to give anything a try. DJs will be giving full audio-visual experiences from a one man station. That's how it is.
The 2-turntable-mixologist is already conceptually obsolete. There's no point in hanging on unless you want to take the art to it's logical extreme. There's always room for a specialist - the same way that there's always room to watch a human bullet sprint 100 yards in under ten seconds. It's impressive, and turntablism is impressive. But the rest of us just get in our cars and drive it in 3 seconds, and that's not going to change.
As a performer, it's very important to have a deep understanding of your roots, just as every musician should appreciate the genius of Mozart. But the concept of beatmatching will not be a requirement (beyond theory) in 20 years time, just as it's no longer a requirement to play an instrument to be a musician.
There will always be the luddites - in A.I the anti-robot brigade who would capture and kill robots - but change is inevitable, and only those too far down the road to adapt should worry.
There's plenty of life in vinyl yet, but be ready for it to become the niche for the specialist, because in 20 years, your iPod will probably be able to play your next set for you, as you, better than you - if you choose to let it. And if you choose to do it the hard way - well, few will care, many will probably not believe you, and most will think you're a bit loopy for doing it the hard way...
Comment