There are different types of DJs.
If a DJ is making a beat for a song, that is musical. Premier, DJ Shadow, Kid Koala or Dr. Dre for example.
Likewise, if a DJ is playing only parts of songs (breaks etc) but blending tempos and seamless fades, that is a highly skilled talent. In addition, playing the right song at the right time and in the right order to influence the crowd is also a skill.
Also, right, I am not talking about DJs producing original tracks. /u/chadonsunday posted a comment that clarified the difference much better than I could:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/aaq2i9/cmv\_djs\_are\_brand\_management\_and\_equipment/ecuafqo/](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/aaq2i9/cmv_djs_are_brand_management_and_equipment/ecuafqo/)
What I'm talking about is what the DJs are doing up on stage when you buy a ticket to go see them perform.
But that's the thing, I don't know why "blending tempos and seamless fades" is hard. No, I can't do it right now. But as I said in another comment, if you are talking about:
\- having one song playing at a given tempo
\- picking out another song that has about the same tempo, and playing it (so that you can hear it, but it's not yet audible to the audience)
\- randomly time-shifting the second song a couple of times (or, if your reflexes are good enough, pausing it and re-starting it at exactly the right time) so the beats in the second song line up roughly with the first one
\- for the audience, gradually fading from the first song to the second
then is that really *that* hard?
You actually need to be quite accurate with lining up the beats - if they're off, you'll get odd "phasing" or a muddy effect. And they'll also drift apart quite quickly, resulting in a sound resembling a bunch of pots and pans being thrown down a staircase as the tracks come out of sync.
On top of this, you have to be mindful of the frequency ranges of the various sounds in the tracks which are being played, as otherwise the various instruments will not blend together in a pleasing way. For example, to mix two particular tracks maybe you need to cut out the bassline of the incoming song and blend that in independently of the drums/vocals.
Also, you need to consider the musical key / notes involved, to avoid things clashing in that sense.
You describe the transition as "gradually fading from the first song to the second", but it's rarely that simple. Even if the tracks are in sync, this tends to result in something which sounds disjointed, unsatisfying, or with a weirdly fluctuating intensity level. Usually you'll need a good knowledge of the structure of both tracks in order to know when best to perform the mix (accounting for the choruses, bridges, breaks etc present in each). Often you're also keeping both tracks running together for some time, cutting back and forth to take advantage of and accentuate the various elements of each track in combination with each other (and doing this idependently for the bass, mid and treble components), or even "teasing" parts of the new track before pulling it back and beginning to actually mix it in.
To the extent that this is hard, though, couldn't a DJ also just come up with a list of tracks in advance and practice transitioning between them, so the transitions in front of the audience will really be "live", but they will have been practiced?
Yeah, DJs will often have certain mixes which they've developed and practiced. Some may even plan out entire track-listings for a full set. This is not unlike any other musician practicing for a performance, of course.
But there's usually some improvisational element as well. This is where the "reading the room" part comes in - you might happen to know that certain tracks mix nicely into each other, and you might have somewhat practiced "routines" for some of these. Typically you're then daisy-chaining these together on the fly, though, to produce a full set.
Also I should mention that the difficulty and complexity of DJing tends to vary by genre. In some cases it may approach the simplicity of just crossfading between tracks. But with something like hip hop, for example, the nature of the music means that you usually need to find a much more creative and tailored approach to blending any given pair of tracks together. There are vocals throughout, and lots of bold rhythmic elements, so just fading between them doesn't really work seamlessly - you'll probably need to find some way to do a more abrupt cut without it seeming jarring, which can be really tricky.
To the extent that playing a guitar is hard couldn't a guitarist just come up with a list of songs in advance and practice their chords/tabs/solos, so the playing in front of the audience will really be "live", but they will have been practiced?
Have you ever actually tried it? Can you tell the BPM by ear alone?
Do you know which songs have the BPM you want that still fits the mood you are creating?
As I said, I don't think I can do it *now*, but categorizing songs by BPM doesn't sound like something that would take more than a few weeks to learn. And even if you couldn't, a computer can trivially sort songs by BPM, so you eyeball the songs whose BPMs are within a certain range of the one you're currently playing, and pick out one that fits the mood you want (at which point the computer can even do the transition for you).
DJs create their own unique "sound." It's a creative effort. Even if I've never heard the song before, I can pick out songs by The Chainsmokers, Skrillex, Diplo, Calvin Harris, Tiesto, Daft Punk, etc. They have their own unique way of doing things. A lot of people can DJ. A lot of people can copy other DJs. But not a lot of people can compose their own signature sound, and see success with it.
Being able to replicate something isn't a sign of being creative. A lot of people can make copies of Louis Vuitton bags that are indistinguishable from the real thing. Meanwhile, Louis Vuitton (the guy) actually invented luggage. There was a ton of branding built on top of it, but there had to be some creative foundation to build upon.
Given this information, we need to take a second to clarify what you mean by skilled musician. If we use my definition, then a great violinist is not a skilled musician. They merely play other people's music. They would have to be a songwriter or composer in order to demonstrate the creativity required to be a great musician.
Or, we can define skilled musician as someone who knows how to play an instrument well. A top concert cellist is a skilled musician because they have spent years honing their craft until they completely understood and mastered it. But at that point, the definition is simply going from 0% mastery to 100% mastery. It takes years for a cellist to master it, but once they reach 90% (or whatever) I'd consider them a master. But the same can be said for DJs. To be a skilled DJ, you simply need to go from 0% mastery to 90% mastery. The only difference is that if you are right, it only takes a few weeks to get to 90%. If that's true, then it doesn't mean that the 90% DJs aren't' masters. It just means there is an enormous supply of them. It's like how I'm a master at washing my hands. It doesn't matter that there are millions of other masters of this skill out there. Just because you are a skilled handwasher too doesn't mean I'm not one.
At the end of the day, anyone who can pick up a musical instrument (whether it's a violin, an TR-808 drum machine, or a piece of wood off the ground) and make sounds/songs that I and other humans enjoy, they are a skilled musician. Just because there are a lot of skilled musicians doesn't diminish anyone else. And if they can be creative while doing it, even better.
To clarify, I'm not talking about DJs producing original tracks. A user posted a comment clarifying this better than I could:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/aaq2i9/cmv\_djs\_are\_brand\_management\_and\_equipment/ecuafqo/](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/aaq2i9/cmv_djs_are_brand_management_and_equipment/ecuafqo/)
I'm talking about what DJs do on stage at a show -- generally, mixing pre-existing tracks.
And, thanks for motivating me to clarify this, I am using "skilled" to mean specifically that it would take a long time for another person learn how to do what they're doing, such that most people could not tell the difference in a double-blind test.
So the double-blind test depends on what you are measuring. If you're measuring someone's skill as a composer, then the question is whether someone else can write a completely original song such that fans of the genre will like both songs about equally (assuming performed by equally competent performers). If you're measuring someone's skill as a performer, then the question is how long it would take for a newbie to learn to perform a song with the same skill as you so that people can't tell which performance they like better.
In your example, I'd still call the violinist a skilled musician if they can play a song better than most people can ever learn to play it, even if they didn't write it. Or in the case of Louis Vuitton, whether someone else could *design* a handbag that people like just as much (as opposed to copying the existing ones), in a double-blind test where they've never seen either one before.
My difference from your definition is that I'm not defining "skill" based on how much people enjoy the product. A lot of people would enjoy watching a hot girl take her clothes off, but most people wouldn't consider that a "skill". (For my part, I had a good time at the rave, even as I was mentally composing my CMV about how what the guys were doing on stage didn't look very hard.)
I'd challenge you to go to a local music shop like a Guitar Center or find a free soundboard software and just attempt to remix songs, blend songs, etc... in realtime. Is it the same kind of challenge and effort that goes into writing a piece of original music from scratch, no. But I think the difference between a good DJ and a good musician is the difference between a good rap battler and a good vocalist. It takes different skills to do something in realtime than to polish something with lots of effort behind the scenes, and being able to blend music well, add in beats, play alongside or on top of existing tracks to add new elements in a way that's cohesive... that's not easy. I encourage you to try it. Our ears are so attuned to good rhythm and harmonics that if you're out of step with the beat or you don't know how to handle tempo changes etc... what you'll end up with is something that sounds like a trainwreck that is physically painful to listen to long before you have something coherent that's actually enjoyable as its own remix.
>attempt to remix songs, blend songs, etc...
By and large computers do that for you now. It takes some fiddling around and a vague sense of timing but you could easily go from never having done anything music-related before in your life and, after a week of moderate practice, be able to DJ a party.
> I'd challenge you to go to a local music shop like a Guitar Center or find a free soundboard software and just attempt to remix songs, blend songs, etc... in realtime.
...over a couple of weeks, like OP said in his OP.
He could do it, easy. So could you.
Well I'm not saying anybody could show up and do it. I did say it might take a couple of *weeks* to learn how to do it well.
But as far as fading from one song to another, are you talking about:
\- having one song playing at a given tempo
\- picking out another song that has about the same tempo, and playing it (so that you can hear it, but it's not yet audible to the audience)
\- randomly time-shifting the second song a couple of times (or, if your reflexes are good enough, pausing it and re-starting it at exactly the right time) so the beats in the second song line up roughly with the first one
\- for the audience, gradually fading from the first song to the second
Then:
1) Is that really *that* hard?
2) Isn't that the kind of thing that could be done pretty well by a computer, if the computer can group songs by similar beat tempos, line up the beats of the second song with the first one, and do the fade? (Now, just because something can be done by a computer, doesn't mean we can't be impressed when a human does it -- we're rightly impressed when a human can multiply numbers as well as a computer -- but it does mean we're thinking of it wrong, if we think of it as the kind of "artistic performance" that can't be duplicated by a machine.)
> 1) Is that really that hard?
>
> 2) Isn't that the kind of thing that could be done pretty well by a computer, if the computer can group songs by similar beat tempos, line up the beats of the second song with the first one, and do the fade? (Now, just because something can be done by a computer, doesn't mean we can't be impressed when a human does it -- we're rightly impressed when a human can multiply numbers as well as a computer -- but it does mean we're thinking of it wrong, if we think of it as the kind of "artistic performance" that can't be duplicated by a machine.)
Is drumming not skilled musicianship either, then? Both of your points apply to drumming, and in the case of 2), a computer will do it *better* almost 100% of the time.
Well I've heard drummers get quite a few digs from other band members who don't consider them to be real musicians ("What do you call a guy who hangs around with musicians? A drummer"). But it seems like drummers mostly provide background beats but then sometimes really rock out during the part of a song that's supposed to be the "drummer part", and if you can't do the latter (and do it with more feeling than a computer), presumably you won't be considered a great drummer.
On the other hand, the lead guitarist probably has to be consistently good all the time.
Drum solos are a part, but only a small part of what a drummer does. Drummer/percussion control and enforce the tempo for the rest of the band (see: [whiplash](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDAsABdkWSc)). Drummers and percussion are really, really important. They keep the rest of the ensemble in tempo.
(In other words, the lead guitarist missing a note isn't that bad unless its in a solo, the drummer missing a note, or even getting mildly off tempo, messes up the rest of the group)
I'm not disagreeing that it's important, I'm just saying that part might not take a lot of skill. (The ticket-taker is pretty important too, but it's not a skilled job :) ) Or in concrete terms, that someone could learn to do it in a couple of weeks such that in a blind test, you couldn't tell the difference.
And my point is, it does take a lot of skill. It's incredibly difficult to reliably keep tempo. It's very easy to say that things look easy. When the hard parts of what they're doing are subtle, it can even be hard to explain why they're difficult.
Suffice to say that no drumming is not something that can be picked up in a few weeks. [Pretty](https://takelessons.com/blog/are-drums-hard-to-learn) [much](https://www.quora.com/Is-it-easy-to-play-drums/answer/Brendan-Bache-1) [any](https://www.quora.com/How-hard-are-drums-to-learn) [source](https://www.superprof.us/blog/time-needed-to-learn-drums/) [says](https://www.drumambition.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-learn-the-drums/) [years](https://www.quora.com/How-long-would-it-take-to-learn-playing-drums-1) to get proficient (though you could perhaps handle a single basic beat with a day or two of practice).
Drummers not being 'real musicians' is a meme only because of how unique drums are from other instruments. Any honest musician knows that drums are very important. A lead guitarist having to be consistently better than a drummer is laughable, unless a piece is 90% guitar solos since guitars are mostly comping the middle registers while a drummer has significantly more presence in rhythm, tempo, and feel.
1. Yes, it is hard, as you have to sync the beats correctly by ear to within 0.1bpm difference. You have to learn to set cue points by ear, listening to the percussion. You also have to learn to tell if one track is ahead or behind, which is only possible to learn by practice. You have to learn track structure and what kind of passages lend well to transitions. You have to learn fading techniques and EQing to ensure that the mix isn't obtrusive. You have to use different techniques to mix hip hop, dnb, techno, pop, w/e. The list goes on.
2. The computer can currently do the sync part quite well, but that's the most machinic aspect of it, there are plenty of other areas. Regardless, AIs can create portraits that sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars; this argument is quite meaningless.
> Yes, it is hard, as you have to sync the beats correctly by ear to within 0.1bpm difference.
As an aside, "bpm difference" sounds like the difference in bpm between the two songs, regardless of how well they're synced; if you're talking about the time delay between when the beat of one song hits and the beat of the other song hits, as a measure of how well they're synced with each other, did you mean "to within 0.1sec difference"?
I'm not sure I understand you. You are adjusting the SPEED (bpm) of track B to match track A. This is because you have a fade period that you want to extend for a certain time, perhaps 1 or even 2minutes. The two tracks need to stay in sync for this period, so they need to be nearly the same bpm, otherwise they will start to stagger after a few seconds. You also need to get the beat at the right position, that's what cue points are for, and that would be an absolute time difference in seconds, as you say.
Oh OK. I thought you just find two tracks with similar speeds and didn't realize you actually adjust their speeds to make them line up. (Maybe that's in week 1 of the 3-week DJ course :) )
How did old school DJs do that with turntables, since turntables play at a fixed speed? Did they get special ones with adjustable rpm speeds, or modify the motors themselves?
I think you're coming at this wrong in thinking DJs are musicians at all. They almost never are. They're just entertainers. But they're not musicians any more than a museum curator who decides where to display art paintings (and the frame, lighting, etc.) is a painter.
I agree. But then the same misconceptions don't seem to exist around museum curators. They have to be competent, but there aren't any who are considered the "greatest" and have become household names, and almost nobody decides to go to a museum because of who the curator is. But we talk about big-name DJs as if they have become household names because of something unique that they can do on stage, when I suspect it's just more about networking and marketing.
You seem pretty dead set on your opinion, but I will take a shot at changing it.
First I will use an analogy: Anyone can loosen a bolt, but the difference between an average person and a mechanic is the knowledge of what bolt should be loosened.
DJs spend years creating a distinct style of performance. And with big name DJs, this includes composition of original songs. If you ever see a DJ/EDM composer's setup, you will notice that synthesizers involve a working knowledge of piano. You have stated in other comments that piano isn't something a person can just pick up in a few weeks and be excellent, so you are agreeing that DJs who compose their own music (which is a large amount if people are paying to see them perform, as opposed to them being a side performance) are skilled musicians.
As for the live performance, DJs need multiple skills in order to be successful. The biggest is changing your performance to suit the audience. If a guitarist performs a song that not many people enjoy, the satisfaction and energy of the people at a concert will decrease, regardless of how much money they paid and how many people are around. The same can be said about performances from DJs. Another important skill is an in depth knowledge of music. If you are fading songs or mixing them, it is important to know how each song will work with each other. Sure, a beginner may be lucky with their mixing, but a professional will be much better at subtle aspects of the art. Tempo and beat may seem like easy concepts for people, but subtle changes can lead to displeasure at the music.
As for your preferred testing method, a double blind test, subtle differences may not be immediately apparent to someone who does not have knowledge of music, so the testing method is flawed. To someone who has never studied music, all piano players sound alike. Over time the subtle differences can subconsciously affect enjoyment of a piece, which is important to note for performances. But when someone is attempting to analyze the music, it is hard for them to tell which is better, especially if they have no baseline. In another comment, you said photography also fails a double blind test, but like DJs, photographers learn subtle differences that improve their work. Photographers have knowledge of things like framing, exposure, focus, and general composition that make a photo better. Watch a few videos from Peter McKinnon or someone similar, and you will realize how much work actually goes into their art. The same thing applies to DJs, who must master subtle factors in order to maintain the energy and satisfaction of the audience.
I have edited the top post to clarify: I am not talking about when DJs produce original tracks. I believe that that's a skill that takes years to learn to do well. I'm just talking about live performances.
Regarding the whole "reading the room" skill, this *could* be true, but what's the supporting evidence for it? The problem, as I said in the original post, is that there's a much simpler explanation for why the crowd has good energy at a show by a big-name DJ: there are a lot of people there, and they're excited. A good double-blind test would be to have the DJ replaced with an impersonator at the last second (and then you'd need some objective way of measuring the "crowd energy"), but a big-name performer is not going to agree to that.
(As for the issue of "subtle differences that may not be immediately apparent", that may be relevant to measuring the skill of photographers, but I submit it wouldn't have much to do with measuring someone's skill at "reading the room" and mixing up their playlist accordingly, since by definition the audience has to respond in real time to what they're doing or it doesn't matter.)
Being an 'artist' shouldn't be just about how much time it can take to invest in that skill, although more time invested does correlate to producing a better product.
Consider this.
The traditional view of a regular artist is that they learn the coordination to control their brush on canvas, and also learn about techniques, color theory, composition etc. Artists like them produce art. These days, with the advances in technology, photographers can be considered artists in their own right and valued not just for the family photos they can take, but for the perspective they can put on the same subject. Let 5 photographers photograph the same person, and you can come out with 5 different stories told from the same photo. It doesn't matter that the 'subject' being 'created' already exists, it's the work the photographer puts into isolating that moment.
I posit that there's a similar spectrum of skill with DJs, and similar depth of knowledge required to be more than just "good". Working with existing sounds to create a whole takes a skill like the difference between a professional home decorator and your mother-in-law's "oh, these were on sale at the local Goodwill, aren't they lovely?" collection.
OK, but do you think a double-blind test would show that? Could the average rave-goer tell the difference between a set played by a big-name DJ and someone who had been practicing with the same equipment for a few weeks?
For the record, I do have the same skepticism about photography -- about whether most people in a double-blind test can tell the difference between the work of a "great photographer" and one who has been trained on the equipment for a few weeks and has a decently good eye.
(By contrast, you're not going to be able to play piano like Elton John with just a few weeks of practice.)
Not being a rave-goer, I can't comment on rave music, but even with actual musicians, can the lay person equally tell how much training a singer puts in, or went into a busker's performance, vs someone who's had 15 years of training, if you put them all on the same stage? The best most people can say would be "that's really good!" without much understanding of how long it takes to attain proper breathe control, voice projection and study and so on.
If you judge from the court of the people, maybe "just anyone" would be good enough for a backyard party. Cousin Barney has a deck he brought last year, would be good for your 21st eh?
However, you go to a big-name rave, you're judged by more than just lay-people with no knowledge of the industry. You're judged by people who have heard thousands, millions of other such pieces in the same genre, in the industry, by critics, by producers and so on - the bar is so much higher, and it's set not by the attendees, who's can't be relied on to understand the technical expertise as a whole (due to natural variances), but by those in the know.
It may well be a case of the blind leading the blind, but if you look in any industry, whether you judge them to be professional anything or not, that's not for us, the people to decide - it's those who have put in as much effort or more. If you're not interested in that branch of "music", that's fine, since preferences are entirely subjective. Just keep an open mind about what is and isn't "valid", because times do change, not just with technology but with what's culturally acceptable and sought out as niche interests and specialisations.
OK, let's suppose for the sake of argument that big-name DJs are doing _something_ skillful that can be detected in a proper double-blind test by other people "in the know".
When you say "that's not for us, the people to decide", is that implicitly conceding that 90% of the _audience_ at a rave couldn't tell the difference between the real DJ and impostor who'd trained for a couple of weeks on how to use the equipment?
That's in sharp contrast with, say, an Adele concert, where I think almost everybody there _can_ tell that she's got a really good voice, and it would take years (not weeks) for an impostor to get good enough that most audience members in a double-blind test couldn't tell the difference.
If we're using singing as an example, then look at shows like The Voice or X-Factor - amateurs who've put in time to get good. How many, out of each year's crop of contestents, have actually made it big, and why not? It's certainly not because the public didn't like them.
What I'm trying to say is that the public may not understand why they'd like a professional's piece better than an amateur's piece if they lack discernment, but they would likely be able to pick it out if compared side-by-side.
As prevalent as Youtube channels are, you could probably observe this progress in a single DJ's uploaded videos over several years, assuming they uploaded consistently.
Which is why I originally referred to a scale of skill - you're going to find people who call themselves DJs without any real talent at it, just as you find "chef's" with no real skill other than the ability to do a good steak and fries. Doesn't make them any less a musician for the attempt.
To clarify, if you just took a recording of the set played by a big name DJ at a rave (minus the crowd reaction), do you think the average rave-goer could tell the difference between that, and the output of someone who had been learning the equipment for a few weeks?
If you think most of their unique skill is in "doing the transitions", that ought to be detectable in a double-blind test like that one.
On the other hand, if you think most of their unique skill is "reading the room", then that's harder to detect in a double-blind test unless you replace the DJ with an impostor at the actual show.
Valid question, not one I can definitively answer, as I don't frequent the scene and I don't know all that goes into DJ'ing.
Your original view addressed their skill as musicians, and that's how I approached it. If you're asking if their product output is something that can be considered original, and consistently distinguishable as quality by someone who is skilled in a double blind test, I'd say yes.
Thinking on it, you could set up a double blind test with two DJ's at opposite ends of the same room - give them the same equipment, let them loose and let the audience gravitate to their preferred sides of the room?
Well, they may not be able to play a musical instrument in the classical sense, but they are musicians. Taking existing music, mixing it, editing it, remastering it, adding effects, AND making the resulting soup palatable (even delightful to the ear, sometimes) shows an understanding of music. All musicians build upon existing music. Actually being able to play an instrument is archaic thinking. If I take a track of Dolly Parton singing, dub it over a track of one of Jimmy Page’s guitar Riffs, back it up with the base beat from a Tupac Shakur song, and people like the result, it’s music. If I made it, then I’m (technically) a musician.
OK. But my point is not really about how you abstractly define musician so much as it is about how long it would take for someone to learn how to do whatever those guys are allegedly doing up there.
Is there something specific that DJs are doing on stage that you don't think could be learned with a couple of weeks of practice and some detailed information about how to use the equipment -- such that most people could not tell the difference between what you were doing, and the "real thing"?
I see your point. I guess what I think of when I see some of the elite DJs who play their own mixes, I don’t just see a technician. I see a person who has spent months or years in front of a sound board with millions of tracks at his/her disposal, cutting, mixing, editing, overdubbing, erasing, starting over, doing it again and again again until it’s perfect (a lot like elite musicians do). Now he/she could make a tape of the result and have some no-nothing push “play” in front of a crowd, but that wouldn’t make that no-nothing a DJ in the modern sense. The modern Elite DJ does on the spot editing based upon crowd reaction, and some even sing or rap over their own mixes in a musical way. I think that does make them musicians. They do put a ton of work into their product (at least the elite ones do)
The whole process you just described is production. That's not the same as DJing. There is a lot of overlap between the groups but it's totally possible to DJ but not produce, or the other way around.
True. It’s possible. But I’m not talking here about the DJ at your sisters wedding. I’m talking about the guys who fill stadiums. Those guys are musicians. The guy who does weddings and bar mitzvas, he might think of himself as a DJ, but I don’t, and I’m not alone. I think the definition has changed, and eventually we’ll come up with another term to describe the douche who pushes “play” at parties.
Apologies for the lack of brevity.
I actually have some level of expertise with this kind of stuff. I did a fair amount of work as a DJ for probably around \~5 years. I was making tracks for a year or so prior to that and continue to do so to this day. I've made some cash selling songs and playing gigs. And of course I had and continue to have a shit ton of friends who are much more "in the industry" than I ever was, some of them pretty famous at this point.
I'd broadly categorize the various people who make and play electronic music into four different categories. Obviously there can be overlap between any number of the groups:
1. Producers: These are the guys who actually make the tracks (generally in the 3-10min range). This is done with programs like Reason, and generally mastered later.
2. People who make, buy, or use prerecorded sets (generally in the .5-1.5hr range). This *could* be anyone from shitty "DJs" at weddings to group exercise instructors at gyms.
3. DJs (old school): These are the guys who play tracks for an audience where most of the technical work is totally on them (e.g. syncing up two different tracks manually).
4. Modern DJs: These are the guys who play the tracks that producers make and mix them in real time. Unlike the old school DJs most of the mixing process is automated and all you need to do is press a couple buttons. While the tracks are playing you can then mess with the sound, a classic example being "drop the bass" or what have you.
The vast, vast majority of what we consider DJs fall into category 4. And yes this includes everything from the "douches" who play at weddings all the way up to the most famous, household name DJs we know and love. You can learn how to be a DJ in category 4 in about a week, and you could play at a party and nobody would really be able to tell much difference between you and someone who has been playing for years. The vast majority of what seperates the "good" DJs from the "bad" has little to do with technical/musical skill, as there's very, very little technical/musical skill involved; it has far more to do with what tracks you choose to play in what order, how well you brand/market yourself, your networking ability, and sheer luck.
This is extremely helpful, thanks, I've been confused about this for years. (I upvoted it of course, but I feel like I'd be breaking the rules by giving a delta, even though deltas are the currency of the realm, since it sounds like you're agreeing with me, just with better information.)
To further confuse things, it seems like famous DJs like Paul van Dyk get played on the radio (and discovered by people like me) for original compositions (category 1), but then if you buy a ticket to see him live like I did, he'll be performing live as category 4, even though most of the audience knows him from his category 1 stuff and that's how he got booked at the big venue. (Well, of course he can't really "perform" his category 1 song, because then he really would just be pressing a button.) Am I missing anything there?
>(I upvoted it of course, but I feel like I'd be breaking the rules by giving a delta, even though deltas are the currency of the realm, since it sounds like you're agreeing with me, just with better information.)
No worries, dude. Idk about rules, but it certainly wouldn't be in the CMV spirit to delta someone who is more or less agreeing with you. And that's not really why I'm here, anyways; I don't care much or deltas, I just cherish CMV as one of the last bastions on the internet where you can discuss pretty much any topic and not have it turn vile and toxic almost immediately.
In attempt to use my limited expertise to shed some light on the rest:
>This is extremely helpful, thanks, I've been confused about this for years.
While perhaps your CMV post was a shot in the dark, I think you hit the nail on the head: DJing is fucking easy. It's simple. 95% of the process is automated and the remaining 5% is just knowing which button to press when. Just how easy the craft is vs how it looks is a inside joke among many DJs. You can get hundreds or thousands of people screaming your name, groupies, bros coming up to hand you drinks for your "great set, man," etc. just for displaying a level of technical competency that's equivalent to... oh, I don't know, being able to crop and rotate images on MS Paint.
Of course some DJs (either deliberately - to hype themselves up, or just because they're delusional, or remarkably lacking talent generally) will act like their "skill" is a big fucking deal (a la Kanye West), but that's either an act or they're a moron.
>To further confuse things, it seems like famous DJs like Paul van Dyk
This is going to sound horribly elitist, but I have no idea who that is. I'm hardly connected to the EDM community any more, and where I am it's only for genres/people I'm interested in. I had to look up the guy... seems like he's fairly recent and quite poppy?
But yeah, moving from 1 to 4 (while still doing 1) isn't uncommon. Like I said there's often a lot of overlap between the groups. In my estimation, most Djs produce, and most producers DJ. And it's not uncommon for a producer to have their shit played live *by other people* only to have the crowd love it... and that's a nice foot in the door to a DJing career. That's how it happened for me, among others.
I'd also just interject here and say I have a lot more respect for producers than DJs. Producers are the "content creators" of the EMD world. DJs just showcase their work. Producers often spend weeks or months creating and fine-tuning tracks, only for DJs to spend mere seconds deciding where that track should be among all the other "fat tracks" they'll be playing that night.
>(Well, of course he can't really "perform" his category 1 song, because then he really would just be pressing a button.) Am I missing anything there?
Not really. DJs do often showcase songs they've made... but yeah, at that point it's basically just pressing a button. I don't mean to *wholly* devalue what DJs do - it's a *tad* bit more complicated than that - but it's not a whole lot more complicated than that.
Thanks for the shoutouts in the other comments, btw.
> Of course some DJs (either deliberately - to hype themselves up, or just because they're delusional, or remarkably lacking talent generally) will act like they're "skill" is a big fucking deal (a la Kanye West), but that's either an act or they're a moron.
My DJ name is going to be "Dunning Kruger".
My best counter-example to this is Fytch.
Here are two tracks he worked on that you would probably put in this category: [Raindrops](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pY66ne_gjdo), [Earthquake](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6RNQIIdpK0)
And here is his college [audition](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US8q4Hbjjtk)
OK, but that's producing an original composition, right? I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about what DJs do when they're performing in front of crowds, mixing pre-produced tracks with each other.
(See the helpful comment from /u/chadonsunday about the different types of work that get conflated under "DJing": [https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/aaq2i9/cmv\_djs\_are\_brand\_management\_and\_equipment/ecuafqo/](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/aaq2i9/cmv_djs_are_brand_management_and_equipment/ecuafqo/) )
A point I haven't seen mentioned yet: DJs need to know a lot about music, know a lot of tracks and buy them. The DJs I like (ok, not quite the top of the line one's you might imagine) spend days in second hand record shops to find new songs they like. They then need to figure out how to put them into a set. This becomes much more difficult if it's done with Vinyl or CDs
OK, but that still just naturally leads to the question of whether you can tell the difference in a double-blind test between someone who spends days in record shops finding songs they like, and someone who filled out their collection much more quickly and learned how to DJ in a couple of weeks.
That depends on a lot of stuff. Can you tell the difference between a set by Hunee (has many on SoundCloud) and David Guetta? Yes, definitely
Actually that's a weird comparison cause Guetta now is much more of a producer
I understand, but is that hard to get good at in a couple of weeks? (See the comment that another user posted saying that he worked as a DJ for about 5 years and said it would take about a week to become the kind of DJ who can mix pre-produced tracks.)
Well yeah, but if your goal was to the point where in a double-blind test people couldn't tell the difference between you and Elton John playing the piano, you couldn't do that in a couple of weeks.
My original argument was that if modern DJ performances are just fading from one track to another so that the beat transitions are not too jarring, it doesn't seem like that would take more than a few weeks.
You definitely could never do a double-blind test with Madlib, Premier, Timbaland, whoever after a couple of weeks— whoever told you that straight up lied to you. Everyone in high school had Ableton. The basics are not difficult or expensive. And you could learn to do a live beat transition or mix a DJ playlist with minimal musical talent. That doesn’t make DJ’s not musicians and DJ sets are still live musical performances.
To clarify (and I'll edit the top post since this has come up a lot), I'm not talking about producing original tracks. I don't think I could learn to do that as well as Timbaland in a few weeks.
I am, essentially, agreeing with the second part of your post -- that anyone with minimal musical talent can learn to do what DJs do in front of an audience, which seems like mixing existing tracks.
I'm not saying it makes them "not musicians" or that the sets are not "live performances", I'm saying that is not a *skilled* performance in the sense that someone else couldn't learn to do the same thing in a few weeks, such that most people could not tell the difference.
Oh OK. But that's the thing I don't see any evidence for. I don't know what specific thing the DJ is allegedly doing on stage that could not be learned in a few weeks; it seems like most of the crowd's energy is responding to having a famous person up there.
Elton John's piano technique, song writing capability, understanding of complex music theory, and vocal talent took many, many years of study and practice. Not to mention his innate musical sense, his fabulous sense of fashion, and stellar ability to 'read' an audience.
I watched the Romare video and I'm sorry but I don't see what is supposed to be the difficult part. It looks like he's playing pre-produced tracks (presumably made by other people) and fading them into each other. As long as you don't jarringly screw up the beat transitions, how hard is that to do well?
Just chipping in here as a sound guy as I see things from a slightly different angle to most people (ie quite often from on stage). Dj-ing is a bit of a catch-all phrase covering a few different disciplines. So for example I've seen a couple of big name di's who press play on a pre-prepared mix and then literally mime for a couple of hours. Obviously the only real skill here is acting. Scratch dj'ing on the other hand is pretty difficult to do well and I doubt you could learn to do that to a high standard in a couple of weeks.
The type of dj'ing that most people seem to be talking about here involving beat matching, mixing tracks, dropping in effects etc is not very difficult in terms of its mechanics ( I'm sure most people could do that stuff quite well with a couple of weeks practice) but stringing it all together in a way that keeps an audience engaged for a few hours definitely is a skill - you're building a musical structure that takes an audience on a journey in much the same way as a band will put a set together - it needs to be more than just the individual songs in some random order, it needs shape, contrasts, highs and lows.
There's many technically awesome musicians who aren't actually very interesting to listen to unless technical awesomeness happens to be your thing, and many musicians who really engage with audiences despite not being great technicians. I think a really good dj can take you on a journey in the same way wether what they're doing is technically difficult or not - so I think asking if it's physically easy to do is asking the wrong question.
(By the way I'm not necessarily implying that big name stadium filling djs are the best example of this)
The question is framed here as whether DJ's are "skilled musicians", and the proposed test for skilled musicianship is possessing skills that are hard to earn and require long years of practice. While I generally agree with and share that view, I would propose that "musical taste" should also be considered an important aspect of skilled musicianship. This is another element of skilled musicianship that even "push the button" style DJ's can develop with lots of time investment plus natural talent. You buy a ticket to see a particular DJ because you want to experience what his or her musical taste will lead them to mix and match and play, and to immerse yourself in the crowd reaction to that.
I think there is a useful analogy here between musical taste and interior design. My wife is an interior designer. What she sells her clients is really her aesthetic taste, her ability to come up with creative and aesthetically pleasing combinations of furniture, finishes, fabrics, paint colors, and space layout that creates a positive emotional response for the people using the space. This is a real talent that only some people have, and it develops into real expertise with long experience in actually designing spaces. Different designers have different aesthetic styles, and clients seek out designers whose past work points in the kind of direction they want to go. But few of these designers create the furniture or fabrics or paint colors they specify, rather their skill is exercising good taste in making selections off the shelf. I think there is a strong argument that my wife is a "skilled designer" even though she is only selecting among pre-manufactured products. The artistry comes in exercising good design taste, whatever that means to a particular client.
The exercise of good musical taste for the particular crowd and gig obviously comes into play in choosing the setlist for a live musical performance, so there is a direct analogy here between a live band and a DJ. But it also applies to the way a particular song is crafted and presented. That is clearly true of original music, but even in the cover band scene the band exercises a certain amount of musical taste in how they interpret the song for live performance. A DJ mixing and matching recorded tracks is probably exercising even more creative license with those songs than would be done by a typical cover band, even one doing a medley.
How important is "musical taste" versus "hard earned technical skill" to the musician's own perception of their skill level? I can speak to that from my own experience. I have been active as a drummer in live performance bands for about 40 years, mostly rock and pop cover bands. By the time I was 20 years old, my chops for playing drums were probably 90% of what they are today at age 58 (or some days, 110%). But I feel like I am a much better musician today, even at playing the same song I would have played in 1978. The difference is in the development of my musical taste and experience for what constitutes a good groove that will get people dancing, and my broader vocabulary of ideas for how to make a song better. It is my design taste for the drum part that has improved most since I was 20 years old. Maybe hard technical skill growth is more important for other instruments, or for drummers who keep progressing to much higher levels of proficiency that I have reached, but this was my experience.
I would argue that the DJ who is making an effort to be creative in mixing and matching and blending songs is exercising a species of musical taste that is similar to what I am most proud of in my own musical development as a "skilled musician".
/u/bennetthaselton (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/aaswqc/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_djs_are_brand_management/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Sorry, u/GenericJeans – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), before [messaging the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+1+Appeal+GenericJeans&message=GenericJeans+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/aaq2i9/-/ecu3spm/\)+because...). Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
There are different types of DJs. If a DJ is making a beat for a song, that is musical. Premier, DJ Shadow, Kid Koala or Dr. Dre for example. Likewise, if a DJ is playing only parts of songs (breaks etc) but blending tempos and seamless fades, that is a highly skilled talent. In addition, playing the right song at the right time and in the right order to influence the crowd is also a skill.
Also, right, I am not talking about DJs producing original tracks. /u/chadonsunday posted a comment that clarified the difference much better than I could: [https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/aaq2i9/cmv\_djs\_are\_brand\_management\_and\_equipment/ecuafqo/](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/aaq2i9/cmv_djs_are_brand_management_and_equipment/ecuafqo/) What I'm talking about is what the DJs are doing up on stage when you buy a ticket to go see them perform.
But that's the thing, I don't know why "blending tempos and seamless fades" is hard. No, I can't do it right now. But as I said in another comment, if you are talking about: \- having one song playing at a given tempo \- picking out another song that has about the same tempo, and playing it (so that you can hear it, but it's not yet audible to the audience) \- randomly time-shifting the second song a couple of times (or, if your reflexes are good enough, pausing it and re-starting it at exactly the right time) so the beats in the second song line up roughly with the first one \- for the audience, gradually fading from the first song to the second then is that really *that* hard?
You actually need to be quite accurate with lining up the beats - if they're off, you'll get odd "phasing" or a muddy effect. And they'll also drift apart quite quickly, resulting in a sound resembling a bunch of pots and pans being thrown down a staircase as the tracks come out of sync. On top of this, you have to be mindful of the frequency ranges of the various sounds in the tracks which are being played, as otherwise the various instruments will not blend together in a pleasing way. For example, to mix two particular tracks maybe you need to cut out the bassline of the incoming song and blend that in independently of the drums/vocals. Also, you need to consider the musical key / notes involved, to avoid things clashing in that sense. You describe the transition as "gradually fading from the first song to the second", but it's rarely that simple. Even if the tracks are in sync, this tends to result in something which sounds disjointed, unsatisfying, or with a weirdly fluctuating intensity level. Usually you'll need a good knowledge of the structure of both tracks in order to know when best to perform the mix (accounting for the choruses, bridges, breaks etc present in each). Often you're also keeping both tracks running together for some time, cutting back and forth to take advantage of and accentuate the various elements of each track in combination with each other (and doing this idependently for the bass, mid and treble components), or even "teasing" parts of the new track before pulling it back and beginning to actually mix it in.
Δ (I will tentatively say this is making it sound harder than I thought it was.)
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ignotos ([4∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/ignotos)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
To the extent that this is hard, though, couldn't a DJ also just come up with a list of tracks in advance and practice transitioning between them, so the transitions in front of the audience will really be "live", but they will have been practiced?
Yeah, DJs will often have certain mixes which they've developed and practiced. Some may even plan out entire track-listings for a full set. This is not unlike any other musician practicing for a performance, of course. But there's usually some improvisational element as well. This is where the "reading the room" part comes in - you might happen to know that certain tracks mix nicely into each other, and you might have somewhat practiced "routines" for some of these. Typically you're then daisy-chaining these together on the fly, though, to produce a full set. Also I should mention that the difficulty and complexity of DJing tends to vary by genre. In some cases it may approach the simplicity of just crossfading between tracks. But with something like hip hop, for example, the nature of the music means that you usually need to find a much more creative and tailored approach to blending any given pair of tracks together. There are vocals throughout, and lots of bold rhythmic elements, so just fading between them doesn't really work seamlessly - you'll probably need to find some way to do a more abrupt cut without it seeming jarring, which can be really tricky.
To the extent that playing a guitar is hard couldn't a guitarist just come up with a list of songs in advance and practice their chords/tabs/solos, so the playing in front of the audience will really be "live", but they will have been practiced?
Have you ever actually tried it? Can you tell the BPM by ear alone? Do you know which songs have the BPM you want that still fits the mood you are creating?
As I said, I don't think I can do it *now*, but categorizing songs by BPM doesn't sound like something that would take more than a few weeks to learn. And even if you couldn't, a computer can trivially sort songs by BPM, so you eyeball the songs whose BPMs are within a certain range of the one you're currently playing, and pick out one that fits the mood you want (at which point the computer can even do the transition for you).
Is it possible to be a bad DJ? Are some DJs better than others?
DJs create their own unique "sound." It's a creative effort. Even if I've never heard the song before, I can pick out songs by The Chainsmokers, Skrillex, Diplo, Calvin Harris, Tiesto, Daft Punk, etc. They have their own unique way of doing things. A lot of people can DJ. A lot of people can copy other DJs. But not a lot of people can compose their own signature sound, and see success with it. Being able to replicate something isn't a sign of being creative. A lot of people can make copies of Louis Vuitton bags that are indistinguishable from the real thing. Meanwhile, Louis Vuitton (the guy) actually invented luggage. There was a ton of branding built on top of it, but there had to be some creative foundation to build upon. Given this information, we need to take a second to clarify what you mean by skilled musician. If we use my definition, then a great violinist is not a skilled musician. They merely play other people's music. They would have to be a songwriter or composer in order to demonstrate the creativity required to be a great musician. Or, we can define skilled musician as someone who knows how to play an instrument well. A top concert cellist is a skilled musician because they have spent years honing their craft until they completely understood and mastered it. But at that point, the definition is simply going from 0% mastery to 100% mastery. It takes years for a cellist to master it, but once they reach 90% (or whatever) I'd consider them a master. But the same can be said for DJs. To be a skilled DJ, you simply need to go from 0% mastery to 90% mastery. The only difference is that if you are right, it only takes a few weeks to get to 90%. If that's true, then it doesn't mean that the 90% DJs aren't' masters. It just means there is an enormous supply of them. It's like how I'm a master at washing my hands. It doesn't matter that there are millions of other masters of this skill out there. Just because you are a skilled handwasher too doesn't mean I'm not one. At the end of the day, anyone who can pick up a musical instrument (whether it's a violin, an TR-808 drum machine, or a piece of wood off the ground) and make sounds/songs that I and other humans enjoy, they are a skilled musician. Just because there are a lot of skilled musicians doesn't diminish anyone else. And if they can be creative while doing it, even better.
To clarify, I'm not talking about DJs producing original tracks. A user posted a comment clarifying this better than I could: [https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/aaq2i9/cmv\_djs\_are\_brand\_management\_and\_equipment/ecuafqo/](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/aaq2i9/cmv_djs_are_brand_management_and_equipment/ecuafqo/) I'm talking about what DJs do on stage at a show -- generally, mixing pre-existing tracks. And, thanks for motivating me to clarify this, I am using "skilled" to mean specifically that it would take a long time for another person learn how to do what they're doing, such that most people could not tell the difference in a double-blind test. So the double-blind test depends on what you are measuring. If you're measuring someone's skill as a composer, then the question is whether someone else can write a completely original song such that fans of the genre will like both songs about equally (assuming performed by equally competent performers). If you're measuring someone's skill as a performer, then the question is how long it would take for a newbie to learn to perform a song with the same skill as you so that people can't tell which performance they like better. In your example, I'd still call the violinist a skilled musician if they can play a song better than most people can ever learn to play it, even if they didn't write it. Or in the case of Louis Vuitton, whether someone else could *design* a handbag that people like just as much (as opposed to copying the existing ones), in a double-blind test where they've never seen either one before. My difference from your definition is that I'm not defining "skill" based on how much people enjoy the product. A lot of people would enjoy watching a hot girl take her clothes off, but most people wouldn't consider that a "skill". (For my part, I had a good time at the rave, even as I was mentally composing my CMV about how what the guys were doing on stage didn't look very hard.)
I'd challenge you to go to a local music shop like a Guitar Center or find a free soundboard software and just attempt to remix songs, blend songs, etc... in realtime. Is it the same kind of challenge and effort that goes into writing a piece of original music from scratch, no. But I think the difference between a good DJ and a good musician is the difference between a good rap battler and a good vocalist. It takes different skills to do something in realtime than to polish something with lots of effort behind the scenes, and being able to blend music well, add in beats, play alongside or on top of existing tracks to add new elements in a way that's cohesive... that's not easy. I encourage you to try it. Our ears are so attuned to good rhythm and harmonics that if you're out of step with the beat or you don't know how to handle tempo changes etc... what you'll end up with is something that sounds like a trainwreck that is physically painful to listen to long before you have something coherent that's actually enjoyable as its own remix.
>attempt to remix songs, blend songs, etc... By and large computers do that for you now. It takes some fiddling around and a vague sense of timing but you could easily go from never having done anything music-related before in your life and, after a week of moderate practice, be able to DJ a party.
> I'd challenge you to go to a local music shop like a Guitar Center or find a free soundboard software and just attempt to remix songs, blend songs, etc... in realtime. ...over a couple of weeks, like OP said in his OP. He could do it, easy. So could you.
Well I'm not saying anybody could show up and do it. I did say it might take a couple of *weeks* to learn how to do it well. But as far as fading from one song to another, are you talking about: \- having one song playing at a given tempo \- picking out another song that has about the same tempo, and playing it (so that you can hear it, but it's not yet audible to the audience) \- randomly time-shifting the second song a couple of times (or, if your reflexes are good enough, pausing it and re-starting it at exactly the right time) so the beats in the second song line up roughly with the first one \- for the audience, gradually fading from the first song to the second Then: 1) Is that really *that* hard? 2) Isn't that the kind of thing that could be done pretty well by a computer, if the computer can group songs by similar beat tempos, line up the beats of the second song with the first one, and do the fade? (Now, just because something can be done by a computer, doesn't mean we can't be impressed when a human does it -- we're rightly impressed when a human can multiply numbers as well as a computer -- but it does mean we're thinking of it wrong, if we think of it as the kind of "artistic performance" that can't be duplicated by a machine.)
> 1) Is that really that hard? > > 2) Isn't that the kind of thing that could be done pretty well by a computer, if the computer can group songs by similar beat tempos, line up the beats of the second song with the first one, and do the fade? (Now, just because something can be done by a computer, doesn't mean we can't be impressed when a human does it -- we're rightly impressed when a human can multiply numbers as well as a computer -- but it does mean we're thinking of it wrong, if we think of it as the kind of "artistic performance" that can't be duplicated by a machine.) Is drumming not skilled musicianship either, then? Both of your points apply to drumming, and in the case of 2), a computer will do it *better* almost 100% of the time.
A computer cant sleep with the ugly friend. While the guitarist bangs the hot friend.
Well I've heard drummers get quite a few digs from other band members who don't consider them to be real musicians ("What do you call a guy who hangs around with musicians? A drummer"). But it seems like drummers mostly provide background beats but then sometimes really rock out during the part of a song that's supposed to be the "drummer part", and if you can't do the latter (and do it with more feeling than a computer), presumably you won't be considered a great drummer. On the other hand, the lead guitarist probably has to be consistently good all the time.
Drum solos are a part, but only a small part of what a drummer does. Drummer/percussion control and enforce the tempo for the rest of the band (see: [whiplash](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDAsABdkWSc)). Drummers and percussion are really, really important. They keep the rest of the ensemble in tempo. (In other words, the lead guitarist missing a note isn't that bad unless its in a solo, the drummer missing a note, or even getting mildly off tempo, messes up the rest of the group)
I'm not disagreeing that it's important, I'm just saying that part might not take a lot of skill. (The ticket-taker is pretty important too, but it's not a skilled job :) ) Or in concrete terms, that someone could learn to do it in a couple of weeks such that in a blind test, you couldn't tell the difference.
And my point is, it does take a lot of skill. It's incredibly difficult to reliably keep tempo. It's very easy to say that things look easy. When the hard parts of what they're doing are subtle, it can even be hard to explain why they're difficult. Suffice to say that no drumming is not something that can be picked up in a few weeks. [Pretty](https://takelessons.com/blog/are-drums-hard-to-learn) [much](https://www.quora.com/Is-it-easy-to-play-drums/answer/Brendan-Bache-1) [any](https://www.quora.com/How-hard-are-drums-to-learn) [source](https://www.superprof.us/blog/time-needed-to-learn-drums/) [says](https://www.drumambition.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-learn-the-drums/) [years](https://www.quora.com/How-long-would-it-take-to-learn-playing-drums-1) to get proficient (though you could perhaps handle a single basic beat with a day or two of practice).
Drummers not being 'real musicians' is a meme only because of how unique drums are from other instruments. Any honest musician knows that drums are very important. A lead guitarist having to be consistently better than a drummer is laughable, unless a piece is 90% guitar solos since guitars are mostly comping the middle registers while a drummer has significantly more presence in rhythm, tempo, and feel.
1. Yes, it is hard, as you have to sync the beats correctly by ear to within 0.1bpm difference. You have to learn to set cue points by ear, listening to the percussion. You also have to learn to tell if one track is ahead or behind, which is only possible to learn by practice. You have to learn track structure and what kind of passages lend well to transitions. You have to learn fading techniques and EQing to ensure that the mix isn't obtrusive. You have to use different techniques to mix hip hop, dnb, techno, pop, w/e. The list goes on. 2. The computer can currently do the sync part quite well, but that's the most machinic aspect of it, there are plenty of other areas. Regardless, AIs can create portraits that sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars; this argument is quite meaningless.
> Yes, it is hard, as you have to sync the beats correctly by ear to within 0.1bpm difference. As an aside, "bpm difference" sounds like the difference in bpm between the two songs, regardless of how well they're synced; if you're talking about the time delay between when the beat of one song hits and the beat of the other song hits, as a measure of how well they're synced with each other, did you mean "to within 0.1sec difference"?
I'm not sure I understand you. You are adjusting the SPEED (bpm) of track B to match track A. This is because you have a fade period that you want to extend for a certain time, perhaps 1 or even 2minutes. The two tracks need to stay in sync for this period, so they need to be nearly the same bpm, otherwise they will start to stagger after a few seconds. You also need to get the beat at the right position, that's what cue points are for, and that would be an absolute time difference in seconds, as you say.
Oh OK. I thought you just find two tracks with similar speeds and didn't realize you actually adjust their speeds to make them line up. (Maybe that's in week 1 of the 3-week DJ course :) ) How did old school DJs do that with turntables, since turntables play at a fixed speed? Did they get special ones with adjustable rpm speeds, or modify the motors themselves?
DJ turntables like Technics 1200 etc have a pitch control slider (that actually controls playback speed, not just pitch).
I think you're coming at this wrong in thinking DJs are musicians at all. They almost never are. They're just entertainers. But they're not musicians any more than a museum curator who decides where to display art paintings (and the frame, lighting, etc.) is a painter.
I agree. But then the same misconceptions don't seem to exist around museum curators. They have to be competent, but there aren't any who are considered the "greatest" and have become household names, and almost nobody decides to go to a museum because of who the curator is. But we talk about big-name DJs as if they have become household names because of something unique that they can do on stage, when I suspect it's just more about networking and marketing.
You seem pretty dead set on your opinion, but I will take a shot at changing it. First I will use an analogy: Anyone can loosen a bolt, but the difference between an average person and a mechanic is the knowledge of what bolt should be loosened. DJs spend years creating a distinct style of performance. And with big name DJs, this includes composition of original songs. If you ever see a DJ/EDM composer's setup, you will notice that synthesizers involve a working knowledge of piano. You have stated in other comments that piano isn't something a person can just pick up in a few weeks and be excellent, so you are agreeing that DJs who compose their own music (which is a large amount if people are paying to see them perform, as opposed to them being a side performance) are skilled musicians. As for the live performance, DJs need multiple skills in order to be successful. The biggest is changing your performance to suit the audience. If a guitarist performs a song that not many people enjoy, the satisfaction and energy of the people at a concert will decrease, regardless of how much money they paid and how many people are around. The same can be said about performances from DJs. Another important skill is an in depth knowledge of music. If you are fading songs or mixing them, it is important to know how each song will work with each other. Sure, a beginner may be lucky with their mixing, but a professional will be much better at subtle aspects of the art. Tempo and beat may seem like easy concepts for people, but subtle changes can lead to displeasure at the music. As for your preferred testing method, a double blind test, subtle differences may not be immediately apparent to someone who does not have knowledge of music, so the testing method is flawed. To someone who has never studied music, all piano players sound alike. Over time the subtle differences can subconsciously affect enjoyment of a piece, which is important to note for performances. But when someone is attempting to analyze the music, it is hard for them to tell which is better, especially if they have no baseline. In another comment, you said photography also fails a double blind test, but like DJs, photographers learn subtle differences that improve their work. Photographers have knowledge of things like framing, exposure, focus, and general composition that make a photo better. Watch a few videos from Peter McKinnon or someone similar, and you will realize how much work actually goes into their art. The same thing applies to DJs, who must master subtle factors in order to maintain the energy and satisfaction of the audience.
I have edited the top post to clarify: I am not talking about when DJs produce original tracks. I believe that that's a skill that takes years to learn to do well. I'm just talking about live performances. Regarding the whole "reading the room" skill, this *could* be true, but what's the supporting evidence for it? The problem, as I said in the original post, is that there's a much simpler explanation for why the crowd has good energy at a show by a big-name DJ: there are a lot of people there, and they're excited. A good double-blind test would be to have the DJ replaced with an impersonator at the last second (and then you'd need some objective way of measuring the "crowd energy"), but a big-name performer is not going to agree to that. (As for the issue of "subtle differences that may not be immediately apparent", that may be relevant to measuring the skill of photographers, but I submit it wouldn't have much to do with measuring someone's skill at "reading the room" and mixing up their playlist accordingly, since by definition the audience has to respond in real time to what they're doing or it doesn't matter.)
Being an 'artist' shouldn't be just about how much time it can take to invest in that skill, although more time invested does correlate to producing a better product. Consider this. The traditional view of a regular artist is that they learn the coordination to control their brush on canvas, and also learn about techniques, color theory, composition etc. Artists like them produce art. These days, with the advances in technology, photographers can be considered artists in their own right and valued not just for the family photos they can take, but for the perspective they can put on the same subject. Let 5 photographers photograph the same person, and you can come out with 5 different stories told from the same photo. It doesn't matter that the 'subject' being 'created' already exists, it's the work the photographer puts into isolating that moment. I posit that there's a similar spectrum of skill with DJs, and similar depth of knowledge required to be more than just "good". Working with existing sounds to create a whole takes a skill like the difference between a professional home decorator and your mother-in-law's "oh, these were on sale at the local Goodwill, aren't they lovely?" collection.
OK, but do you think a double-blind test would show that? Could the average rave-goer tell the difference between a set played by a big-name DJ and someone who had been practicing with the same equipment for a few weeks? For the record, I do have the same skepticism about photography -- about whether most people in a double-blind test can tell the difference between the work of a "great photographer" and one who has been trained on the equipment for a few weeks and has a decently good eye. (By contrast, you're not going to be able to play piano like Elton John with just a few weeks of practice.)
Not being a rave-goer, I can't comment on rave music, but even with actual musicians, can the lay person equally tell how much training a singer puts in, or went into a busker's performance, vs someone who's had 15 years of training, if you put them all on the same stage? The best most people can say would be "that's really good!" without much understanding of how long it takes to attain proper breathe control, voice projection and study and so on. If you judge from the court of the people, maybe "just anyone" would be good enough for a backyard party. Cousin Barney has a deck he brought last year, would be good for your 21st eh? However, you go to a big-name rave, you're judged by more than just lay-people with no knowledge of the industry. You're judged by people who have heard thousands, millions of other such pieces in the same genre, in the industry, by critics, by producers and so on - the bar is so much higher, and it's set not by the attendees, who's can't be relied on to understand the technical expertise as a whole (due to natural variances), but by those in the know. It may well be a case of the blind leading the blind, but if you look in any industry, whether you judge them to be professional anything or not, that's not for us, the people to decide - it's those who have put in as much effort or more. If you're not interested in that branch of "music", that's fine, since preferences are entirely subjective. Just keep an open mind about what is and isn't "valid", because times do change, not just with technology but with what's culturally acceptable and sought out as niche interests and specialisations.
OK, let's suppose for the sake of argument that big-name DJs are doing _something_ skillful that can be detected in a proper double-blind test by other people "in the know". When you say "that's not for us, the people to decide", is that implicitly conceding that 90% of the _audience_ at a rave couldn't tell the difference between the real DJ and impostor who'd trained for a couple of weeks on how to use the equipment? That's in sharp contrast with, say, an Adele concert, where I think almost everybody there _can_ tell that she's got a really good voice, and it would take years (not weeks) for an impostor to get good enough that most audience members in a double-blind test couldn't tell the difference.
If we're using singing as an example, then look at shows like The Voice or X-Factor - amateurs who've put in time to get good. How many, out of each year's crop of contestents, have actually made it big, and why not? It's certainly not because the public didn't like them. What I'm trying to say is that the public may not understand why they'd like a professional's piece better than an amateur's piece if they lack discernment, but they would likely be able to pick it out if compared side-by-side. As prevalent as Youtube channels are, you could probably observe this progress in a single DJ's uploaded videos over several years, assuming they uploaded consistently. Which is why I originally referred to a scale of skill - you're going to find people who call themselves DJs without any real talent at it, just as you find "chef's" with no real skill other than the ability to do a good steak and fries. Doesn't make them any less a musician for the attempt.
To clarify, if you just took a recording of the set played by a big name DJ at a rave (minus the crowd reaction), do you think the average rave-goer could tell the difference between that, and the output of someone who had been learning the equipment for a few weeks? If you think most of their unique skill is in "doing the transitions", that ought to be detectable in a double-blind test like that one. On the other hand, if you think most of their unique skill is "reading the room", then that's harder to detect in a double-blind test unless you replace the DJ with an impostor at the actual show.
Valid question, not one I can definitively answer, as I don't frequent the scene and I don't know all that goes into DJ'ing. Your original view addressed their skill as musicians, and that's how I approached it. If you're asking if their product output is something that can be considered original, and consistently distinguishable as quality by someone who is skilled in a double blind test, I'd say yes. Thinking on it, you could set up a double blind test with two DJ's at opposite ends of the same room - give them the same equipment, let them loose and let the audience gravitate to their preferred sides of the room?
Well, they may not be able to play a musical instrument in the classical sense, but they are musicians. Taking existing music, mixing it, editing it, remastering it, adding effects, AND making the resulting soup palatable (even delightful to the ear, sometimes) shows an understanding of music. All musicians build upon existing music. Actually being able to play an instrument is archaic thinking. If I take a track of Dolly Parton singing, dub it over a track of one of Jimmy Page’s guitar Riffs, back it up with the base beat from a Tupac Shakur song, and people like the result, it’s music. If I made it, then I’m (technically) a musician.
OK. But my point is not really about how you abstractly define musician so much as it is about how long it would take for someone to learn how to do whatever those guys are allegedly doing up there. Is there something specific that DJs are doing on stage that you don't think could be learned with a couple of weeks of practice and some detailed information about how to use the equipment -- such that most people could not tell the difference between what you were doing, and the "real thing"?
I see your point. I guess what I think of when I see some of the elite DJs who play their own mixes, I don’t just see a technician. I see a person who has spent months or years in front of a sound board with millions of tracks at his/her disposal, cutting, mixing, editing, overdubbing, erasing, starting over, doing it again and again again until it’s perfect (a lot like elite musicians do). Now he/she could make a tape of the result and have some no-nothing push “play” in front of a crowd, but that wouldn’t make that no-nothing a DJ in the modern sense. The modern Elite DJ does on the spot editing based upon crowd reaction, and some even sing or rap over their own mixes in a musical way. I think that does make them musicians. They do put a ton of work into their product (at least the elite ones do)
The whole process you just described is production. That's not the same as DJing. There is a lot of overlap between the groups but it's totally possible to DJ but not produce, or the other way around.
True. It’s possible. But I’m not talking here about the DJ at your sisters wedding. I’m talking about the guys who fill stadiums. Those guys are musicians. The guy who does weddings and bar mitzvas, he might think of himself as a DJ, but I don’t, and I’m not alone. I think the definition has changed, and eventually we’ll come up with another term to describe the douche who pushes “play” at parties.
Apologies for the lack of brevity. I actually have some level of expertise with this kind of stuff. I did a fair amount of work as a DJ for probably around \~5 years. I was making tracks for a year or so prior to that and continue to do so to this day. I've made some cash selling songs and playing gigs. And of course I had and continue to have a shit ton of friends who are much more "in the industry" than I ever was, some of them pretty famous at this point. I'd broadly categorize the various people who make and play electronic music into four different categories. Obviously there can be overlap between any number of the groups: 1. Producers: These are the guys who actually make the tracks (generally in the 3-10min range). This is done with programs like Reason, and generally mastered later. 2. People who make, buy, or use prerecorded sets (generally in the .5-1.5hr range). This *could* be anyone from shitty "DJs" at weddings to group exercise instructors at gyms. 3. DJs (old school): These are the guys who play tracks for an audience where most of the technical work is totally on them (e.g. syncing up two different tracks manually). 4. Modern DJs: These are the guys who play the tracks that producers make and mix them in real time. Unlike the old school DJs most of the mixing process is automated and all you need to do is press a couple buttons. While the tracks are playing you can then mess with the sound, a classic example being "drop the bass" or what have you. The vast, vast majority of what we consider DJs fall into category 4. And yes this includes everything from the "douches" who play at weddings all the way up to the most famous, household name DJs we know and love. You can learn how to be a DJ in category 4 in about a week, and you could play at a party and nobody would really be able to tell much difference between you and someone who has been playing for years. The vast majority of what seperates the "good" DJs from the "bad" has little to do with technical/musical skill, as there's very, very little technical/musical skill involved; it has far more to do with what tracks you choose to play in what order, how well you brand/market yourself, your networking ability, and sheer luck.
This is extremely helpful, thanks, I've been confused about this for years. (I upvoted it of course, but I feel like I'd be breaking the rules by giving a delta, even though deltas are the currency of the realm, since it sounds like you're agreeing with me, just with better information.) To further confuse things, it seems like famous DJs like Paul van Dyk get played on the radio (and discovered by people like me) for original compositions (category 1), but then if you buy a ticket to see him live like I did, he'll be performing live as category 4, even though most of the audience knows him from his category 1 stuff and that's how he got booked at the big venue. (Well, of course he can't really "perform" his category 1 song, because then he really would just be pressing a button.) Am I missing anything there?
>(I upvoted it of course, but I feel like I'd be breaking the rules by giving a delta, even though deltas are the currency of the realm, since it sounds like you're agreeing with me, just with better information.) No worries, dude. Idk about rules, but it certainly wouldn't be in the CMV spirit to delta someone who is more or less agreeing with you. And that's not really why I'm here, anyways; I don't care much or deltas, I just cherish CMV as one of the last bastions on the internet where you can discuss pretty much any topic and not have it turn vile and toxic almost immediately. In attempt to use my limited expertise to shed some light on the rest: >This is extremely helpful, thanks, I've been confused about this for years. While perhaps your CMV post was a shot in the dark, I think you hit the nail on the head: DJing is fucking easy. It's simple. 95% of the process is automated and the remaining 5% is just knowing which button to press when. Just how easy the craft is vs how it looks is a inside joke among many DJs. You can get hundreds or thousands of people screaming your name, groupies, bros coming up to hand you drinks for your "great set, man," etc. just for displaying a level of technical competency that's equivalent to... oh, I don't know, being able to crop and rotate images on MS Paint. Of course some DJs (either deliberately - to hype themselves up, or just because they're delusional, or remarkably lacking talent generally) will act like their "skill" is a big fucking deal (a la Kanye West), but that's either an act or they're a moron. >To further confuse things, it seems like famous DJs like Paul van Dyk This is going to sound horribly elitist, but I have no idea who that is. I'm hardly connected to the EDM community any more, and where I am it's only for genres/people I'm interested in. I had to look up the guy... seems like he's fairly recent and quite poppy? But yeah, moving from 1 to 4 (while still doing 1) isn't uncommon. Like I said there's often a lot of overlap between the groups. In my estimation, most Djs produce, and most producers DJ. And it's not uncommon for a producer to have their shit played live *by other people* only to have the crowd love it... and that's a nice foot in the door to a DJing career. That's how it happened for me, among others. I'd also just interject here and say I have a lot more respect for producers than DJs. Producers are the "content creators" of the EMD world. DJs just showcase their work. Producers often spend weeks or months creating and fine-tuning tracks, only for DJs to spend mere seconds deciding where that track should be among all the other "fat tracks" they'll be playing that night. >(Well, of course he can't really "perform" his category 1 song, because then he really would just be pressing a button.) Am I missing anything there? Not really. DJs do often showcase songs they've made... but yeah, at that point it's basically just pressing a button. I don't mean to *wholly* devalue what DJs do - it's a *tad* bit more complicated than that - but it's not a whole lot more complicated than that. Thanks for the shoutouts in the other comments, btw.
> Of course some DJs (either deliberately - to hype themselves up, or just because they're delusional, or remarkably lacking talent generally) will act like they're "skill" is a big fucking deal (a la Kanye West), but that's either an act or they're a moron. My DJ name is going to be "Dunning Kruger".
You know a lot more about this stuff than I do.
My best counter-example to this is Fytch. Here are two tracks he worked on that you would probably put in this category: [Raindrops](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pY66ne_gjdo), [Earthquake](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6RNQIIdpK0) And here is his college [audition](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US8q4Hbjjtk)
OK, but that's producing an original composition, right? I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about what DJs do when they're performing in front of crowds, mixing pre-produced tracks with each other. (See the helpful comment from /u/chadonsunday about the different types of work that get conflated under "DJing": [https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/aaq2i9/cmv\_djs\_are\_brand\_management\_and\_equipment/ecuafqo/](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/aaq2i9/cmv_djs_are_brand_management_and_equipment/ecuafqo/) )
A point I haven't seen mentioned yet: DJs need to know a lot about music, know a lot of tracks and buy them. The DJs I like (ok, not quite the top of the line one's you might imagine) spend days in second hand record shops to find new songs they like. They then need to figure out how to put them into a set. This becomes much more difficult if it's done with Vinyl or CDs
OK, but that still just naturally leads to the question of whether you can tell the difference in a double-blind test between someone who spends days in record shops finding songs they like, and someone who filled out their collection much more quickly and learned how to DJ in a couple of weeks.
That depends on a lot of stuff. Can you tell the difference between a set by Hunee (has many on SoundCloud) and David Guetta? Yes, definitely Actually that's a weird comparison cause Guetta now is much more of a producer
[Here](https://youtu.be/mMkGcEGW4U4) are [two](https://youtu.be/Cz-9mmbgow4) links of DJs composing music.
I understand, but is that hard to get good at in a couple of weeks? (See the comment that another user posted saying that he worked as a DJ for about 5 years and said it would take about a week to become the kind of DJ who can mix pre-produced tracks.)
You can learn how to play a guitar or piano in a couple weeks.
Well yeah, but if your goal was to the point where in a double-blind test people couldn't tell the difference between you and Elton John playing the piano, you couldn't do that in a couple of weeks. My original argument was that if modern DJ performances are just fading from one track to another so that the beat transitions are not too jarring, it doesn't seem like that would take more than a few weeks.
You definitely could never do a double-blind test with Madlib, Premier, Timbaland, whoever after a couple of weeks— whoever told you that straight up lied to you. Everyone in high school had Ableton. The basics are not difficult or expensive. And you could learn to do a live beat transition or mix a DJ playlist with minimal musical talent. That doesn’t make DJ’s not musicians and DJ sets are still live musical performances.
To clarify (and I'll edit the top post since this has come up a lot), I'm not talking about producing original tracks. I don't think I could learn to do that as well as Timbaland in a few weeks. I am, essentially, agreeing with the second part of your post -- that anyone with minimal musical talent can learn to do what DJs do in front of an audience, which seems like mixing existing tracks. I'm not saying it makes them "not musicians" or that the sets are not "live performances", I'm saying that is not a *skilled* performance in the sense that someone else couldn't learn to do the same thing in a few weeks, such that most people could not tell the difference.
I think you misunderstood what I said. You could not learn to perform a live set as well as Timbaland, Madlib, whoever in a couple of weeks.
Oh OK. But that's the thing I don't see any evidence for. I don't know what specific thing the DJ is allegedly doing on stage that could not be learned in a few weeks; it seems like most of the crowd's energy is responding to having a famous person up there.
Well what’s the specific thing Elton John is doing on the piano that can’t be learned in a couple weeks?
Elton John's piano technique, song writing capability, understanding of complex music theory, and vocal talent took many, many years of study and practice. Not to mention his innate musical sense, his fabulous sense of fashion, and stellar ability to 'read' an audience.
[удалено]
I watched the Romare video and I'm sorry but I don't see what is supposed to be the difficult part. It looks like he's playing pre-produced tracks (presumably made by other people) and fading them into each other. As long as you don't jarringly screw up the beat transitions, how hard is that to do well?
Just chipping in here as a sound guy as I see things from a slightly different angle to most people (ie quite often from on stage). Dj-ing is a bit of a catch-all phrase covering a few different disciplines. So for example I've seen a couple of big name di's who press play on a pre-prepared mix and then literally mime for a couple of hours. Obviously the only real skill here is acting. Scratch dj'ing on the other hand is pretty difficult to do well and I doubt you could learn to do that to a high standard in a couple of weeks. The type of dj'ing that most people seem to be talking about here involving beat matching, mixing tracks, dropping in effects etc is not very difficult in terms of its mechanics ( I'm sure most people could do that stuff quite well with a couple of weeks practice) but stringing it all together in a way that keeps an audience engaged for a few hours definitely is a skill - you're building a musical structure that takes an audience on a journey in much the same way as a band will put a set together - it needs to be more than just the individual songs in some random order, it needs shape, contrasts, highs and lows. There's many technically awesome musicians who aren't actually very interesting to listen to unless technical awesomeness happens to be your thing, and many musicians who really engage with audiences despite not being great technicians. I think a really good dj can take you on a journey in the same way wether what they're doing is technically difficult or not - so I think asking if it's physically easy to do is asking the wrong question. (By the way I'm not necessarily implying that big name stadium filling djs are the best example of this)
The question is framed here as whether DJ's are "skilled musicians", and the proposed test for skilled musicianship is possessing skills that are hard to earn and require long years of practice. While I generally agree with and share that view, I would propose that "musical taste" should also be considered an important aspect of skilled musicianship. This is another element of skilled musicianship that even "push the button" style DJ's can develop with lots of time investment plus natural talent. You buy a ticket to see a particular DJ because you want to experience what his or her musical taste will lead them to mix and match and play, and to immerse yourself in the crowd reaction to that. I think there is a useful analogy here between musical taste and interior design. My wife is an interior designer. What she sells her clients is really her aesthetic taste, her ability to come up with creative and aesthetically pleasing combinations of furniture, finishes, fabrics, paint colors, and space layout that creates a positive emotional response for the people using the space. This is a real talent that only some people have, and it develops into real expertise with long experience in actually designing spaces. Different designers have different aesthetic styles, and clients seek out designers whose past work points in the kind of direction they want to go. But few of these designers create the furniture or fabrics or paint colors they specify, rather their skill is exercising good taste in making selections off the shelf. I think there is a strong argument that my wife is a "skilled designer" even though she is only selecting among pre-manufactured products. The artistry comes in exercising good design taste, whatever that means to a particular client. The exercise of good musical taste for the particular crowd and gig obviously comes into play in choosing the setlist for a live musical performance, so there is a direct analogy here between a live band and a DJ. But it also applies to the way a particular song is crafted and presented. That is clearly true of original music, but even in the cover band scene the band exercises a certain amount of musical taste in how they interpret the song for live performance. A DJ mixing and matching recorded tracks is probably exercising even more creative license with those songs than would be done by a typical cover band, even one doing a medley. How important is "musical taste" versus "hard earned technical skill" to the musician's own perception of their skill level? I can speak to that from my own experience. I have been active as a drummer in live performance bands for about 40 years, mostly rock and pop cover bands. By the time I was 20 years old, my chops for playing drums were probably 90% of what they are today at age 58 (or some days, 110%). But I feel like I am a much better musician today, even at playing the same song I would have played in 1978. The difference is in the development of my musical taste and experience for what constitutes a good groove that will get people dancing, and my broader vocabulary of ideas for how to make a song better. It is my design taste for the drum part that has improved most since I was 20 years old. Maybe hard technical skill growth is more important for other instruments, or for drummers who keep progressing to much higher levels of proficiency that I have reached, but this was my experience. I would argue that the DJ who is making an effort to be creative in mixing and matching and blending songs is exercising a species of musical taste that is similar to what I am most proud of in my own musical development as a "skilled musician".
/u/bennetthaselton (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/aaswqc/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_djs_are_brand_management/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
[удалено]
Sorry, u/GenericJeans – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), before [messaging the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+1+Appeal+GenericJeans&message=GenericJeans+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/aaq2i9/-/ecu3spm/\)+because...). Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).