Lude Generation

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-27498611

I can mix.
Separately to that, I also understand frequencies and sound waves etc.
However, I have absolutely no idea what the heck the scientist is going on about?



Does that mean it's now proven that scientists talk bollocks?
Or is it just this particular scientist?
Or is this particular scientist not talking bollocks and someone is able to translate for me?


(I'm also not sure why a scientist needs to prove that mixing is quite a skill - anyone who's ever tried to do it cold for the first time, understands that!)

I know where this all went wrong.

"Point Blank Music School student Sydney Thomas gives us a demonstration, before Dr Mark Elliott, a research fellow at Birmingham University's School of Psychology, explains the science behind the art."

A psychologist talking about science. I can't believe research (and by extension research money that could be applied elsewhere where it is much more effective, i.e. not a pseudoscience) has been done on this. It's logic. If you play two equally timed beats and align them, the beat will match. You can't align two inequally timed beats. Almost everyone with ears knows this?

All this demonstrates is how to manipulate government and university funds to make your doctorate seem worthwhile, massage your own ego, and let you toss it off listening to music at 'work' all day.

Also lol at matey not knowing how many beats are in a bar and he's meant to be talking about beatmatching.

No. beats in a bar varies though, depending on what timescale you're working off so he wasn't wrong, just couldn't remember whether it was a 4/4 time track or something else...

Yes but he should know for the one he is talking about/going to talk about is what I'm saying Zero prep because he has two first names as a complete name. Never trust those kinds of people.

i stopped listening after a few minutes...

I think the presenter and the telephone dude were actually talking about 2 different things, but had to both pretend they werent.

The presenter was talking about beat matching (which to me, is just lining up the songs (synchronisation and speed) on 3 levels, firstly at the beat level, then at the bar level, then cueing up accordingly ready for the right part of the track) in preperation for a mix. This to me is a pre-requisite for mixing, and certainly nothing to do with science or art or psychology.

The chap on the telephone was possibly talking about trying to line up rythyms, which are poorly explained by a simple beat from a metronome (which actually more accurately describes beat matching).

Generally you'd find a rythym is muted when mixing if the 2 tracks aren't terribly compatible (via the bass EQ), so is a non issue.

Glad to see BBC tax money spent on such twaddle.

Used to do a little mixing at home in the past and attempted some music production , and an avid collector of trance music.

Scott560 wrote:Glad to see BBC tax money spent on such twaddle.

I took it that this was the BBC doing a feature (report) on research carried out/funded/published by others, rather than something the BBC had commissioned, i.e. no BBC license fee money spent on the twaddle itself.

As any fule know, all you need is a Traktor desk and a laptop.
It's not beat matching that's difficult, it's tone matching and it's song matching and it's picking the right parts of the pieces you're trying to match.
You can twiddle the speeds and merge 4/4 with 3/4 or 5/4 or anything else you care to pick if you want. But that doesn't mean it will feel right.

so many words to explain something so simple.

its the difference between mixing something together and blending it.

On the face of it they are the same but to a baker, builder, etc they are very different. Same for music. Anyone can mix two tunes together but to blend music together is a learned skill and sounds different.

regardless, Discjockies get minimal respect from me. Someone else made the music you mix and someone else is making it sound good. A computer or a monkey could do 90% of all DJ sets with no noticable drop in quality. The same cant be said for producers or sound tech's. yet.

I used to mix then I discovered how much more fullfilling actually setting up a rig was.

lewd lude lover wrote:regardless, Discjockies get minimal respect from me. Someone else made the music you mix and someone else is making it sound good. A computer or a monkey could do 90% of all DJ sets with no noticable drop in quality.

That's because 90% of DJ's these days are bum droppings. They're not real DJ's, they're someone that can look at a beat counter to match the speeds and then slam or fade stuff across with no talent, while they ripple their fake tanned torso's and over-sculpted hair to the pissed up tarts around them that don't know any better. Once they've been playing at it for a week, they can then manage to twiddle the knobs on the Pioneer mixer to make it sound like they're doing something clever (when they aren't)

Proper DJ's DO deserve respect and there is REAL talent in selecting the right tunes (not just playing the right ones to work the crowd, but also in what mixes well or interestingly with another) and in HOW the tunes are played over/mixed/scratched/cut/looped etc. together. Real DJ's are few and far between these days though

I agree but rather like other trades where most of how successful you are is how much of a dickhead you are DJing has always attracted a type. That type is the type that blows up my bass drivers with bad e.q.ing

There are few in the public eye, now or then, who appreciate the simple rule that red means woah, slow down there. I'v teched for some major DJs and they all push the levels too hard. thats just dickhead.

Mixing and blending for your own enjoyment is different and is a respectable hobby. It is not a god like skill, nor is is something that a thinking man should rely upon to get blowjobs.