>I can't believe the things I read on this list. This list, which uses >the works of Alvin Toffler in vain and frequently evokes the imagry of >Blade Runner and music created in a present future dystopia, and then I >read crap like this: > >"Sounds horrible, going through the box is part of the artform. It would >make it too calculated, you can't flick through your box, land on >something >else and think hmmm, now maybe I can play that instead."
>"Do you really want to watch some dude just press a few >buttons on a computer, a pre-planned set, there could be no spontaneity, >by default. It would be as boring as hell. Any fool could use the new >system as it would be a relative cinch." Well man since you quote my "crap" as call it maybe you should keep in mind that I never cite Toffler, Blade Runner, et al. I stick to my words. >I also sometimes wonder about about the reading ability of people on >this list. I seem to recall saying "the only aspect of DJ'ing that it >changes is the carrying of vinyl and selecting of tracks to play." Do >you people have that much difficulty with English? Is the Aussie >dialect really that difficult that it doesn't penetrate the quoted >sentence? I will break down the sentence: Well I have a scholarship-based first class hons degree in English at the Australian equivalent of an Ivy League University so maybe you should freakin' hold off on the presumptions. >*the only aspect of DJ'ing that it changes* - this implies there is only >one aspect, but there are actually two, now I see why you are all >confused. >*is the carrying of vinyl* - this is aspect one, the DJ doesn't have to >carry around as much vinyl anymore. How much less is up to the >individual. >*and selecting of tracks to play* - this is the other aspect, the DJ no >longer has to flip through a box of records. And you think that change in set up wouldn't impact on DJing? Do we have to spell it out for you? >So with that out of the way and because I am bored and incredulous I >will respond to each of these in order. > >"Sounds horrible, going through the box is part of the artform. It would >make it too calculated, you can't flick through your box, land on >something >else and think hmmm, now maybe I can play that instead." > >--> How the hell is looking through a box for something you can't find >and maybe left at home part of any artform?!? And is this any different >than the DJ looking through the porn folder on their computer and >finding some track and thinking "oh yeah that's where I downloaded that >stupid thing, my mouse must have slipped while I was typing with one >hand, lemme play this now because I am so spontaneous and >un-calculated." I stand by my words, you don't have a clue. Either that or you are a salesman for it. You sound like one of the iMac sales people when I put it to them that the iMac has been an absolute disaster and there had been a cover up and they denied it, made sexist accusations, etc. Next day the company posted it's finincial report, not good. Whole universities are trashing them etc - my research background came up with some embrassing info for them, too. Why are you so damn overwrought over it. Up until now it was a good discussion and very interesting. Just maybe you failed to explain it properly. But I stick by my POV and won't be intimidated by this nonsense. I know PLENTY of good international DJs would agree >--> The modern DJ is a product of evolution, the future DJ will also >be. As for house DJ's, the main propent of this system is Acquaviva, >last I checked he was pretty "house" maybe he's changed in the last >three weeks. Sure, he's house but he is not part of the house tradition that takes in MAW, Francois K, etc. >Good GOD, if you people can't deal with technological and social change >now I'd hate to see you when you're 50+. Well you can't tolerate discussion, other POV, and that's real sad. Lighten up! Cheers Cyclone
