Hi, my name's Ash Nehru, signing on after lurking for a couple of weeks...
I've been following the interesting thread regarding DJ software recently.
As I'm currently developing (privately) experimental audio performance
software I'd like to respond to a recent comment by Scott Brandon -
> No computer program will ever give you the freedom it takes to truly
> work a record, and a crowd.... Could you seriously see Derrick May,
> or Stacey Pullen, or especially Claude Young using a computer to just
>"smooth mix" their sets???
I agree that computer mixing has a number of major problems that haven't yet
been overcome. There's an image / aesthetic problem - the "Microsoft office
cubicle" ethos, cold, grey, rectinlinear and establishment, has come to
dominate the way people think of computers. There's also problems of high
price, poor reliability and sound quality, and the need to transport and
soundcheck before sets. The biggest problem is that control interfaces in
the main are hopelessly fiddly and counterintuitive, and lack the rewarding
tactile feedback of vinyl. Faced with these problems, software that simply
tries to replicate the "vinyl interface" simply doesn't give back enough to
make it worthwhile - after all, vinyl is standard, widely available, simple,
sexy, and does the job fine. Further, by making DJing too "easy" half the
fun is lost.
But I do feel that computer mixing (in the abstract) offers a number of
possibilities for improved freedom and control. First and most obviously,
quantised tempo - freedom from beat-matching and playback speed limitations.
Second, quantised pitch - within limits, allowing any track to mix in key
with any other track, or be shifted to allow true melodic improvisation.
Third, since they're random-access, not linear like CDs or vinyl, the
ability to repeat and reorder loops within tracks to allow the DJ to really
"work the record" (say by stretching out a break) in ways impossible with
vinyl, and to switch much more rapidly between records (eg. one every 4
bars - try that with vinyl). Fourth, multiple channels - if freed from beat
/ pitch match duties, the DJ could work regularly with eight (or more)
"decks", allowing new types of layering experiments. This would move the
DJing task closer to that of a live performer or remixer. Fifth, the ability
to easily use your own music without having to press CDs or dubplates.
Sixth, the ability to store large (possibly online) databases of tracks,
allowing the DJ to regularly play from collections of hundreds or thousands
of tracks, which currently is impractical with vinyl. Seventh, a potentially
limitless library of effects. And finally, new control interfaces (such as
gestural control, light-beam interfaces, augmented reality) could provide
truly awesome interactive / tactile qualities.
These factors suggest to me that as the problems are solved (and this is a
fledgeling field) computer mixing will start to take off. I'm betting that
there's a company out there that will one day produce a magic box that
revolutionises and democratises DJing the way devices like the Atari ST and
Roland TR808 did for production. Established DJs might not take it up,
because they have already invested so much time acquiring vinyl skills - but
this won't stop "the kids" who are now in their diapers and haven't got any
sentimental attachment to spinning bits of plastic. Lazy DJs will use
technology as a crutch; creative DJs will push the technology to create new
sounds.
I'm also betting that the beauty and simplicity of vinyl (and the pleasure
of watching a skilled DJ) will ensure it a lengthy future. Even though I
play out with a computer, I still love mixing with vinyl. The past coexists
with the future...
If anyone's interested, details of the hummingbird project, which is a start
in this direction (and will one day hopefully be an open-source project) are
at my site below.
:-) (-:
Ash
--autopilot--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.autopilot.co.uk
