> i am with you all the way on this. tracks that fade in are impossible to > mix in correctly, unless you want to ruin the natural flow and structure > of your mix.
It's not impossible, you just have to find a point after the fade-in which is a suitable starting point - just listen to the patterns and there's usually a clear enough start point to use. And anyway, as other people have pointed out, these tracks aren't necessarily made with a DJ in mind - if you want to use it in a set you have to put a bit of effort in. DJs these days have it too easy! :) > drexciya (and related projects) do this a lot too and i've never > understood it. It's often a result of the track being an edit of a longer, improvised studio version - they may well have jammed with the track's looping components for half an hour or so and then picked the best six minutes or so to use as the final track. In the days before computer based digital audio editing was the norm, fading in was probably the smoothest way to do it. In the case of Drexciya it certainly sounds to me like a lot of their stuff (especially the early stuff) has never been through any digital conversion at all - it sounds like it's been mixed (analogue) straight to 1/4" tape and cut to vinyl straight from that... Cheers, Tom | tom churchill | emoticon recordings uk | emot 007 - future beat alliance - head ways (out march 2002) | emot 006 - otomi - zusammen/vertrauen (out now) | emot 005 - connective zone/jeff samuel/scape one/schmutzig (out now) | website/info - http://www.emoticonrecordings.com | distribution - http://www.rushhour.nl --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
