a late reply to the (short) discussion from last friday on DJ mag's top-100
poll, because i think it is an interesting subject.
i agree with the retro-vert mailing posted by ken and what dr. dog posted
earlier.
1. yes, the dj mag top 100 is utter crap, and i don't care who's in it or
not, and who's made the top 5;
2. however, it's a fact that the vast majority of the public that pays for
tickets to events or clubnights does care about the top 100;
3. therefore promotors care about who's made the list and who hasn't (and
they therefore will also care about who hasn't made the list, or who's
fallen off the list);
4. therefore the vast majority of events and clubnights will pay money to
book someone who's made the list, and will not book someone who isn't
popular with those people that bring in the money (which in the case of
events are not only the visitors, but more importantly companies that would
like to use an event to advertise their products);
5. this will reduce the number of bookings for 'unpopular' dj's, the
exposure of these musical styles in magazines, etc.
so i think you should ask yourself whether or not you think this is good for
'unpopular' music. who will benefit from a decrease in exposure? we have
talked about sales in techno going down, and the bad financial times that
have allready meant the end of big shops and distributors. small labels are
struggeling, and we moan about some of our dj hero's playing sets adjusted
to their audience (stacey pullen) just to be able to earn a living.
what would be the effect if for instance derrick may, laurent garnier and dj
bone made up the top 3 in the next DJ mag top-100?
i don't have the answers to these questions, but i think it would be an
interesting subject to discuss.
jurren
