Mills (again) played a DJ set at the Royal Festival Hall in London recently as the finale to the showing of his adaptation of the Metropolis soundtrack. Seeing someone DJ at a venue (with seats) was rather bizarre. A large section of the crowd rushed towards the front to dance, whilst the bemused rest watched from their seats. Some people didn't know whether to dance or to remain seated (including me!). It did beg the question though, when transported to a different atmosphere, did it really make any sense? I mean, it's just a guy spinning a number of records.
I can't really articulate what I want to say, because it will mean going into that whole artist/DJ argument which I can't be arsed with. ----- Original Message ----- From: Mxyzptlk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Toby Frith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Cyclone Wehner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 313 Detroit <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 3:53 PM Subject: Re: (313) 100 BEST DJ IN THE WORLD (Mills) > While I respect your opinion and understand that your comments are made in > the context of this discussion (and also that dance music is ostensibly > made for dancing), I have to say that I find the notion that someone gets > to say how *I* need to react to something else in the sense that I can be > marginalized when I don't is reductionistic and at least as problematic as > a person who doesn't respond in the way dictated by whomever. I don't dance > and I doubt I ever will; perhaps it's childhood trauma or an ill formed > sense of self - whatever. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy the music nor > does it mean I have to be saddled with restructuring a performative context > or bumming out a DJ. It would seem like the fact that I haven't left the > venue should say something. > In an age where all kinds of criticism (literary, etc.) has freed > art from static notions tied with the artist, I find it interesting that > the monolithic notion of "must-dancing" still rules. I do understand the > need for it and I understand how it creates a necessary symbiosis - but why > does *everyone* need to be dancing in order for them to enjoy and > appreciate something? > We aren't all dancers, we aren't all as comfortable with dancing as each > other. As a qualifier, I am not saying that any behavior or reaction to art > is equally appropriate, nor am I saying there is no tie between art and > artist. I just find it a bit tyrannical and quixotic to dictate behavior to > a set. Again, my comments are not directed to this particular post (as I > can see the connection you are making vis a vis the trend), but rather > towards the notion that seems to underlie it : if I don't dance, I am > unappreciative and some kind of pariah. If it's really about the music OR > the mix, then I should be left to appreciate it in a way which is genuine > to myself and doesn't shipwreck someone else's enjoyment. .02. > > jeff > > > At 08:09 AM 11/4/2002, Toby Frith wrote: > >This is somewhat of a double-edged sword I think. In one respect, people go > >to see a DJ like Mills so they can dance. In the other respect, they go to > >watch his craft, which then takes the DJ out of his normal context and into > >that of an artist, because you are viewing him/her rather than interacting. > >(another argument which I'm not going to pontificate on here) So you get > >one half of the audience dancing and the other just watching. This has been, > >IMHO, the downfall of techno turntablism and the like in recent years. Too > >much watching, not enough dancing. > > > >I went to see Mills in Zurich a year ago and there was far too much of the > >latter going on. You could see him actually looking rather annoyed as one > >absolute classic after another (Final Frontier, Magnese) was being dropped > >only to see a leaden-footed and mute reaction from the crowd. How must a DJ > >feel when they are faced by banks of motionless people looking at them spin > >some records? > >
