*rotflmao* - try not to take this post the same way as you took the last. Yes, it was partially sarcastic as I mention at the bottom of my last post, but you will also notice I smile alot when doing so. If I was serious about it, then I don't smile. :)
Ok, last post on this, as the next food I'm keeping to myself, instead of feeding the trolls. > I don't quite get what you're saying - you're right. Please try and > construct well formed sentences, it makes it easier for me. I'll break it down into nice and simple sentances for you, so that you can dissect them later at your pleasure. :) > Maybe you feel your 6 years' > professional experience is being undermined? I'm sorry about > that. Quite the opposite. I'm certain that there are many many many more people that read these threads that are far better than I am and in a far shorter timespan. But I ain't the one that stated the ability to play unknown records on the fly, so it equates that I at least justify my previous position as having a little experience of the dj'ing. > I'm suggesting people can try the pitch control technique - > it's not, as you seem to be saying (and this is a prime example > of where you get incoherent), cheating or impossible. It isn't. I never said impossible. But as people have already highlighted, when time is against you in a mix, sometimes stalling/pushing a track might be the one thing that can save that mix. Some people prefer to touch the platter, other people don't. I've never advised either way on which was correct/wrong, and I was highlighting the instances of why you may need to stall/push. Alot of people can pitch mix because of the style of music that they play, whereas other genres demand a far higher usage of push/stall. "(I emphasise or)" in my previous post was key to how you chose to read it, as I was attempting to indicate that people should at least try and gain a good working knowledge; not of a track, but how a track is built. That was an error on my part, and I apologise. :) > I do it, others do it and it's fine. > It's OK. Maybe you just can't manage it. That's OK too. Believe me I can do it. :) Lastly: >I've thought about not replying to this, but your tone annoys me. More fool >me :P So I apologise for being involved in this most ludicrous of threads. <serious> I thought it was quite useful actually, as it's highlighted the different ways in which people mix. What I think is ludicrous is the way in which people can somehow "read between the lines" and use a bit of creative thinking to try a force a thread down a path that it was never intended to be taken. At no point have I dilluted the thoughts of others to fit my own devices. Lastly, I was actually being serious about the CJ, and the "hehe" after the statement was in worry, and not in jest of your name. I do have limitation as to how far I will dive to drag up humour. It wouldn't be the first (nor would it be the last) time that someone has turned out to be "someone". </serious> Oh, and "Horses for Courses" is the same "Different strokes for different folks". ;) Dscaper ---------- Aeonflux Radio - http://www.aeonflux.co.uk "A man who know's what he knows, and knows what he doesn't know, is the sign of a man who knows."
