> I suppose I see limitations in the singular Dj as a bio feedback > sensor. At least I > don't herald the the role of the Dj as much as I used to.
there's going to be limitations in any situation it's what you do within those limitations that matter > Besides .. what I am suggesting is to providing a Dj more input > sources to work > more information to manipulate. Real-time organic inputs that are > a result of the > situation that is occuring. Then shifting their position as the > central figure to one > that perhaps working in collaboration with many other to > facilitating the audience > experience. right, understand - and this is already done and has been done for ages see my last comment (I'm working backwards up this post) > Haven't we been through the whole exercise as Dj being God! only those who have the misfortune of thinking that way have been through that exercise > Maybe we will end up like the chess world where we try to build a machine that > can mix better the Jeff Mills ?? you can find videos of DJ machines on youtube http://youtube.com/watch?v=TfDbyaVOMf0 http://youtube.com/watch?v=2cwtS7_f8cM problem is, chess can be broken down to a mathematical process DJing cannot - no matter how much programming you put into it - that's the "soul" thing that people always mention I suppose it all depends though on what a person considers to be a "good" DJ. Some like extreme surgical precision. Others, like Tom and myself, prefer to hear the human behind the records. > I'm not particularly interested in the ultimate machine DJ. But I > am interested in > where technology can take the performance of music. I could see the concept, if executed correctly, being a load of fun but in the end a novelty. Others might latch on to it like a baby to a mother's teat. > I study my history as well. However as a generation, Rave was our way of > capturing the "process" and finding our own interpretations for mass > celebration. > > Why are we not allowed to claim some ownership and involvement with how > we control our environments? > > If everything has happened before and there is nothing new under the sun, > then where am I supposed to locate myself as a free thinking individual. > > You are prescribing me a role of either being the artist or the audience. With this concept you've drawn up this situation hasn't been eliminated though. There are still a clearly set group of controllers and the audience interacts within the environment that has been set up for them. It might seem like the autonomy has been pushed back further but I don't think it really has. > What's wrong with removing this separation? Whats wrong with blurring the > line between who is in control and who is being controlled? Funny that you think the DJ isn't being controlled by his/her audience. Ever see a DJ clear a floor and then dig for a record that will bring them all back on. The control (I prefer communication) goes back and forth in a good situation. > One of the documented and often celebrated aspects of original rave culture > was how it made everyone part of the experience. People revelled in the idea > that their presence in the dance was significant. Raves don't have a corner on that market. It was new to those who hadn't experienced that before. However, raves were not where it began in the 20th Century. > The early inspirations of dance music reflected this positive enthusiasm. > > The music responded to and initiated the tribal, collective nature > of the dance. > The shift away from ego centric front of house production enlightened people > in a way that was reminiscent of beating drums around a fire ?? > > Why is it such a challenge to suggest we continue to explore this more > collective energy in the music? sorry, this all calls to mind raver "psytrance" type "cyber-hippy" talk > You are arguing that you want to experience the artist in the music, > yet you are > also saying that the artist is a feedback filter to the audience. > So why not open > up this process reduce the mediation and increase the feedback? because not everyone has something to say nor can they express it very well that's why in tribal groups you have dedicated drummers - because they understand rhythm and the drum you have dedicated dancers - because they have a knowledge of body and movement you have dedicated singers - because they have a voice that others appreciate not having that ability is not a bad thing however I don't see how getting everyone involved is going to really make it any better take a look at the number of crap records in record shops and you can clearly see that not everyone can do it very well nor should they there's a few people I've seen dancing that I think we're all better off not having their movements translated into sound thank you ;-) > If technology is enabling us to reproduce, trigger, sample, filter, effect and > manipulate music in increasingly complex ways.. why could an artist or group > of artists not be enabled to enable the audience to be in control oftheir own > experience . it's an illusion however that the audience is in total control the artist or group of artists have set up ahead of time the parameters and set the whole thing in motion the audience then steps into this and their control of their experience will be limited to what the artist/controlling group has created > In an advanced way this is continuing to take music back to its roots, where > everyone was a contributor to the rhythm. Where all the voices in the village > made the melody together. eh - see below > > Why not break down this continual separation and isolation of peoplefrom each > other. Sure its challenging, slightly feral, non-commercial way to think .. does a band/DJ separate and isolate? I don't think so. Maybe you need to check out other artists. > But in a world where nothing is new, and everything has been done ..then maybe > this is something that we could do with all our latest toys .. which > is to go all the > way back to "Africa" and be completely tribal by allowing everyone > to be a part > of the music. Again, a big fallacy right there. Not everyone in tribal groups are musical performers/participants. Some perform, some dance, some merely observe, some are cooking the food for the feast. However, I don't think the observers would not consider themselves participants on some level. It's interesting that the argument is DJs -> audience, as if the audience at a traditional disco must merely be a nonparticipant. Go to a good disco and you'll find dancers bringing musical instruments (drums, tambourines, shakers, etc.) and adding their own rhythms on top of what the DJ is playing. A good disco truly is DJ<=>audience. Problem is, it is few and far between and truth is, most raves sort of lost that and most ravers thought it was mind expanding and that they had cornered the market on the interactive side of things. Few clubs have that going on anymore too because the rave mentality transferred over into the clubs as the kids came of age. Check out a disco with lots of old heads (people in the 40+) still going to dance and you'll see how the energy flow is 110% completely different than your average club/rave. There is a real spirit of vitality and aliveness. MEK
