i have used Final Scratch 2 for the past 2 years, to some success.
however, i am still not able to play a proper, balls out set with it.
not because the tunes are not there, but because:-
1. the sound quality is not an iota on vinyl
2. i agree with senor Francis on the covers thing. much easier to pick
and choose in the heat of the moment, through sight of and feel of the
vinyl and covers.
3. although much lighter and much less fuss than vinyl, i love vinyl
and FS2 has not given me any better alternative.
having said that, it does allow me to play new stuff that i, or flat
mate, has written that afternoon. and not dub plate it. so in that
respect, it is a useful tool
sorry, but same old argument... vinyl rules
Ben.T
On 2 Jan 2008, at 20:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I first read this I thought "yes I'm sure that's absolutely
right".
But then I thought a little bit more and I'm not sure it's the whole
answer.
What I think looking at covers (real or virtual) gives me is some
information / association that I can absorb very quickly and use
to make a decision on what to play next.
It's not the only way you could do that though - i.e. I don't just
want to do it this way because it's what I'm used to. I can
think of other things. In fact the "covers" thing would not be as
good as a gadget that quickly "previewed" in the headphones how a
load of alternative tracks would sound mixing out of the one playing.
But of course there wouldn't be enough time to do this with
too many tracks - what I was saying about accessing the info quickly.
So let's imagine some other wonder gadget that did a different version
of "covers". How about a jack that plugged into your head
and gave you a millisecond flash of how a track "made you feel"? OK
I'm being silly now but maybe you get my drift.
And the funny thing is even though I don't DJ with a PC (yet) I know
what people mean when they talk about not being grabbed by a
list of file names. Sadly I keep a log (not always up to date or
accurate) of the records I buy. Just a clipboard with a few A4
sheets with the 12"/LP names pencilled on. I started this about 15
years ago when I only had 3 or 4 hundred records and wanted a
way to quickly look through them. I've kept it up and it isn't a big
deal to do - just a few words every week or two when I've been
to the shop a couple of times (there's no way I could start it from
scratch now, it would be too big a job, I'd like to switch to a
database with more details on but it would take winning the lottery
and employing someone to transcribe). But the point is although
I keep this up, as it's easy, it's never really served its purpose:
sitting down at the kitchen table with a list of all the records
I have and being able to quickly skim down to select a boxful to take
out. It just doesn't sink in and your eyes slip over a title
without really taking in what it means. I still end up on my hands
and knees crawling around my record shelves actually looking at
them because only then do I really see (=hear?) them.
So although I agree it's partly about making new digital forms act
like old analogue ones by aping their physical aspect, it's also
a psychological one about how we absorb information.
Phew! (good job I'm off on holiday for 3 weeks on Friday as that's
313ed me out).
-----Original Message-----
From: JT Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 02 January 2008 19:59
interesting...i think this has more to do with music
appreciation/collecting than dj'ing (although relevant to many dj's),
turning digital music into a digital "object" closer to what we
experience with actual objects. we had like a 30 page argument
touching on that on c-b-s recently.
