Do you think DJs are a talented bunch? I've never really been a fan of DJs, I've liked some of the music they play but as for any particular Dj, I can't say there has ever been one who really stood out.

Is a DJ only as good as his/her record collection?

Do DJs credit the artist whose records they play?

Do you have a favourite DJ and why?

What are your opinions regarding DJs? Do you think DJs should be classed as musicians?

This is a subject close to my heart!

A DJ isn't only as good as the records they play. Your records are your tools but on their own they aren't very effective.

Try to imagine records are bricks. As a set of bricks they are very nice and useful even beautiful in a strange sort of way. Now look at your pile of bricks and imagine all the things you can make from them. You can put them together in all kinds of ways and make anything you like limited only by the power of your imagination. Different DJ's put their bricks together in special ways, they create structures of beauty, long sweeping curves, gothis folly's, tight organised functional buildings. All are worthy and all take talent. records don't make a DJ the way he fits them together makes him.

As a DJ myself its kind of hard to credit an artist, the best you can do is tell people who made the record. In a way its like promoting the artist. DJ's who don't share their records are just pandering to their own ego and have lost the point.

My favourite DJ is Graeme Park. Every time i've seen him he's just been superb, he also has an obvious love and respect for the music which shines through.

Your average DJ isn't a musician however it would be hard to deny that people like Yoda and other turntablists aren't musicians

The bricks analogy doesn't work for me, you could use the bricks analogy for musical notes as each musical note is one thing you use to create one larger thing, DJs have the music created for them. If it comes to using an analogy, I guess I would use a car going through a tunnel, the tunnel or record is a pre-defined route and it's up to the DJ or car for this analogy how the tunnel is entered or exited.

yes they are (at least some are) supremely talented. not sure whether its an art or a science tbh.
but only a few weeks ago I heard sclub7 which got cut up into krs1 sound of the police(dj food- raidin the C20) he did it cos he could-it was funny and clever if you listen to it. he uses a line from jurrassic 5, 'imagine frank sinatra and led zeplin were glued together' then he mixes frank and led together (sound horrible imo )but he did it.

if you listen to some djs they will provoke you in a way the original artist being mixed never intended,
scratch perverts in my eyes are the best, and there blends of radiohead,nirvana white stripes and other such bands into hip hop are amoung the finest bits of music ever made.
I suppose they are musicians but they have no music to play from only to play with.

shining examples of djs;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqvWrK_jf3w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMp4PAUKj3w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l9FU6nvqps

The bricks analogy doesn't work for me, you could use the bricks analogy for musical notes as each musical note is one thing you use to create one larger thing, DJs have the music created for them. If it comes to using an analogy, I guess I would use a car going through a tunnel, the tunnel or record is a pre-defined route and it's up to the DJ or car for this analogy how the tunnel is entered or exited.

sort of, musians have music created for them(by composers)
djs are a kind of anomaly in they take precomposed and performed music and recompose and reperform in the same instance.
if you watch the scratch perverts link^^ then you see that most the time they arent even using the melodies tunes or even original notes that are on the vinal, at the end they are not even using vinal just a turntable (or six)to create music

Yes I believe DJing is a talent and DJs are musicians.

DJs credit the original artists by playing their music and by changing it into something new. You'd have to be pretty big headed to need your music actually acknowledging on a sleeve unless it was a major part of the track.

I really think you can only appreciate turntables as instruments in a live performance - from a humble house party to a superclub, if you get a DJ that can read the crowd and the mood and play accordingly then that is something really special. Good DJs have a flexibility of sounds that is not available to all but the greatest of guitar players (for example).

The bricks analogy doesn't work for me, you could use the bricks analogy for musical notes as each musical note is one thing you use to create one larger thing, DJs have the music created for them. If it comes to using an analogy, I guess I would use a car going through a tunnel, the tunnel or record is a pre-defined route and it's up to the DJ or car for this analogy how the tunnel is entered or exited.Ok, then imagine each record as a note. The notes are fine by themselves but its how you put them together that makes a performance or a set

This is a tough one. I've seen DJ's that are technically very impressive (such as Scratch Perverts, Fingathing and DJ Yoda), but their sets have bored me to tears. Once the initial 'wow' factor wore off (5 minutes max), I just wanted them to hold a decent track for a while instead of mashing it with 30 records in 16 seconds.

My problem when I go out clubbing is that I get bored very, very quickly by DJ's that play a set consisting of tracks all of the same genre. Once I stopped ramming chemicals in my facepipes, I quickly tired of the techno scene.

I'm more interested in seeing Dj's who take things a step further, and add live elements to their sets, ie Squarepusher with a bass guitar or Ceephax Acid Crew with a Roland 303 and 909 (+ a ton of extra kit).

You've not answered the question in any way!

You've not answered the question in any way!

He has given the best answer yet. I just don't see putting a record on, fading in and out at the right moment and using a few gadgets to add extra oomph as an art form. I can appreciate some of the Producer/DJs like Fatboy slim or the Chemical brothers but the rest just play records as far as I can tell.

I will however admit that scratching, when used well is a good talent.

I still don't agree with your analogy DD. I see your point but I don't agree with it.

Thanks for the input anyway guys.

Why do you disagree?

Why do you disagree?

Because your analogy says that they are building something out of smaller elements and I don't see it as that, I simply see it as putting pre-defined things together. If we were to use your brick analogy then I would see it as the DJ has had the bricks assembled in to a wall and is merely putting the walls together to make a bigger wall.

Don't get me wrong, when I'm out clubbing I get down and jiggy like the best of em and appreciate the way the music flows but I don't ever remember thinking a particular DJ was any better than anybody else, I have come out of clubs wanting to know what a certain "tune" was but not the DJ that played it.

I guess I would go as far as call a DJ a showman/woman but not a talented artist.

You've not answered the question in any way!

As usual I was just rambling. I'll try again...!

Is a DJ only as good as his/her record collection?

Perhaps, though a bit of extra effort (see my above post) doesn't do any harm.

Do DJs credit the artist whose records they play?

If they're asked, yes, usually... I've seen a few who wont let anyone near the DJ booth though, Goldie being one. He was sh•t anyway.

Do you have a favourite DJ and why?

Aphex Twin, LFO, Squarepusher, Autechre... I could go on... All are usually live as opposed to playing a set consisting solely of someone elses records, which just adds that little bit extra.

Do you think DJs should be classed as musicians?

Unless they create music, then no.

By that rationale would you then say that there is no way of determining the quality of any musician of another? They all have to work to the same set of notes, chords and keys. Notes and so on are all predetermined things that musicians have to work with?

Would that make Status Quo as good as The Grateful Dead? TGD were reknowned for their onstage jam sessions where their records could last up to 30 minutes as they jammed and improvised live on stage. SQ famously use 3 chords. Are they the same?

Do DJs credit the artist whose records they play?

If they're asked, yes, usually... I've seen a few who wont let anyone near the DJ booth though, Goldie being one. He was sh•t anyway.Thats just DJ ego and pure insecurity

By that rationale would you then say that there is no way of determining the quality of any musician of another? They all have to work to the same set of notes, chords and keys. Notes and so on are all predetermined things that musicians have to work with?

Would that make Status Quo as good as The Grateful Dead? TGD were reknowned for their onstage jam sessions where their records could last up to 30 minutes as they jammed and improvised live on stage. SQ famously use 3 chords. Are they the same?

No not at all, like you say the Quo used three chords, how could that compare to TGD creating 30 minutes worth of improvised music live on stage. A real musician can take one instrument and create something beautiful with it, there are technical differences between musicians which would make one musician better than the other but the thing a musician can do that a DJ cannot do is create something out of nothing, a DJ needs music to exist, a musician creates music. The same goes with dance music, someone creates music, they compose the track, sequence it, programme drum loops, take and edit samples, mix it all together and create something entirely new, well that's the theory anyway, a DJ just plays the finished article.

Let's look at it this way, who is the most talented, the director of a film or the projectionist in the cinema?

No not at all, like you say the Quo used three chords, how could that compare to TGD creating 30 minutes worth of improvised music live on stage. A real musician can take one instrument and create something beautiful with it, there are technical differences between musicians which would make one musician better than the other but the thing a musician can do that a DJ cannot do is create something out of nothing, a DJ needs music to exist, a musician creates music. The same goes with dance music, someone creates music, they compose the track, sequence it, programme drum loops, take and edit samples, mix it all together and create something entirely new, well that's the theory anyway, a DJ just plays the finished article.

Let's look at it this way, who is the most talented, the director of a film or the projectionist in the cinema?And a DJ takes records and creates something entirely new out of them. All we're debating is size. You wouldn't judge a guitarist by one power chord. Similarly you wouldn't judge a dj on one record. You would judge a DJ by his entire set. How it was structured, the rises and falls, the way it makes you feel. The fact that hes working with records and not notes is erroneous.

The Director/Projectionist argument is used often and to my mind is weak and not the same thing. Thats the same as saying whose most talented the photographer or the guy who develops his photo's?

Let's look at it this way, who is the most talented, the director of a film or the projectionist in the cinema?

I suppose it depends whether the director in question has more in common with Paul 'Mortal Kombat' Anderson or Quintin Tarentino.

Nowt wrong with Mortal Kombat!

And a DJ takes records and creates something entirely new out of them.

I disagree. A DJ has a certain amount of freedom and creativity when mixing and putting a set together, and a good DJ pays attention to the dancefloor to see if he or she needs to alter the set. But, I don't see how a DJ creates something new out of track by mixing it into another.

You wouldn't judge a guitarist by one power chord. Similarly you wouldn't judge a dj on one record.

The fact that hes working with records and not notes is erroneous.

I don't think the comparison is a good one. A DJ who mixes records can't really be compared to a musician who creates the music in the first place, whether it's with a guitar or a bunch of Roland's.

I disagree. We could argue it but we'll totally hijack the thread and make it incredibly boring for people and i'll probably end up agreeing with you which will blow the rest of my arguments out of the water!

I disagree. We could argue it but we'll totally hijack the thread and make it incredibly boring for people and i'll probably end up agreeing with you which will blow the rest of my arguments out of the water!

:) DJing is certainly a talent, sadly for me not one that I posess...

Live music is where I'm headed more now. At clubs I often wonder if a good chunk of the crowd would be just as happy dancing to a banjo when their eyes are like this :shocked:

I have sometimes felt that i could be in the box banging on a biscuit tin lid and it wouldn't make a difference...

No not at all, like you say the Quo used three chords, how could that compare to TGD creating 30 minutes worth of improvised music live on stage. A real musician can take one instrument and create something beautiful with it, there are technical differences between musicians which would make one musician better than the other but the thing a musician can do that a DJ cannot do is create something out of nothing, a DJ needs music to exist, a musician creates music. The same goes with dance music, someone creates music, they compose the track, sequence it, programme drum loops, take and edit samples, mix it all together and create something entirely new, well that's the theory anyway, a DJ just plays the finished article.
I don't agree, a musician doesn't create music, a composer/writer creates music, the musician plays what the composer creates-sometimes its the same person but the subtle difference is important, often a dj is acting as a composer and musician (but hes often doing covers so the get slated sometimes) and has simply swapped a regimented set of musical notes,chords and whatnot, for a set of noises,or beats pre recorded by a different musician
a dj (in my eyes a real one wouldn't) wouldn't just play the record he would asses it, learn it, select the 'better' parts then blend, cut, mix and forcibly coerce the beats with another (or two) record thus creating a piece of music that previously didn't exist.

Let's look at it this way, who is the most talented, the director of a film or the projectionist in the cinema?
thats not a fair analogy, better would be: who's most talented,the writer?,(Tokien fer instance) or the director? (Jackson)

thats not a fair analogy, better would be: who's most talented,the writer?,(Tokien fer instance) or the director? (Jackson)

Are you a DJ?

It's a perfectly fair analogy and I'll take it one step further to include your argument. Tolkein is the writer and in musical terms he would be the composer, Jackson is the director, he would be like a musical producer or even a conductor, the actors would be like the musicians in either a band or an orchestra. The Projectionist and DJ don't fit in the equation, they don't create, they just play the finished article. A DJ wouldn't exist if it wasn't for other more creatively talented people creating the music for him/her to play.

Would you say a radio DJ is a talented musician? After all don't they play records and decide how they should fill the gaps in between?

Are you a DJ?

It's a perfectly fair analogy and I'll take it one step further to include your argument. Tolkein is the writer and in musical terms he would be the composer, Jackson is the director, he would be like a musical producer or even a conductor, the actors would be like the musicians in either a band or an orchestra. The Projectionist and DJ don't fit in the equation, they don't create, they just play the finished article. A DJ wouldn't exist if it wasn't for other more creatively talented people creating the music for him/her to play.

Would you say a radio DJ is a talented musician? After all don't they play records and decide how they should fill the gaps in between?

I wouldn't say that (most of em anyway) radio djs are talented anythings? I don't even really consider them dj's they are radio announcers in my eyes. they simply do play songs they may as well be your next door neighbor with some big speakers and a penchant for shouting.

without projectionists the cinema would be a pretty dull place dont you think?
dj's dont fit into that comparison cos your breaking down a film into it's played parts and there is no suitable comparison for a dj in it.
your not asking whos most talented anymore.

I would take great pleasure in forcing Ken Bruce and Steve Wright to eat a pint glass after making me suffer their intolerable wretchings during work hours.

Hmmm good question MMM. Though the thread has gone a bit too far, for my brain now. (nursing a JD or 2:hihi:).

However, this post will remind me tomorrow to post again!

As for the title question, Is Djing a talent. I have met, been to see, and listened whilst working, to many DJs. Some have great talent, but it depends on what music and what audience.

I used to work in a club behind the bar. The main DJ couldn't mix for sh*t, and 'dance music wise' was a complete flop.
But as far as student nights, or getting crowds going (cheesey musicwise) he was a genius.

Some have great talent, but it depends on what music and what audience.

Ok, just reread what I wrote and need to make more clear.

I'm not sure whether the question means talented, as in technical skills or crowd pleaser.

For me, a talented DJ is a crowd pleaser, knowing what they[clubbers] want, and slowly giving it to them, building up to it.

As for technical stuff, it has to be in a crowd that appreciates it, otherwise it's wasted.

In answer to the original question "Is DJing a talent?" - my answer would be yes, absolutely. It isn't actually as easy as a lot of people like to make out.

I spent many, many years learning to mix properly. And I don't just mean learning to beat-match 2 records together - I picked that up fairly quickly, and in all seriousness anybody with half an ear for rhythm could do that. It all comes down to working out which records go well together and which don't, and what records are going to get a reaction from the crowd. There is also an element of planning your set and thinking 3-4 records in advance to make sure that you have the right mix of peaks (ie big tunes) and troughs (fillers to build up to the big tunes). What you are effectively doing is taking the crowd on a journey through sound, and as the old saying goes "You can't appreciate the highs until you have experienced the lows". John Digweed - one of my all time favourite DJs - appreciates this more than most I know and that is why I am such a fan of his. It does take a lot of talent and a lot of learning to get right.

As a DJ myself, I also appreciate technical ability that a large amount of people in the crowd wouldn't even notice, so it is very subjective. For instance - and I know that Discodown will disagree with me because we have debated this before on this very forum - James Zabiela is one of the most technically gifted DJs I have ever had the pleasure of listening to, and I am always in awe of his talent every time I see him play. But I understand that not everybody feels that way about his sets because they appreciate the music rather than the skill that goes into it.

HOWEVER - I am also acutely aware of the fact that, after all said and done, all I am actually doing when I DJ is playing other people's records. So although I will argue until I am blue in the face that DJing does take talent, it is the producers of the music that deserve most of the credit.

I remember a time where everyone was a self confessed DJ... big brother housemates would do it after leaving the house, sport stars upon retirement etc etc...

It all depends on the DJ to be honest.

Some are brilliant, some (such as the ones that DJ at weddings and you can only hear their muffled voice) are terrible!

Being a DJ is hard work. I had a go on some at the rave at Attercliffe on Sat 22/09/2007 and it was HARD AS HELL!! I love the music by DJ's (Drum & Bass, Dub and Sperd Garage)

I want to get some decks and learn, but I think I'd spend all that money on all the equipment and not be able to do a thing!!

As a DJ myself, I also appreciate technical ability that a large amount of people in the crowd wouldn't even notice, so it is very subjective. For instance - and I know that Discodown will disagree with me because we have debated this before on this very forum - James Zabiela is one of the most technically gifted DJs I have ever had the pleasure of listening to, and I am always in awe of his talent every time I see him play. But I understand that not everybody feels that way about his sets because they appreciate the music rather than the skill that goes into it.Don't get me wrong I respect his skills and he is supremely talented. I just don't think he's very good at getting people to dance thats all.

Do you think DJs are a talented bunch? I've never really been a fan of DJs, I've liked some of the music they play but as for any particular Dj, I can't say there has ever been one who really stood out.

Is a DJ only as good as his/her record collection?

Do DJs credit the artist whose records they play?

Do you have a favourite DJ and why?

What are your opinions regarding DJs? Do you think DJs should be classed as musicians?

Ooh the great friday SF debates; we've had graff now djing. I love this place!


I presume you have never tried to mix 2 records at once then and actually manage to get the beats to match!!!!

DJing is a pure talent, it takes skill and you have to learn how to do it, it doesn't come naturally. Being musical and rhythmic may but actually beat matching does not. The actual talent that comes out depends on the DJ, if they are crap, they are crap, if they are good then.....
Scratching is another skill: I can mix well but cannot scratch to save my life, my coordination just won't show itself.

So, give dj's some credit!!! - it takes balls to stand in front of a crowd and not only mix with the music being so loud you can hardly hear what's in your headphones and the equipment usually being a bit rubbish but hope the crowd will like what records you play and feel where your coming from.

As you say you have never been a fan of dj's. When you know what is 'a mix', the whole listening experience changes imo. I don't have as much pleasure sometimes from listening to mixes as I once did as I can hear sounds, vol changes etc....and listen to what's going on rather than just the music. But then I listen and hear a fab mix and it makes me really passionatly enjoy the music more, and respect the dj for doing what he/she has done. If a dj mixes two tunes well that go together perfectly there is nothing nicer.

I love mixing, will do forever, love decks, love music, dj's and if they are quality in their tune selection and what their actual projection of confidence is; for example if they rant about how good they are and they're not then that's another matter, but if they have passion then it shows through.

I agree with PSYN about radio dj's being more a presenter kind of thing. Unless it's a mix show of course.

My first ever time playing out was the worst experience ever to begin with. I am a totally confident person, can hold my own anywhere but this instance turned me into a quivvering wreck! I felt like walking off stage. I was so aware everyone was listening and watching me (the fact I am female may have had some input lolol) but it was hard. I had good support from friends who have made it as a dj and chilled out and went with the flow and felt better.
The next time I did it, I thought 'stuff it there's worse than me, they know I am a beginner' and played to my best, had the crowd jumping about, people coming over saying 'wow that tune' etc.. and it was addictive!!! I got the buzz, felt the people buzzing off me buzzing off my tunes and let this be my drive.
I have b2b and practiced with some big players and the advice they all give is: enjoy it.

So as a listener....why don't you? You may even hear it differently if you tried.

I think people who mix tracks together (especially mash ups) are musicians. I think, however, that there isn't much of an art to the business where the likes of Reni just comes along and plays records (although if you like the records he plays you will enjoy yourself).

He has given the best answer yet. I just don't see putting a record on, fading in and out at the right moment and using a few gadgets to add extra oomph as an art form. I can appreciate some of the Producer/DJs like Fatboy slim or the Chemical brothers but the rest just play records as far as I can tell.

I will however admit that scratching, when used well is a good talent.

I still don't agree with your analogy DD. I see your point but I don't agree with it.

Thanks for the input anyway guys.

I would absolutly love to see you actually try and do this!! Really I would love it!! It would be the greatest smug laugh of all!!!!!!

Who's up for a SF mix and see mod man with his theory fall flat on his arse night?!?!?!?!

Trust me guys and girls - it's a talent

I had a go at a free party last week expecting to blow the crowded people away - But I failed....misserably:(

I'm a HUGE music fan of all genres, and any form of DJing is in my top few favourites - for the fact it's pure originality, skill and TALENT. You try and make two songs fit together and mix them so you can't hear the cross over......then say it's not a talent!

Djing is a great talent - I'm so impressed by it, I'm looking to purchase my first decks soon :)

i think there can be some real talent involved in playing records, feeling what will move a crowd, keeing it intersting, avoiding cliches, all that sort of stuff.

About 90% of the generic 'house' djs can sod off though, cos a lot of that stuff is so 'production-line' it wouldn't challenge a chimp to mix it.