[dylan604]

Song selection comes from hours of listening to music in the style you will be playing. Eventually, you will hear a riff from one song and it will make you think of another song. Those will be interesting to mix together. You might hear one song with a bass line that you really like with a melody line that is on the lighter side. You might then come across a song with a strong melody, but a bass line that could be punched up. Combine the two with some appropriate EQing, and make your own mix. After mixing for awhile, you will learn to listen in a different way than just someone listening to music.

Using a tool to beat match has always been considered "cheating", but it is obvious why it is a tool. Beat matching is probably the most technically challenging aspect. Eventually, you'll even get a feel for songs that are close in tempo--most music in a genre will be pretty close by default. Learning to ride this bike with training wheels is just an option I did not have. Being able to manually adjust the pitch/tempo (depending on equipment) without the auto tools becomes quite satisfying.

Some DJs talk about knowing what key a song is in, and if it will mix into another song. If you then have to adjust the pitch for beat matching, how does that affect the key of the song and how it now mixes? I've never claimed to do this, but after playing in school band I can at least hear the wahwahwah from something being out of tune (or was that the nitrous??). Maybe if you're mixing some prog-trance with sustained chords you might hear that, but I'd suggest finding a different place in the track to be mixing.

The physical controller is precisely why I love vinyl.

[jrowen]

Using a tool to beat match has always been considered "cheating", but it is obvious why it is a tool.

I guess in the same way that using a higher-level language than Assembly is "cheating." I'm not sure if you're referring specifically to the Sync feature (which is still largely frowned upon) or more generally analyzed beatgrids, BPM readouts and Master Tempo (which keeps the pitch in tune when you change the tempo), but the vast majority of practicing DJs today are not needing/using the old school vinyl beatmatching techniques.

Call it whatever you want but you're going to be incredibly hard-pressed to find anyone that can mix as smoothly on vinyl as someone decent with CDJs. Sure it's a cool dying art and analog and all that but at this point virtually anyone trying to play vinyl out is sacrificing the listener's experience for cool points (including the physical issues with reproducing sound from delicate machinery in a chaotic environment).

[dylan604]

> Call it whatever you want but you're going to be incredibly hard-pressed to find anyone that can mix as smoothly on vinyl as someone decent with CDJs. Sure it's a cool dying art and analog and all that but at this point virtually anyone trying to play vinyl out is sacrificing the listening experience for cool points

That's a sad commentary on today's DJs then. Yes, there were some very bad vinyl DJs that loved the shoes in the dryer mixes and could not advance past that. They love the "beatmatch" magic. Doesn't mean that those that could are less of a DJ which is what you're trying to say?

My perfect setup would be vinyl controllers of a digital player which is very much a thing. Of course, hearing a DJ mix vinyl that is older with all of the snap crackle pops of a burning log is not pleasant, but that does not diminish the vinyl as a controller being superior to a tiny plastic spin wheel on a digital controller.

[jrowen]

That's a sad commentary on today's DJs then.

Not really, you just have a lot more information and tools at your disposal. It's going to be a better performance. In no other area of endeavor is anyone expected to limit themselves to decades-old technology, that would just be madness.

but that does not diminish the vinyl as a controller being superior to a tiny plastic spin wheel on a digital controller.

How is it superior? We've just covered so many ways it's inferior. I have a number of friends that are really into vinyl, I've never really "gotten" it, there's no argument other than this kind of nostalgic fetish (which I'm not saying is for nothing, but I usually just want to use whatever technology I can to create the best experience for the listener).

[dylan604]

If you've never used vinyl enough to "get it", then how can you say that it's inferior. The tactile experience of controlling the sound with the vinyl is so different than some digital plastic feeling controller. Yes, the higher end CDJs have a better feel to them decades later, but it is still not the same.

At this point we might as well be arguing about tab vs spaces. Using vinyl is my thing, and it is just not going to be possible to explain why I like it so much without the both of us being at the gear. Words do not convey the same as the touch

[calmoo]

you're arguing about something different to the person you're replying to.

[lbotos]

He's.... not tho?

> but that does not diminish the vinyl as a controller being superior to a tiny plastic spin wheel on a digital controller.

It's absolutely objective, but the feel of vinyl on a slipmat is absolutely so much nicer than a jog wheel.

But many ppl barely even use jog wheels these days. Just nudging to get in time.

When you spend countless hours getting the right light touch on a vinyl that Tactile feel is absolutely lacking when it comes to more digital interfaces.

I'm not arguing vinyl records sound better. GP and me are arguing that it feels better.

[jonwinstanley]

I agree that the beat sync tools feel like cheating for the old school DJs, but the newer generation are using it to get more creative.

Without spending half the time beat matching, they now have time to interact with the tracks more - play with stems, loops, filters, fx, scratching etc.

It’s becoming more of a live performance

[w_TF]

>but the newer generation are using it to get more creative. Without spending half the time beat matching, they now have time to interact with the tracks more - play with stems, loops, filters, fx, scratching etc.

>It’s becoming more of a live performance

while this is true in theory, i find that sometimes the new tools end up becoming a crutch making djs extremely boring

the extra time freed up from not having to concentrate on beatmatching etc. is replaced with nothing

a lot of the time i have no idea what people are even doing they may as well just be playing a playlist from spotify

whereas i can generally discern what a vinyl dj is doing, and watching someone like jeff mills dig through piles of records & spinning 3 decks while being on the edge of trainwrecking has a kind of energy and tension that gets lost and is not replicable with newer technology

it's sorta like someone being able to sing really well naturally vs someone with autotune

that being said i've still seen amazing sets from digital djs or people with interesting live setups

[jrowen]

One of the commonly extolled virtues of playing vinyl is that you're "just playing records." As in, not using any fancy effects and tricks. For a lot of people, this is enough, and it's mostly about your music collection and song selection. If you're really good at vinyl, you're not doing much most of the time either and you can dance around and dig through records. Nothing about this needs to change when switching to CDJs.

People get hung up on all this stuff that has very little to do with what matters most at the end of the day, which is the sound coming out of the speakers, and the experience of the audience (which I will grant that the visual aspect of watching the performer is a part of). Deadmau5 talks about stuff like this...basically everyone at a major festival is playing a prerecorded set so that visuals and lights and the rest of the show can be synced up. It doesn't matter what tools you use or how much work you're doing as long as people are entertained. It's about putting on the best show you can.

Jeff Mills is a God-like legend, of course your average local DJ isn't going to compare. It is a bit like being a real estate agent in that the barrier to entry is super low now but you still have to be skilled in some way or another to be really successful.

[jonwinstanley]

I know what you mean. It’s just becoming a different thing for some people.

Playing records the old way is great.

I saw a Hor Berlin video by Serafina and she looks to be fully beat synced the whole time but is making her own music from the 4 decks she has going.

Although 1 does seem to just be a drum loop.

[jonwinstanley]

Presumably James Hype uses beat sync too? Surely he doesn’t have time to beat match between all the loops/hot cues etc

[dylan604]

Becoming?

May I introduce you to the DMC World Championships

https://www.dmcdjchamps.com/

edit: Also, I take offense to the insinuation that "old skool" DJs are not using new things to be more "creative". Old skool DJs are not old dawgs that can't learn new tricks.

[hnlmorg]

> sacrificing the listener's experience for cool points (including the physical issues with reproducing sound from delicate machinery in a chaotic environment).

I was with you right up until this point.

People care about the music, not about how tight the beats line up. I’ve heard some amazing DJs who were actually shit at beat matching but had unparalleled track selection.

I’ve also heard some technically amazing DJs who were incredibly dull to listen to because their songs and set progression just went nowhere.

I’ve also had far more technical problems, both as a DJ myself and as a clubber, with modern controllers than with vinyl. The fact is there’s less to actually go wrong with vinyl. And I say this as someone who never had any love for Technics 1210s as vinyl turntables.

To give an example of “less to go wrong”, I was at one gig and the turntable stopped working. We opened it up, replaced an internal fuse and it started working again. The whole thing took literally 10 minutes to fix. If a CDJ died like that you’d be looking at replacing it with a whole new unit.

At the end of the day, I never really cared how the music was performed just as long as the music was good. Because of that, I was one of the early adopters of Ableton. But these days I have a family so just DJ vinyl at the occasional house party.

[jrowen]

I'll give you that I was being overly harsh or generalizing too broadly, perhaps with the hope that someone would challenge that.

The points you make about DJs are valid but irrelevant to the hardware. If "all else is equal," the newer tech just has the benefit of decades of engineering and feedback loops and is purpose-built for that exact application.

It's not going to be beat by 1970s tech, your once-in-a-blue-moon anecdote is outweighed by countless frustrations with turntables[1], and you won't find anyone in the industry that thinks it's going to work easier/better to set up turntables than CDJs. Supporting vinyl is a huge hassle and it's generally only done for special events or artists (or vinyl-specific bars that have gone to great lengths and leave their setup intact).

[1] Not to mention that yes, having a replacement on hand (or already hooked up) is the pro move to solve that problem quickly. As badass as it is, I don't think it's all that desirable for a DJ to be opening up hardware mid-gig.

[hnlmorg]

It’s only a huge hassle now because most DJs don’t spin vinyl so a special effort has to be made for them.

Modern turntables aren’t 1970s tech any more than CDJs are 1980s tech because it has a CPU in it. For starters DJ turntables are direct drive whereas the stuff from the 70s (and, to be fair, most home record players too) are belt drive.

The reason vinyl turntables fail less is because there’s less stuff in them to fail.

That’s doesn’t mean that vinyl turntables are better. Like with a lot of modern conveniences, we gladly enjoy the benefits of the extra tech knowing that it makes those devices harder to repair. But when you say that CDJs are more reliable, I have to call that out as incorrect. It’s just reliability here isn’t the primary concern because CDJ reliability is still very good.

It’s also worth noting that DJs don’t really use CDJs any more either. These days turntables take USB pen drives rather than CDs. I forget the model name for the Pioneers off hand though.

> As badass as it is, I don't think it's all that desirable for a DJ to be opening up hardware mid-gig.

This was a squat party, so very different circumstance to your typical club. But you’d be surprised at just how crappy a lot of club gear can be. I’ve played at places that didn’t even have a working DJ mixer. And this was an iconic London venue too

[jrowen]

It’s only a huge hassle now because most DJs don’t spin vinyl so a special effort has to be made for them.

If you're standing in front of an empty table before a show at an actual venue with money and stakes on the line, and the hypothetical is posed, "which is more likely to produce a smooth listening experience for our guests tonight?" the answer is always CDJs. The vibrations, the stabilization required, the needle quality, people bumping the table, the wear and tear of records that have been played and lugged around...vs a digital stream that has none of those issues. The only real issue is complete malfunction of the player and you can gig for years without experiencing that. Other than that, you throw it on the table, plug it in, and It Just Works. Your sound guy isn't going to be on edge the entire night just praying that some weird turntable shit doesn't go down and make god awful noises on very loud speakers.

The current top of the line is the CDJ-3000. The is the absolute standard that you will find in bars and clubs (or one of the CDJ-2000 models if they haven't upgraded yet) and on virtually every pro DJ's rider. It doesn't play CDs anymore but it's still called that. They have a line called XDJ that is cheaper (XDJ also refers to a line of all-in-one units that are increasingly popular these days but the gold standard is still the individual CDJ player).

[hnlmorg]

I’ve seen more CDJs fail than I’ve seen sets end because someone has bumped the table while a record was spinning. And as a DJ, you don’t want the main club speakers behind you because that just makes it harder to queue up tracks, so the vibrations issue would be as a result of bad design that shouldn’t exist even in digital only clubs.

You can claim that CDJs are more reliable all you want but I call FUD on your claims of vinyl. Both as a DJ, event organiser and paying punter.

Also your claim about a completely device failure isnt the only failure mode for a CDJ. I’ve seen CDJs fail because the platter has lost its touch sensitivity. I’ve seen their buttons fail. I’ve even seen them overheat in some warehouse parties with inadequate ventilation.

But let me reiterate this: if you’re equipping a venue and you pick vinyl or CDs (or anything for that matter) because of reliability concerns then you are automatically making the wrong choice.

Their reason you shouldn’t pick vinyl has nothing to do with the risk of someone bumping the table. The reason you shouldn’t pick vinyl is simply because that’s not what most DJs will want these days.

You pick the medium based on the performers requirements not some hypothetical disaster scenario. This isn’t software engineering, it’s music performance.

[dylan604]

Because all new tech is better for the sake of being new? Your sleight of 1970s tech is weird as it’s really more of that tech was just so good it doesn’t have room for improvement. The classic build a better mouse trap conundrum.

For example, the butterfly keyboard was not a better improvement.

[pdntspa]

I just threw down a two-hour vinyl mix of drum-and-bass at my local vinyl night (no trainwrecks, thankfully), and amongst the folks of this particular artist collective are several who would meet that description. And we are one of many in a tier-2 metro.

[jrowen]

Cool thanks for stopping by, I'm happy for you really, not sure what point you're trying to make.

[emptysongglass]

Their point was that you're not going to be hard-pressed to find talented vinyl DJs, as you otherwise indicated.

Please don't write snide comments here. They don't belong on HN or anywhere else, really.

[jrowen]

Ok, my bad. I just didn't feel like it meaningfully countered anything I've argued. It is true that there is a culture of vinyl DJs and nights out there, and I'm not really commenting on their relative skill level. I have no doubt they have a higher degree of passion than the set of all people who ever touched a controller or represented DJing poorly. I'm just saying that for most intents and purposes the CDJ is a considerably larger and more reliable superset of the capabilities of a turntable and it amplifies anyone's abilities and is relied upon as the industry standard for a reason.

[dylan604]

CDJ became standard for multiple reasons having nothing to do with your arguments. The media is much lighter and compact. I could walk in with a booklet of CDs and play a longer set than having to lug in multiple 50lb crates. CDs are not susceptible to cue burns or other wear and tear. CDJs don’t have to worry about stylus wear and tear. Fewer labels were pressing vinyl too.

Original CDJs did not have auto beat matching as they were just dumb turntables albeit with a janky plastic fisher price feeling jogwheel. It wasn’t until much later the auto syncing was available, and then the CDJ just became controllers.

The CDJ or other digital controllers did not become standard because they were the superior tactile controller.

[munificent]

> After mixing for awhile, you will learn to listen in a different way than just someone listening to music.

There is a whole other side to song selection which is reading the room and figuring out what the audience needs next. That side isn't visible until you happen to start actually playing for an audience but it's ultimately the most important one, I think.

> If you then have to adjust the pitch for beat matching, how does that affect the key of the song and how it now mixes?

Music hardware/software can now do a pretty good job of changing speed and pitch independently. "Time-stretching" is the older term for how those algorithms work and they've gotten pretty good over the years.

I don't know how newer DJ software behaves by default you when change tempo. It's been a long time since I DJed.

But, also, producers making music for dancefloors know what they are doing and anticipate this. Most tracks made for DJs will have a long intro and outro that is mostly drums and other atonal instruments. That way DJs can mix without having to worry about keys clashing as much.

It always feels really good when you find two tracks that harmonize well with each other and you can mix their tonal parts together in the transition.

> The physical controller is precisely why I love vinyl.

100%. Beatmatching vinyl is one of those lovely zen activities, like driving a manual transmission, catching the wind in a sailboat, or hitting balls at a driving range. You're always chasing the perfectly smooth execution and never quite getting there.

[shit_game]

> The physical controller is precisely why I love vinyl.

It's interesting how djings origins in vinyl led to the controler interfaces we have today. I don't have any aptitude for djing myself, but also having played with mixxx before also, it makes so much intuitive sense why the controller format of turntables and sliders works so well.