dj mixing: auto sync - automation of an art, loss of an art - by brent silby
DESCRIPTION
Article argues that the trend towards DJs using autosync in their mixes results in a reduction of the artistic merit of their end product, the mixset.TRANSCRIPT
DJ Mixing: Autosync
The Automation of an Art, The Loss of an Art
BRENT SILBY
aka DJ Maestro B
There is a split in the DJ world between the traditionalists, who mix manually,
and those who use computers to autosync their mixes. It is incredible that
such a minute detail has caused so much controversy since laptops started
making their way into DJ booths. In this article I will explain my reasons for
preferring manually mixed DJ sets.
Before proceeding, I need to make clear a distinction between DJs and
controllerists. Controllerists use laptops and midi-controllers to rapidly create
new tracks on the fly. They loop sections of music, drop in samples, and cut-up
tracks in real time to build new compositions. This article is not directed
towards controllerists. My focus is on DJs and the process of DJ-ing in the
traditional sense of the word.
The DJ mixset as we currently understand it originated in the late 1970s. DJs
such as Francis Grasso discovered that by placing a slipmat under a vinyl
record, it was possible to hold the record in place while the turntable continued
to spin beneath. This allowed the DJ to release the record on beat, and have it
start at virtually full speed. By gently nudging or dragging the record the DJ
would then ensure that the beat of the incoming record aligned with the beat
of the outgoing record. Adjusting the pitch tempo on the turntable would
ensure that the beats of the two records remained synchronized and thus the
DJ could slowly blend the two tracks together.
Beat mixing soon became the central mechanic of the DJ’s craft and the
technique remained unchanged even as vinyl turntables gave way to CDJ
players. During the mid 2000s, however, DJs started to turn their back on vinyl
records and CDs, favoring instead the use of a laptop. When laptops first
started to appear in DJ booths, the advantage was nothing more than
practicality. A DJ would be able to bring his or her entire music collection on a
small device rather than carrying crates of records or endless CD folders to
gigs. DJ software allows the DJ to mix traditionally by interfacing the laptop to
a pair of turntables or CD players via timecoded vinyls or CDs. Relatively
simple in concept, the timecode control record contains data that indicates the
position of the needle, which the software uses to place the position of the MP3
being played. Changes to the pitch of the timecode through manipulation of
the turntable (or CDJ) pitch control directs the software to increase or
decrease the tempo of the MP3 as required.
Early DJ software was primitive, but it did provide the DJ with useful
information about the songs they play. Waveforms and BPM information
became guides for DJs to plan better mixes.
DJ software quickly evolved to include the most controversial feature that has
hit the world of DJ-ing. This feature is known as auto-sync. When a DJ
activates the auto-sync feature, the software aligns the beats of the two tracks
being played to ensure a perfect beat-mix. This releases the DJ from the time-
consuming task of manually beat-matching, but removes a significant part of
the DJ craft. This is where the controversy arises. Purists believe that the art of
DJ-ing requires manual mixing, while embracers of technology believe that
removing this task frees the DJ to focus on the real art—song selection.
I have used both manual and automated systems and I’m going to boldly state
my position. Auto-sync mixing does diminish the art of DJ-ing. There are two
aspects to art: the end product and the production of the end product.
Autosync supporters focus much of their argument on the end product. They
believe that the means of production is not as important as the end product in
itself. The idea is that the real goal of a DJ is to read a crowd and select songs.
Those song are to be delivered as a seemless mix, but how that mix is
technically implemented is not relevant. Furthermore, auto-sync supporters
argue that the crowd doesn’t care about the implementation of the mix, so
long as it is tight and delivers the songs that take them on a journey.
I am sympathetic to this position. Having watched many dance floors as a DJ, I
don’t think the audience has any idea what I’m actually doing in the DJ booth.
Many of them are not interested in the technical aspects of what I’m delivering
to them. They just want the result. However, I get the feeling from some
audience members that they expect that something is happening in the booth.
After-all, there is a person standing there, wearing headphones, pushing
buttons, moving jog-dials or record platters. They can see that someone is
doing something. When DJs are mixing manually, the audience may sometimes
hear a track drift slightly out of sync before being immediately corrected. It’s a
live experience. I wonder if there would be a feeling of disappointment if it was
revealed to a crowd that the DJ was merely selecting songs on a playlist and
letting the computer sync the tracks—something that everyone can do at home
with no special skill or talent.
At this point the quite legitimate objection can be made that selecting songs
that move a dance floor does require special skill and talent. Not anyone can
do it. There are many empty dance floors out there with DJs selecting all the
wrong songs. This is a fair point. But what I’m trying to suggest is that the
audience want to see someone doing more than they could do themselves.
Philosopher Denis Dutton (2010) argues that art requires the combination of
the following criteria.
Artistic work must:
1. gives direct pleasure;
2. exhibits skill and virtuosity;
3. exhibit novelty and creativity;
4. demonstrate style;
5. have the ability to evoke criticism;
6. be a form of representation;
7. have a special focus;
8. expressive individuality;
9. evoke emotional saturation;
10. be intellectually challenging; and follow artistic traditions; and
12. be an imaginative experience.
How many of these criteria are met by a DJ performing a mixshow? I would
suggest that a well planned, well mixed set fulfills all of the above criteria.
However, if automation is used in the mixing, there is a diminishment of the
second criterion, thus the resulting mixset is not as artistic as a manually
mixed set.
Imagine visiting an art gallery. You admire the paintings hanging on the wall
and reflect on the fact that someone has meticulously placed every stroke of
paint in just the right place to complete a work of artistic perfection. The end
results are impressive in themselves, but part of what makes them impressive
is the fact that they were made entirely by hand. We like to see things done
well by people who care about what they are doing.
Now, suppose as you walk through the gallery you find an small door labeled
Artist Studio. Wanting to gain some insight into the creative process, you enter
the room expecting to see an artist, covered in paint, carefully crafting a new
creation. But to your shock you see a computer linked to a robotic arm. A
person sitting at the computer is placing colors on the screen using an auto-fill
function—something like a paint-by-numbers—which results in the robotic arm
producing the painting. Would you value this painting as much as you would if
the artist had carefully placed the paint strokes on the canvas?
Or consider another analogy. You go to a fine dining restaurant because you’ve
heard of an award winning chef. As you wait for your dinner you imagine the
chef in the kitchen, carefully mixing the sauces, cutting the meat, and hand
slicing the vegetables to get them just right for his culinary creation. You think
of him tasting the sauce, considering very carefully the flavor and adding just a
touch more spice. Wanting to witness the creative process, you slip into the
kitchen to take a look. To your horror you find the chef working with pre-
packaged sauces, pre-cut meat, and pre-prepared vegetables. You complain
that he’s cheating by not cooking by hand, but he responds with the following
statement:
! “The menu is my creation. Iʼve chosen every single item that appears there. Using pre-! packaged sauces saves me from the tedious and time consuming process of mixing. This ! gives me more time to focus on food selection—the real art of cooking”.
Is this convincing? I believe most people would be disappointed to hear the
chef make this statement. The food may be indistinguishable from food
prepared by hand, but that is not the point. We want to know that someone
has put care and attention into the preparation of the food. We enjoy human
creations that are produced with skill. With each step of automation, we lose
an essential part of the human touch. This reduces the overall artistic quality of
the end result. As Denis Dutton (2010) puts it, “We find beauty in something
done well”.
I suggest that the same is true of a DJ mixset. The end result of a computer
synced mixset may be the same (perhaps even better) than the manually
mixed set. However, allowing a computer to take over an element of
production that would otherwise require human skill ultimately reduces the
artistic merit of the end product.
There is no doubt that technology has had a huge impact on the art of the DJ.
Where DJs once played vinyl records on turntables, they now bring in laptops
that contain immense music collections and perform by either interfacing with
traditional DJ technology or by using midi-controllers. The benefits of software
are huge. DJs have access to instant overviews of track structure through
detailed waveform display, they can loop or sample sections of songs for
greater creativity, and they can rapidly search music libraries for obscure
tracks on the spur of the moment. However, this technology comes at a cost.
The ability to auto-sync tracks renders obsolete one of the crucial elements of
the DJ skill-set. This manual craft was time-consuming, but it took skill and
attention to detail. Listening to a manually mixed set is a wonderful
experience. You see the DJ putting in the effort to bring the end result to the
audience. You can even hear his work as tracks sometimes drift slightly out of
sync and are then corrected. This is part of the artistic merit of the mixset.
People like to see performers who exhibit skill. Automating part of the mixing
process results in an overall reduction of the artistic merit of the end product.
We are human. We like to watch human artists at work.
Bibliography
Brewster, Bill & Broughton, Frank. (1999). Last Night A DJ Saved My Life,
London, Headline Book Pub, 1999
Dutton, Denis. (2010). The Art Instinct, Bloomsbury Press; First Edition Thus
edition, 2010