All Kinds of DJs

Imagine you are at a talent competition and one of the performers approaches the stage with multiple harmonicas of different keys. You may not be a fan of the harmonica but the performer's skill at playing the harmonicas has you convinced that they deserve to win the competition. Sometime later another performer approaches the stage with multiple harmonicas. You assume there is no way this person can top the other person's skill. To your surprise the performer proceeds to juggle the harmonicas instead. Their ability to juggle is the best you have ever seen, and you are now undecided about who should win the competition.

Of the two performers mentioned, who is better with the harmonicas? Well, as the saying goes, they're apples and oranges. They both may have used harmonicas, but their different approaches prevents them from being directly compared. Had this been a music competition, the juggler would have been ineligible. Had this been a juggling competition, the harmonica player would have been ineligible. As a talent competition, both are compared on their ability to entertain.

The DJ scene is full of variety, and like the previous scenario, it is difficult to accurately compare DJs. To understand the DJ scene one must consider four factors. The first three factors deal with the DJ directly, and include motivation for DJing, kind of DJ, and style of DJing. The fourth factor deals with the audience and what they look for in a DJ.

An individual may be motivated to DJ for many reasons. Some become DJs because they love the music, some are interested in the mixing technique, some love the challenge of turntablism, and for others it is about money and fame. Each reason can be broken down further. For example, a person may love all genres of music, they may just love electronic music, they may just love house music, or they may just love deep house. Some may love finding and sharing new music while others love playing the popular tunes. Some love the art of mashing up different tunes while others love the art of creating an emotional journey. Some love juggling two records while others focus on scratching. Some DJs desire to be superstars, others want only enough fame to get regular bookings, while others are happy being bedroom DJs. One thing to remember is that you may choose more than one reason. For example, you can be a bedroom DJ who loves music and turntablism and who loves discovering new tunes.

What motivates an individual to become a DJ will determine what kind of DJ they become. Will they become a bedroom DJ or a club DJ? Will they become an underground DJ or a mainstream DJ? Will they become a club DJ, a radio DJ, or a wedding DJ? Will they become a traditional vinyl-only DJ, a CD DJ, or a laptop DJ? Will they become a beatmixing DJ, a turntablist, a controllerist, or a live remixer? Will they become a music-only DJ or include videos? Will they play only their own productions, only those produced by others, or a combination of both? Will they incorporate live instruments, singing, or rapping over their music?

What kind of DJ a person chooses to be will determine their style of mixing. A hip hop DJ may focus on quick cuts, while a progressive house DJ will focus on long smooth blends. A vocal house DJ may stick to two turntables, while a techno DJ may blend three tables. A trance DJ may play each track in their entirety, while a Baltimore club DJ may focus on quick mixes. Club DJs will focus on beatmatching, while wedding DJs and radio DJs may not. DJs often brag about their style, but in many cases their style will not work for certain genres. In some cases, your style will define what kind of DJ you are. A person who focuses on turntablism will be called a turntablist, while a person who focuses on using a MIDI controller will be called a controllerist.

To add to the complexity, the individuals who make up the audience are just as varied as the DJs. We all have different reasons for going to see DJs, and we all seem to have different definitions of what a DJ should be. Some people prefer to watch the DJ, while others could care less about actually seeing the DJ. Those that prefer to watch may prefer seeing a DJ spin vinyl and will complain about laptop DJs. They may rate DJs on their physical dexterity and the complexity of their mix. Those who watch the DJ are usually the first to complain about the use of a sync button. Others care only about the quality of the music being played. These individuals could care less about a DJ's physical dexterity or whether they use a sync button. Some individuals want the DJ to play the tunes they know, while others hope to hear the DJ drop new and exciting tunes. Some audience members wish to hear a wide variety of music, while others may wish to focus on one particular genre.

By now you should have a clearer understanding of the variety that exists within the DJ scene. You may have heard people say that "real DJs don't take requests" or "real DJs can scratch" or "real DJs know how to beatmatch manually". Once you comprehend the complexity of the DJ scene, you'll realize all these statements are complete nonsense. There is no right way to DJ. With that in mind, I have to make a few points perfectly clear. First of all, they have to be actually DJing. Faking it to a prerecorded mix is just plain dishonest and wrong. Second, while there are no rules to DJing, it is still possible for individuals to suck at it. Let's face it, some DJs suck at scratching and some DJs have a poor selection of music. Finally, you are entitled to your own preferences as long as you show respect for other styles of DJing. In other words, it is wrong to say "real DJs can scratch" but it is okay to prefer DJs who scratch. It is wrong to say "real DJs can beatmatch manually" but it is okay to prefer DJs who beatmatch manually.

This may sound contradicting, but individual preferences do dictate a set of contextual rules for DJs. For example, you can't show up at a hip hop club and spin country western music. You can't appear on a classic rock radio station and play gangster rap. You can't compete at a DMC event and not be a turntablist. You can't DJ at a rave and decide not to beatmatch. Okay, so technically you can, but the audience most likely won't go for it.

The Definition of a DJ

If there is no right way to DJ, if there are no rules, how does one define the act of DJing? What exactly makes a person a DJ? I've recently read a comment online where someone stated that the term DJ means Disc Jockey, and if they don't use discs, whether vinyl or CD, then they can't be a DJ. This was of course an attempt to discredit laptop DJs. I have to disagree with this statement. If there is one thing history teaches us, it is that words evolve. Early DJs may have spun records, but the format wasn't the focus. In later years, DJs would incorporate the use of tape formats such as reel-to-reel, 8 track, and cassettes. The act of DJing really involved playing prerecorded music from a variety of sources and from a variety of artists. It involved finding music and sharing it with others in a public setting. This is the traditional definition of a DJ, and the one which I stand behind the most.

DJing existed for decades prior to the invention of beatmatching and turntablism, so the notion that you have to beatmatch or scratch to be a DJ is absurd. Some will argue that beatmatching and turntablism made DJing an art form, and prior to that DJs were simply human jukeboxes. Again, I have to disagree with this notion. I believe there is an art to finding great music. Some DJs take the act of "digging" very seriously. I read about DJs in the UK who used to fly to Detroit in search of undiscovered hidden gems. I read about DJs who would wet their records to remove the label so that no other DJ would be able to know and acquire their top tunes. Programming a set is also an art form. Early DJs would slowly alter the mood of their music throughout the night to keep the crowd interested and to take them on a musical journey. I will call a DJ a human jukebox if they only play the popular tunes and make no attempt to program their set. Some mainstream club DJs, wedding DJs, and radio DJs fit this description.

The best way to determine if a DJ is a human jukebox is to see if they can be replaced with a jukebox. I don't believe that being able to beatmatch separates someone from a jukebox, especially considering that technology can now allow jukeboxes to beatmatch. Beatmatching involves adjusting the tempo of your music, and a jukebox is just as capable of doing that. The rise of the sync button has many DJs calling those who use it jukeboxes. Let me paint a picture for you.

Consider DJ "A" who spends countless hours researching music. They read countless magazines, books, and online reviews. They join message boards that discuss music, and spend hours on different online music stores listening to tunes. They use multiple stores and auction sites to track down the tunes they read about. The tunes that make it to their collection also receive an extreme amount of attention. The DJ categorizes their music by mood and genre to improve their ability to program a set. This DJ determines the best way to tackle each tune and leaves meticulous notes for later. The DJ avoids mixing most of the tracks from the beginning, instead they mix from a point where the energy is at its peak. They spin just enough of each track to squeeze out the most amount of energy. DJ "A" has decided to take advantage of technology and embraces the sync button. Could you replace this DJ with a jukebox?

Now consider DJ "B" who only spends a few hours each month looking for music. They don't read any books or magazines, and they tend to focus only on the charts. DJ "B" primarily sticks to one store, and sticks to one genre. They spin traditional vinyl and CDs, and they are vehemently opposed to the sync button. They mix all their tracks from the beginning, play the whole track out, and then blend in the next track. Their lack of dedication when it comes to finding music shows in the quality of their music. Their purism means all their tracks sound the same, and their lack of variety prevents them from programming a set effectively. Their beatmatching is flawless, but their mixing is quite simple and boring. Despite the fact that DJ "B" sucks royally, DJ "B" calls DJ "A" a fake and a jukebox because they use the sync button. This moronic attitude is currently quite prevalent in the DJ scene. (I plan on writing an article about beatmatching and the sync button later, so check back.)

The Definition of a DJ Evolved

The 1970s introduced turntablism to the DJ scene. Turntablists transformed the turntable from a simple record player to an instrument that could be played. Originally this was done to enhance the music, but eventually turntablism branched out into an art form where technique would take precedence over the music. Consider the harmonica entertainers I mentioned earlier. Imagine the juggler claiming to be better with the harmonica than the player. That doesn't make sense, does it? How can the juggler be better than the person who uses it for what it was designed for? As absurd as this sounds, this is exactly what happened in the DJ scene. Somewhere along the way, people thought physical dexterity was more important than the music. The notion is that anyone can play music, but turntablism takes skill.

A huge misconception in the DJ scene is that doing things the hard way requires more skill, and more skill means better DJ. This goes along with the fact that most DJs will look for any excuse to brag about how much better they are than all the other DJs. Turntablists think they are better than DJs who just play music, live remixers think they are better than DJs who just play music, and DJs that produce brag that they are better than DJs who simply play other people's music. Brag, brag, brag. The problem is that many of these skills have nothing to do with the quality of the music, the variety of the music, or the ability to program a set. For example, imagine a blindfolded DJ who mixes while standing on one leg and juggling flaming knives. While that may take skill, it has little to do with their actual DJing ability. Consider DJ "B" who automatically considers him or herself to be a better DJ because they beatmatch manually. I've seen incredible turntablists spin garbage music.

If an individual gets up on stage and does a 5 minute scratching routine over a sampled loop, can they really be called a DJ in the traditional sense? They may have skill, but an individual who presses play on a record player and stands back while the song plays is more of a true DJ because they are using the record player the way it was intended to be used. However, as I stated earlier, words evolve. Turntablism came from DJs and originally was used as a DJ tool. While some have taken turntablism further, it still has its roots in DJ culture. Additionally, turntablism uses traditional DJ equipment. The traditional definition of a DJ involves searching for great music and sharing it with others in a public setting. The evolved definition of a DJ involves creating music from DJ equipment. In order to be called a DJ, one would have to fit at least one of these definitions.

DJ or Performing Artist?

Here is where things start to get confusing. Programs such as Ableton and Traktor 2.5 are pushing the live remix element. Some individuals play only their own productions, while some create music on the fly. Can we really call these individuals DJs? Shouldn't they be called performing artists instead? Here is how I look at it, and you are more than welcome to disagree. If a person uses software such as Ableton to mashup other people's music, I would consider them a DJ in the traditional sense. If the individual plays only their own productions on Ableton, then I would call them a performing artist. While Ableton can be used to DJ, I don't view it as a traditional DJ tool. If that same person plays their own productions on CDJs or vinyl turntables, then I would call them a DJ because they are mixing in the traditional DJ way with DJ equipment. The line between being called a DJ and a performing artist is blurring, and the term DJ may evolve more.

DJ or Entertainer?

The previous section is where things started to get confusing, here is where things get extremely confusing. I think it is safe to say that all DJs have to be entertainers. However, not all entertainers need to be DJs. Entertainers can include singers, musicians, rappers, dancers, jugglers, fire breathers, comedians, illusionists, etc. Do you judge a DJ on their DJing ability, or on their entertaining ability? With that said, it is possible for a DJ to be an incredible entertainer while sucking at DJing. Stop reading for a moment and consider the implications of that.

I've seen DJs rock crowds because of their charisma and gimmicks while their music and mixing left much to be desired. A DJ who spins blindfolded while standing on one leg and juggling flaming knives may not be good at DJing, but they can still impress the crowd. Remember that each individual in the audience has a different definition of what a DJ should be. For some, a DJ should simply be an entertainer. As I stated earlier, there are those who go to see the DJ. They love watching the DJ spin vinyl, they love turntablism, and they love watching manual beatmatching. There are some audience members who will place those attributes above the quality of the music. I stated earlier that a common misconception is that doing things the hard way makes one a better DJ because it requires more skill. I stand by my conviction that this is not true, but I will concede that doing things the hard way can make one a better entertainer.

This division in taste is what leads to much debate within the scene. Some focus only on the music, while others focus on the package deal. Imagine a raver decides to become a DJ, and all their friends come out to cheer them on. This new DJ gets on the mic and stirs the crowd up. They start by dropping a tune with a sick bassline and the crowd goes nuts. They get on the mic, stir the crowd up more, and drop another sick bassline track. They continue this process for the duration of their set, and the crowd is in a frenzy almost the entire time. Soon the DJ gets more gigs, and eventually I decide to check out the DJ and see what all the hype is about. I could care less about their charisma, and I'm immune to their mic antics. While I enjoy the first track, I soon find that all the tracks sound exactly the same, and they all rely on the same gimmick. Their beatmatching is flawless, but their actual mixing is simplistic and boring. I'm surrounded by individuals telling me how awesome this DJ is, and I can't help thinking they are overhyped and mediocre at best. They may not be a great DJ, but they are a great entertainer. I don't want to sound like a miserable jaded raver, I just have high standards that this DJ doesn't reach.

I'm a music junkie, and I love finding music and sharing it with others. I love hearing what new tracks other DJs have discovered as well. I have an appreciation for DJing in the traditional sense, and I get annoyed by those who think you have to scratch, or remix live, or produce to be a DJ. As a music junkie, I judge DJs on the quality of their music, the variety of their music, the way their tracks interact with each other, and the way they program a set so each track is effectively used. I get annoyed when DJs place physical dexterity over the music. I get annoyed when people say the sync button means "anybody can be a DJ". Before I seem like a hypocrite, there are no rules to DJing so anybody can be a DJ with or without the sync button. While I respect different kinds of DJs, I have my standards that I judge DJs on. Using the sync button is not going to make a person automatically fit my standards, so I disagree that "anybody can be a DJ" by using the sync button. Does that make sense, or am I totally contradicting myself? Let me try this again. Anybody can be a DJ, they just all can't be great DJs in my opinion.

Beatmixing VS Turntablism

Don't get me wrong, I love turntablism. I own the movie Scratch, I watch DMC videos all the time, I watch Traktor and Serato product demonstrations constantly, and I'm a fan of many turntablists. If I had to choose between a beatmixing DJ with phenomenal music and a turntablist with decent music, I would choose the beatmixing DJ in a heartbeat. Most of my favorite DJs are not turntablists.

Beatmixing is often the art of subtlety. One of the greatest compliments a beatmixing DJ can get is that audience members couldn't tell where one track ended and the next began. By contrast, turntablism is extremely flashy. One style of DJing focuses on hiding the mix, while the other style focuses on attracting attention to the mix. Which style of mixing is going to get more attention? Which style of mixing will be used to show off new DJ equipment and software? Which style of mixing will attract those with inflamed egos? Which style of mixing do you think is preferred by those who wish to watch the DJ? Do you see the problem beatmixing DJs often face?

I'm not saying all turntablists have huge egos, but a vast majority of them do. Sadly, their mixing is more about "look at me, look at me, look at me" than it is about the music. I think it is safe to say that we all have had to endure that DJ who didn't know when to stop scratching or juggling. I once saw a DJ juggle two records so much that people stopped dancing and complained that he should just let the tune play. That same idiot later decided to scratch over every buildup, ruining them in the process.

One of the very first times I ever DJed, I had to put up with some punk heckle me at the end of the night. He called me a jukebox and then stated that DJ Qbert was a real DJ. I realized that he was discrediting me because I'm not a turntablist. When Mixmag did an article on the best DJ of all time, one comment printed was a suggestion for Qbert. Now I'm a huge fan of Qbert. I watch his videos all the time, I subscribe to Thud Rumble on YouTube, and I've seen Wave Twisters. With that said, I'd like to share an experience where I saw him spin live.

Most of the videos I watch of Qbert involve him scratching over a sampled loop or a fixed groove record. The scratching is phenomenal, and the music is enjoyable, but I really can't judge him from a traditional DJ viewpoint. On one occasion, he was doing an hour long hip hop set at a rave in Philly. I was interested to see how he DJs traditionally. He got on the mic and told the crowd that he was doing an old school hip hop set. Now I just finished a book that discussed the origins of hip hop. Hip hop was about finding the perfect beat, it was about extracting the best dance parts of other genres of music, it was the ultimate in dance music. Qbert's set was focused on the music and was light on turntable tricks. I looked around throughout his set and noticed something highly disturbing. He was spinning in a giant circus tent, and nobody was dancing. Everyone was standing there watching him, expecting him to pull off his signature tricks. There is something wrong when someone is playing dance music and no one is dancing.

I'm a fan of Qbert. If I had to list my top 100 DJs based on technical skill, I would place him near the top (if not the top). But if I had to list my top 100 DJs based on music, he wouldn't make the list. There isn't anything wrong with his choice of music, it's simply that I prefer electronic dance music. It's just a matter of taste.

On another occasion, I was at a rave in Philly where a DMC champion DJ was up next in the room. I told my friend we should stick around and catch his set. The DJ started off with all these flashy tricks. The vibe was insane in the room, and the crowd was going mental over him. My friend was so impressed with this DJ that he leaned over and told me that he had found a new favorite DJ, and I agreed with him. His style of music consisted of dark drum and bass, heavy metal, and hardcore rap which only added to the intensity. While I love drum and bass, I'm not a fan of heavy metal and rap. By about 20 minutes into his set his tricks were becoming repetitive. By 40 minutes in, about two-thirds of the room had cleared out, and the remaining crowd had calmed down. My friend leaned over and asked if I wanted to leave and check out the other acts. I agreed and we left the room. Think about this for a moment. My friend went from telling me he found a new favorite DJ, to being bored with the DJ in less than an hour. What happened? Despite this DJ's phenomenal technical skills, the repetitive nature of the tricks and quality of the music left us unsatisfied.

The DMC showcases some of the world's most talented DJs. DMC stands for Disco Mix Club, and originally traditional DJs were judged. It eventually evolved into a turntablism competition. Crowds sit or stand and judge DJs. Ironic how people don't dance at the Disco Mix Club. The next time you watch a DMC video online, check out some of the comments. Half the comments will praise the DJ for their technical prowess, while others will point out that their set sounds horrible. What's the point of being that skilled if it sounds like garbage? How can someone be the best DJ when you can't dance to their music? Many of these DJs are impressive to watch, but painful to listen to. Can we really say these are the best DJs in the world? It all depends on your expectations of what a DJ should be.

I go to hear DJs, not watch them. Some of the most boring DJs to watch can annihilate dancefloors with the quality of their music, the way they time their mixes, and the way they program a set. I've seen technically skilled turntablists clear dancefloors in less than an hour, and I've seen beatmixing DJs rock crowds for over 6 hours straight. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and if you prefer turntablists then that is fine. But to say that you have to scratch to be a real DJ is pure ignorance. You have to respect all kinds of DJs.

Respecting All Kinds of DJs

I would like to conclude by considering mainstream club DJs and wedding DJs. It is easy for those of us in the underground to poke fun at DJs who simply play the popular tunes. It is easy for those of us who practice beatmixing and turntablism to poke fun at wedding DJs for just playing tunes without beatmatching. We call these DJs human jukeboxes, and show them little respect. But you have to consider the fourth factor in the DJ scene: the audience.

There are idiots in this world who are incapable of thinking for themselves. They let the radio dictate what they should listen to. They listen to the same artists over and over, and refuse to listen to unpopular artists. They'll listen to the same tunes over and over, and will even request those tunes on the rare occasion when they aren't being played. These idiots poke fun at us because "nobody listens to techno". If they show up at our events they whine that they don't recognize any of the tunes, and will bug the DJ to "play something that people can dance to" when the dancefloor is full. They call us bad DJs if we don't have their requested tune or refuse to play it. I call them the ignorant masses, you may call them mainstream, and they greatly outnumber us.

To spare us underground DJs from these vile creatures, some brave souls have taken up the mantle of becoming mainstream DJs. They must endure horrific music, constant requests, douchebags with popped collars, and back-stabbing slutty women. Their only solace is knowing that they make way more money than most of us. We tend to make fun of them, when in fact we should be thanking them. They play the awful tunes so we don't have to, and they divert most of the ignorant masses away from our scene. Have you thanked a mainstream DJ today?

It's extremely easy for us to make fun of wedding DJs with their cheap plastic Ipod mixer and their Mickey Mouse cummerbund. Sometimes they use professional DJ equipment and it's a shame to see them not beatmatching with it. Other DJs in attendance have to fight the urge to hop up and show them how it's done properly. I have had those urges as well, but I found myself swallowing my pride when, to my surprise, I ended up having a blast. We make fun of DJs who only play the popular tunes, but then they go and play all our favorite tunes we listened to growing up.

You can be the biggest DJ on the planet, but that doesn't mean your parents, grand-parents, future in-laws, and other family members appreciate your music. World famous DJs sometimes hire local no-name DJs to do their own weddings. Think about that. You may call them human jukeboxes, but that is what they are there to do. They need to provide a variety of tunes for a variety of people. Respect the wedding DJs, because one day you may need to call on them.

Lessons Learned

Every DJ has their own reasons for being a DJ, and there are many kinds of DJs to fit those reasons. In most cases, the kind of DJ an individual chooses to become will dictate their style, though in some cases the style is the motivational factor. When you add up all the variables, including the countless genres of music, you are left with an endless variety of DJs. This variety is needed because the audience is just as varied. There is no right way to DJ, though different environments dictate a set of standards. You don't have to scratch to be a DJ, and you don't have to beatmatch either. You can be a DJ in the traditional sense by finding music and sharing it with others, or you can be a DJ in the evolved sense by using DJ equipment to make new sounds. If you choose not to beatmatch, you can make an art out of finding music as well as programming a set.

I would like to ask you at this moment to forget about who makes DJ magazines Top 100 poll. I want you to forget about who Mixmag claims is the greatest DJ of all time. I want you to forget about who won the various DMC championships. I want you to forget about the DJ your friends said was best, and I want you to forget about the DJs who headline your local events. Don't let anyone tell you who the best DJ is. The absolute best DJ is whoever impresses you the most.

Josiah Cochran
October 9th, 2012