Step 1: Don’t take yourself too seriously.
Step 1: Don’t take yourself too seriously.
Not long ago, the interweb was abuzz with some potentially interesting discussion regarding dance music ghostwriting. Unfortunately it was short-lived and the parts of the discussion that had any real value never fully materialized. While a few articles claimed to oust some ghostwriters, they did little more than praise artists like Benny Benassi (known ghostwriter) for their hustle. Really, there should have been at least a hint of discussion about how ludicrous the whole enterprise actually is.
No harm no foul
The discussion has since been abandoned with a hastily adopted conclusion that the whole thing falls into the ‘no harm no foul’ category. Something to the effect that if the ghostwriter is ok with the terms of the contract they signed and if the person who attached their name to the work has no moral dilemma with purchasing the illusion that they possess some skill, then there is no problem. Before you subscribe to such monetarily-centric industry behaviors, let’s put a few of the important aspects of this trade into focus.
It should first be made clear that really, the ghostwriter is not to blame. It takes tremendous hustle to make ends meet in today’s economy, especially by way of the music industry. Having talent alone isn’t nearly enough to survive, even for those few of a kind that can produce more than a single potential hit. Ghostwriters alone may not have the infrastructure, contacts, or financial backings available that are needed to make music a successful hit. This is of course assuming that they even wanted to be in the limelight in the first place.
The ghostwriter is also clearly more interested in choosing money over artistic integrity by the very fact they are parting ways with their creation in order to let someone else take the credit for a few (or many) bucks. There is no mistake or confusion as to what their goals or intentions are in regards to their work. They are in it to make money, clear and simple. The person attaching their name on the bought work, however, is a liar. They are living a lie and they are selling a lie.
The Elton John defense
People often cite artists like Elton John, Elvis, or any of the countless artists who are not only well known for not writing their own music, but also for becoming quite famous as a result of the songs that the ghostwriters provided them. There is an obvious, but unfortunately, overlooked difference in having a ghostwriter provide you with a song that you in turn PERFORM LIVE for an audience compared to a song you simply PRESS PLAY for an audience. Artists like Elton John still perform the song. They bring their own talent to the equation, a piece of themselves, as well as some actual effort to the piece.
Even when assuming the extremely unlikely scenario that a DJ/Producer who is willing to slap his name on someone else’s work in turn actually mixes it in to his own set (and yes some DJs buy premixed sets to play out for ‘live’ shows), are they really bringing any talent to the performance? Wouldn’t this then give him the right to lay claim to every song he plays in his set as his own by proxy? The short of it is that they aren’t selling a track as a result of their performance of it or really anything they are adding to it, as is the case for artists like Elton John.
For a producer to even qualify as having talent they need to actually produce, for a DJ, they need to actually mix (and mix live at that). When you buy either of these tasks and slap your name on it, it just makes you a lying fraud. These credit usurping talentless frontmen that do so are no Elton Johns, rather, they are more akin to Milli-Vanilli than anything else. If we didn’t stand for Milli-Vanilli’s pedantic synchronized dancing and lip-syncing nonsense when they were called out, why should we stand for any of these Jesus posing sky-pointing fakers?
At this point some people might be tempted to spout off some rhetoric nonsense like ‘if the people like the music, have a good time and are none the wiser, what difference does it make? Who gets really gets hurt?’ The industry gets hurt and the consumer pays the price, quite literally. Not only are consumers buying and perpetuating a lie, they are elevating these glorified lip-syncers to millionaire status. Consumers are unknowingly perpetuating a system where imitators keep raising their performance prices, which in turn further gouges the consumers when it comes to performance costs, all in the name of paying for the artist’s increasing cost of their lies and fame greed. Dance music has become increasingly caught in a vicious cycle of paying for lies.
As always, Not Your Jukebox seeks to remain a champion for art, truth, consumer awareness, and to encourage others to do the same. Don’t pay for lies and fame greed, demand better.
Want to join the fight against the DJs and producers that fake the funk but aren’t quite sure how you can help? Now you can join the cause and spread the message just by playing a song. I know it’s a bit self-gratuitous, but fellow producer and real art enthusiast Rob Nutek and I did a song on 7Stars Music with the cause in mind. In our response to a certain “h8ers” release, we call out all fakers and give DJ Sneak a proper shout out for heading up the charge. Check it out and join the cause along with other supporters like heavy hitters Roger Sanchez and DJ Sneak. Stay tuned for an amazing remix package as well.
Long time dance music veterans Rob Nutek and Sean Ray have teamed up again to give life to a dance floor monster with a message in their “FAK3RS” song on Seven Stars Music. Aside from the undeniable groove, the lyrics address some of the current rumblings in the scene involving the calling out of various artists for faking their performances.
Sean Ray who is no quiet voice on the matter, runs the very popular notyourjukebox.com, which is dedicated to keeping art as the focus of dance culture. “When Rob approached me to collaborate on this track,” explains Sean, “It was a no brainer. Of course I wanted to put a beat to a message for which I’ve been fighting for years.”
Pioneer recently announced their new CDJ-2000nexus which, not only adds a lot of new (if not gimmicky) features to its industry standard player, but also adds the ever controversial sync button. CDJs have now officially bridged the gap between traditional hardware technology and current DJ software and controller technology.
To sync or not to something something
For those of you living under a rock, one of the biggest beefs CD-jockeys have towards software/laptop-jockeys is the availability of the sync button which allows for one-click beat matching. CD-jockeys cite (often unknowingly ironically) that they are keeping it ‘real’ by not using this automation and relying on skill and art to mix tracks. Meanwhile software-jockeys claim (ignorantly so) that beat matching isn’t really a skill, that the sync button is just a tool that opens them up to be more artistic in other areas that actually matter, and that if you don’t like it don’t use it. Vinyl-jockeys just shake their heads at everyone. So who is right?
First, I think it is important to clarify the huge difference between getting two songs to be at the same tempo for a 16 count transition and riding the pitch in order to keep two or more songs sync’d up for several minutes. The latter takes a tremendous amount of skill and practice over the former. Not to mention the fact that how the artist approaches this task will give create a unique sound and style. Automating this process removes the human element and creates a more sterile feel and experience. Proponents of the sync button argue that beat matching isn’t really an art to begin with and is only a minor part of the DJ process at best, citing that selection, presentation, and other qualities are the true art form. This isn’t quite correct as they are all components of a bigger picture. You can pull out and focus on several aspects of DJing and defy that they have any artistic quality when in actuality it’s how they all fit together as a whole. It’s like saying the stroke of a paintbrush is just a quantifiable ratio of force and requires no real skill and has no real bearing on a painting. If we were to automate the brush stroke process of a painter we would reduce the artistic quality considerably, despite the fact the artist still having to know the placement and kinds of paints used.
Yes, automating the beat matching process saves time and can allow one to focus on other forms of expression, but at what cost? If someone is doing their own beat matching and are able to do these other tasks, isn’t there a higher artistic value? Does a painting with automated brush strokes have a higher or lower artistic value than a hand painted one? There is value in effort alone, the doing something in a way that is the unique result of that manual labor itself.
The “don’t like it then don’t use it” argument
“Keep up with the times, besides, if you don’t like the sync button you don’t have to use it.” A common argument that sounds fairly straight forward, but like much else in life, there is a deeper issue. DJing and dance culture as a whole are already saturated fields where quality is being replaced by quantity in every aspect. Making tasks easier at the expense of artistic expression and skill only makes things worse. There isn’t much quality control going on to begin with, so how many more overpriced headliners that are faking their way on stage do we have to endure? Why are we making it easier to flood our lives with the mediocre? I’ve always been a proponent of art over convenience and this is no different. Even acknowledging that a some people will use the sync button to expand other artistic areas (and I suspect people profoundly overestimate this number) the flood of people using the sync button to achieve status as bookable is just not worth it. Even those of you concerned with money over art should at the very least be concerned for this reason alone as a flooded market drives prices down.
Realistically, love it or hate it, it seems the sync button is here to stay. With any luck however, we can shame people away from using it and keep the art alive and well in what we do.
In light of recent challenges to various dance music performers’ abilities (term used lightly, see Why old-school DJs are complaining), it has been demonstrated that there is still quite a bit of misunderstanding as to what a DJ does, should do, and how to tell the difference between the skilled and unskilled. I think this merits a bit of examination, as do these topics when applied to producers.
The good, the bad, the jukebox
Some argue that all a DJ need do is play whatever the crowd wants and make them dance. This view is clearly held by certain groups, who say, buy bottle service and feel DJs like Mark Farina, Dennis Ferrer, and
Calvin Harris should be thrown off the decks when they don’t hear what they want, when they want and how they want. Let’s call this crowd the ‘crybaby douchebag’ group for short. Crybaby douchebags consider the DJ their personal jukebox. There are plenty of DJs that make a living as a jukebox, focusing on playing the top hits and playing requests, I have nothing against them personally, but let’s keep the perspective clear. As this action can be fully automated by a mechanized jukebox, this brand of DJ really is at the bottom of the artistic spectrum. In fact, being a living jukebox can hardly be considered a DJ in the modern sense, but for sake of argument we can call this a DJ by technical standards, or ‘jukebox’ for short. Crybaby douchebags generally have this definition in mind when they think of the word DJ.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, there is much more artistry and creativity involved. At the artistic top end, DJs can really be considered musicians, live remixers, and live producers as they take sounds, layer them, program them, and present them in such a way that it becomes something entirely new from the original pieces used. The original songs are used like instruments in a orchestra, they cease to be ‘just playing other people’s music’. They can take a song and make it a hit, they can take noises and turn it into music, they can make you dance when they want to, and make you stop and think when they want to. There is often a message and a purposeful idea in their sound, there is a creation of a new song by connecting disconnected pieces. DJs on this end of the spectrum are artists.
Now I know there is a natural tendency to cry out that art is subjective. Yes, there is quite a bit of subjectivity, mostly on the receiver’s end in terms of whether you like it or not. There is however, quite a bit of objectivity as well. For example, you can’t drop a book on the ground and call it a painting. Nor could you call yourself an artist after filling in a paint by numbers piece, or in DJ terms, playing a pre-recorded set that was put together using computer automation to arrange and mix it for you. There has to be a certain amount of manual labor, purpose, effort, and representation for something to be considered art. I know a lot of people are going to cry about how I am professing an anti-technology stance and I’m not keep up with the times, blah blah. I am not anti-tech, I embrace it, I use it, but I use it to enhance my art, not to increase convenience. I am anti-convenience at the price of artistic vision and intent. That isn’t to say that tech can’t create new opportunities for artistic expression, but like I always ask, are you pressing start or creating art? Are you just playing other people’s music, or are you re-imagining it and creating something new with purpose and a message?
There are a lot of elements that come into play between the spectrum of jukebox and artist, each having a different level of value based on its difficulty to perform manually and live. For example, beat matching is an element of the art, but of lesser value than say, beat-juggling which requires much more effort and skill to do well. Good programming is essential for an artistic DJ, but pre-programming a set is of less value than being able to program on the fly and adapt to the moods of the crowd in front of you. A good place to start when you are evaluating where in the artistic spectrum a DJ is, is to ask yourself, are they creating something new with the songs/sounds they are playing and are they doing it themselves or is it automated? A DJ that does live what a DJ does automated or pre-programmed, is just artistically better. Now if you don’t care about art, just money, then none of this need apply to you. But believe it or not, there are a lot of people that care about art over money. I also think people should be rewarded for the pursuit of art over the pursuit of money (see Hate vs Education). What would you rather pay for, the paint by numbers piece or for the same (or even a lesser) dollar amount get an original piece of art?
Not all producers are artists
Just as there has been a recent saturation of DJs, so has there been of people creating dance music. Just as there is a spectrum of artistic value for DJs, there is also one for producers, in fact they share many of the same elements. A producer on the bottom end of the spectrum takes pre-made loops, samples, and synth presets, slaps them together and calls it a song when really it is more of an extended loop. We can call these ‘drag and drop producers’ for short. On the other end of the spectrum; thought, representation, structured pieces, carved sounds, layers, arrangement, purpose, original sounds and note composition are key elements of work found on the artistic end of the spectrum. These are ‘electronic musicians/artists’. Some of them even play traditional instruments, truly making them artists in a classical sense.
There is also a difference in artistic value between a producer that can make music in a studio and then play it for a crowd and a producer that can write music in a studio then perform it live. Certain producers may make crowd pleasing music in a studio, but others of a higher artistic caliber can please crowds while creating and performing that music live. Live, manual efforts that have a higher difficultly of skill to carry out and that are performed well always have higher artistic value than automated and pre-recorded efforts. Just because the masses like it doesn’t make it art, but to be fair, just because it’s art doesn’t mean people should like it.
And just to be especially clear on the matter, if you are creating a “mash-up” of two or more songs, don’t kid yourself into thinking you are a producer. At best you are a pre-recorded DJ which would put you near or even below the ranking of jukebox as you aren’t even doing the most basic of DJ tasks, mixing, live.
DJ vs Producer
There has also been some recent dialogue of some producers calling DJs middlemen, and DJs calling producers hacks and sellouts. The truth of the matter is that DJs and producers need each other. Producers make the music that DJs play; DJs help get that music to the people. There is a natural symbiosis, whether or not you are making and playing the music yourself.
Can’t we all just get along? No. Nor should we, DJs that pursue artistic goals should support producers that seek artistic goals and vice versa. Let’s all work to push the artistic end of the music spectrum further and further from the jukebox and the drag and drop end. Let’s make millions off of art, not convenience and hype. Let’s give the people something meaningful and beautiful and not just fill their lives with more and more inferior products led by profit margins. Art over convenience. Let’s be amazing together.
Do your homework
If you are still skeptical that DJs are or can be artists, check out any one of these guys (keeping in mind this is a very short and incomplete list of artistic DJs, in no particular order) and compare them to your average top 40 jukebox:
Norman Cook/Fat Boy Slim
Armin van Buuren
And countless other artists.
Clearly my last article (Why old-school DJs are complaining and you should too) struck a nerve. I am glad it did because these are important issues that need to be brought to the public and discussed. Clearly a great many of you agree. A few people didn’t, but based on their arguments it was primarily because they either missed a key point or defaulted to a standard reply. I think it is important to flesh out some of these ideas a little more so the discussion can take a more productive course.
It’s not about hating
Yes, naturally, there are always examples to the contrary and some old-schoolers are in fact hateful and bitter, but by and large there is no real hate or bitterness. Really it is about passion, love, education and a call for people to demand and expect more. There is such a tremendous amount of passion and love when it comes to music (any genre) that discussions about how it should be done, what people are doing what, and what is and what isn’t art can get quite animated. That doesn’t default it to coming from a place of hate or bitterness, it just means people are passionate, as it should be.
When you have been around long enough you start to see certain patterns emerge. There are certain trends and behaviors in the dance music world that have occurred in other genres that ultimately played a big roll in the over saturation, monetization, and over consumption that led to their downfall. The reality is that ultimately these behaviors and trends are avoidable. Just because an old-schooler is bringing this to light doesn’t mean they are stuck on the past, afraid of change, or bitter that they aren’t in the headlines. Time just gives you a kind of experience and perspective that is hard to understand until you have seen it first hand.
More than likely the source of complaint is coming from a place of passion. The majority of us built the dance scene with certain ideals, not everyone shared them, but it was the majority nonetheless. Now those ideals seem to be reserved for the minority, which isn’t unexpected given todays sheer volume of people that attend dance music based events. The problem is that without a strong enough core of ideals and passion, a culture cannot survive.
Why the money conversation matters
Again I want to make it clear that I am NOT saying that money is inherently evil. It is a tool, neither good nor bad on its own. I also have no problem with people making money or getting notoriety from their art or passion. People have every right to be compensated and appreciated for their hard work and for the benefits they provide others. But I also believe that consumers have the right and the duty to be informed. I believe that people should be aware of what they are paying for so they can decide for themselves what they want instead of being limited to what someone else thinks they should have.
To say the market will decide who should be out there or who is the best just isn’t a complete concept. Throw enough money out there and you can drown out competition resulting in the market not having a fair shot at making a truly unbiased decision. There are six companies that control the majority of the world’s music and how it is distributed, you don’t think they are doing whatever they can to make money on their investments?
In a perfect world the market would be able to purely decide, but in reality, the market doesn’t always get a fair playing field. Consumers often only get to choose from a selection that’s already been decided for them and it’s usually based on how much money can be made from that product. One can argue that they make money on it because it sells and it sells because it’s good. Well that isn’t entirely accurate either. Marketability and branding plays a huge role as well. Licensing, merchandising and product placement are part of that dollar figure and generally independent on how good the product actually is.
There is a certain amount of group think involved as well. This is why we see artists paying people and PR firms to gather likes, votes, or buying their own tracks to climb sales charts. There is even a disturbing trend of DJ’s PAYING large sums of money in order to play events in order to get on good billing. If something is perceived to be well liked, a person is more likely to check it out sand with an open-minded. Except maybe for hipsters.
Even repetition plays a big part in what people like and consume, especially musically. This is why record companies have spent millions of dollars dominating the airwaves and paying (yes paying) ridiculous sums to make sure what hits the top 40, not to mention for just good old-fashioned exposure. I bet you can think of at least one song you didn’t like the first few times you heard it, then one day after the hundredth time, you put it on your iPod. Do consumers have a fair shot at deciding between someone who has no money for marketing to someone backed by millions?
You may very well legitimately enjoy this hypothetical artist, but don’t think for a second they are on that top-40 list purely because the market decided it, no matter how talented or artistic that person may actually be. And don’t think for a second that the market has complete control over what is considered popular. Talent alone is not what dominates a market or gets you to the top, especially when someone in the chain values the dollar over talent and art.
When music becomes a product there are limits imposed on the artist in order to maintain profit status quo. How many artists have left major labels for this reason? Again, there is nothing wrong with making money or fame from your passion, in fact I encourage it. My point is that when passion for money leads you to music and fame, art tends to suffer and the people’s freedoms are limited.
What are you paying for?
If you bought a Mercedes-Benz at full price, but it had a Geo Metro engine, wouldn’t you want to know? If you never knew, you might very well be happy cruising along believing that you had a Mercedes, but that doesn’t change the reality that you got ripped off. It’s a completely different story if you knew it was a Geo Metro engine but you just wanted the flash and the image and you didn’t care about the actual performance.
If you are paying for a live performance, shouldn’t you get one? Is it right to pay for a live performance and get lip-syncing, soundtracks, and pre-recorded sets instead? If you knew for a fact that your favorite singer would be lip-syncing the night you planned on going and you would have to pay the same price as a live show would you? The same standard should be held for DJs and producers selling a ‘live show’. You may not care that you are paying for a premium for something that you aren’t actually getting, you may still enjoy the flash, that’s fine. You should at the very least have the knowledge and the power to choose.
My personal feeling is that if there really was value in paying for the fake, Milli Vanilli and Ashlee Simpson would still have vibrant careers. Regardless, I’m still going to push for the truth, people should know what they are paying for so they CAN decide how the market develops instead of driving a Mercedes with Geo Metro engine just because that is their only option.
Stay tuned for the next installment: DJ vs DJ vs Producer vs don’t care