DJs, disk jockeys, etc [split from Women in the music industry]

[T-CM11]

If you were playing vinyl without beat-matching, then you were not a DJ in the same sense that I'm talking about. If that's your perspective then I can see where you would think that DJing isn't "making music", because you weren't making music, you were, in the words of Henry Rollins, "a record player player."

Oh, so there's just black&white to you? Nothing between Mixing beats and being a record player player.... Now you sound like people who say that making music with computers is just pressing play and the computer does all the rest. (Not that that isn't always far from the truth )

[ghettosynth]

This thread is pointless.

[T-CM11]

Ok, I guess I agree with you.
Though I wouldn't consider myself "making music" if I were a "record player mangler", but technically yeah - it's new music.

[ghettosynth]

This thread is pointless.

[Jace-BeOS]

But is that the most widely understood meaning of the term "DJ"? I've encountered plenty record player players but none who make an art out of mixing playback.

[ghettosynth]

This thread is pointless.

[T-CM11]

Ok, I guess I agree with you.
Though I wouldn't consider myself "making music" if I were a "record player mangler", but technically yeah - it's new music.

I understand that point of view, but, it's a choice to make an arbitrary distinction between one type of atomic musical element and another. Virtually all music is a remix of other music in some sense of the word. Originality is often overstated in an attempt to justify the art forms that one prefers over another.

The uniqueness of something can be estimated using scientific method. Where 'exact duplicate' is at one end of the specrum' and 'one of a kind' is at the other.

[T-CM11]

What is the most understood meaning of the term "artist?" What is the goal here? The most "widely" understood definition of a word isn't necessarily the correct definition.

The most "widely" understood definition of a word usually becomes the correct one - that's the way language works.

Without knowing who you're talking about, I can't really say much more than that. But, generally, when people make statements like that, see Henry Rollins, further discussion usually reveals that they are coming from a perspective from outside of the community. In some sense, it reveals a similar distortion of value as prospector theory; people tend to overvalue originality in their own favorite forms of artwork and undervalue originality in other forms. How many times have you heard someone criticize abstract art as something that they do when they spill paint?

Although I care a lot for the artforms, I don't care if something is considered art or not. "Art" is not an inherent quality - (a) society or part of it decides if a something is art or is not. And even then that could still change throughout time.
So if a certain someone thinks something is a mere spill of paint, then that opinion is as valuable or invaluable as the next one.

[ghettosynth]

This thread is pointless.

[ghettosynth]

This thread is pointless.

[AnX]

DJ's play music. They do it in various ways, but they all play music. Its a far cry from being a musician.

[T-CM11]

Uniqueness does not equate to originality. No two covers of smoke on the water will sound exactly alike, they are unique, but not original. We can take this even further, many simplistic rock/hardcore/punk tunes are so similar that even though the lyrics may be completely different, the sense is that they are extremely derivative, i.e., unoriginal.

It's the other way around; something can't be original without 'containing' one or more unique elements. (The way a DJ mix is made can be the unique element e.g.)

Your reference to an "exact duplicate" is something of a trigger for me that suggests that you don't really get what I'm talking about. We're just talking about different levels of atomicity. You may value that two piano players playing middle C on a Steinway isn't the same thing more than two Djs playing the same section of a record, but I don't, per se. I'm not giving all DJs a pass here, but, there are degrees of similarity in these ideas and vast opportunity for expression that demonstrates originality in composition using elements that you may not appreciate.

With "exact duplicate" I meant something like an intentionally made duplicate, or a copy of a digital file, or a clone, or... Not necessarily something music related.

[T-CM11]

Nonsense, the most widely understood definition of a word is often wrong. Ask most people what algebra is and you will most likely get an incorrect definition.

There are plenty of words whereof the meaning changed throughout the ages. None of those were wrong or right.

[ghettosynth]

This thread is pointless.

[T-CM11]

BTW: This is a level of discourse that is pointless. If you aren't open to ideas that are different than your own, especially with respect to something that you know very little about, then discussing it further with you is a waste of time.

In short, think whatever you want about DJing and art, I don't really care.

So now you start to make it personal. What do you know about my openness towards different ideas? And how little or much I know about the subject at hand?
But I agree that it's a waste of time on your part if you're going for a "Yes, Sir!" You're completely right, Sir!".