Max Kane Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 What's the verdict on DJs spinning loads of their own re-edits & re-works within their DJ sets. Recently I've seen many many people getting pissed off due to the amount of personalised edits that Sean Tyas plays in his sets. Personally I think it's great to see DJs showing a bit of imagination though in moderation, don't simply tinker with a track for the sake of it. PvD used to be superb on this score, he would re-edit a few tunes in the set so that they suited his style or if they lacked something he would extend the break etc. I think now that some guys are going too far. Tyas' edits of virtually every tune he plays seem a bit laborious as they are basically the same tune with a harder kick. I've seen everyone divided on this so I'll throw open the debate.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aza Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 For the likes of high profile DJ's I suppose it should be expected to some degree. It shows enthuisasm and effort at least. You could argue Jules over does it a bit. I would only edit tracks if I thought they were too long thus allowing more tunage in a set. If I were famous though, I suppose it is a good feeling knowing you've got the only copy of a sought after edit for example, PVD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bjorn Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 I like to hear producers play some of their own re-work's edit,s but tbh im not a fan of when they are raped - for example - Tyas. I Asked Tyas about htis and he said he edits tunes to how he likes them, and that other producer/dj's should do too but are too lazy! He likes to produce a lot of stuff - fair play. Just not to my preference personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briggsy Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 Its fine within reason. I edit a lot of tracks I play now - but i'll only do it if a tune needs it, not just for the sake of it. For example, last week, I did an edit of "Embrace" by Agnelli & Nelson. The tune was 11 minutes long, which is pointless. If a tune can't get to the point within 5 minutes, then it shouldn't be played at all. I like my tunes quite driving and energetic, so I edited out the "bland" bits to make it fit my style - and brought it down to a respectable 6 and a half minutes. "Tran 4" is another example. Now, whereas Jules can do some very shoddy edits at times, I did feel his version of Tran 4 was an improvement on the original version. Jules made it more energetic, cut out some pointless bits, without damaging the tune. Eddie works in reverse. Sometimes he'll edit tunes to make them LONGER so that he can play around with them, do his trickery over the top of them, etc. That also works well too. Editing down a tune that is already 5 minutes long though, or adding/taking something out which makes no worthwhile improvement is a waste of time though - and disrespectful to the producer. Its almost like saying "well, you did a good job mate, but not good enough - so i'll add my twist to it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsteve Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 Its definitely got to be done in moderation. Tyas just goes well OTT. One thing worth considering is that if you go and see a band, you will 99% of the time get their own tunes solidly. They could pick any tunes, but choose to showcase they own (for obvious reasons). So going on that theory, we should be lucky we don't get 100% producer/DJ sets :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briggsy Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 So going on that theory, we should be lucky we don't get 100% producer/DJ sets :wink: *cough* Oakenfold *cough* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsteve Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 So going on that theory, we should be lucky we don't get 100% producer/DJ sets :wink: *cough* Oakenfold *cough* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Kane Posted January 17, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 I don't really edit any of the tunes I play as I don't have the means to at the moment. I wouldn't mess around too much with the basis of the tune to be honest though, just mayeb extend a section I liked or make it more accessible when mixing, Eddie's edits are always very clever because they often include the trickery anyway so when he plays out he has that technique incorporated already. I think that editing tunes simply to shorten them down is a little pointless in most cases, i like a tune to build up & not just be straight to the point in 90% of cases. I accept Briggsy's edit of 'Embrace' as this tune can drag a little but generally i feel that letting a tune build & build to it's big moment (for example Bedrock 'Heaven Scent' & Tiesto's Remix of Delerium 'Silence') makes the tune sound so much better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dormouse Posted January 18, 2007 Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 I edit most things because I'm an impatient mixer, and because simply sometimes I get bored of tracks with pointlessly long intros and outros... But I would never ever edit Tiesto's "Silence" remix - I think that's the greatest trance record ever made! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonB Posted January 18, 2007 Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 Much better than Airscapes mix eh! and A&B's. I've done a few edits only one was to shorten one! tothers have been to extend or rearranged/reapeat the main bits more. Generally I leave stuff alone though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simcut Posted January 18, 2007 Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 am I the only one that likes the sanctuary mix of Silence the most? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
attilasumer Posted January 18, 2007 Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 simcut - agree with you there mate, sanctuary mix is incredible. One of my fave clubbing memories of Guy Ornadel playing it as his last tune at the first ever Homelands, lovely sunshine, good company and quality tune-age! On another note - either Gayvn Mytchel or Matt Hardwick played a remix of silence at the Gallery last week - are there yet more mixes due to be released??? Anyone know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonB Posted January 18, 2007 Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 Bought the original release with Fades sanctuary Mix back in 99, still acracker and majorly overshadowed by Tiestos Mix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simcut Posted January 18, 2007 Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 I wonder if Sean Tyas will butcher this tune too :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briggsy Posted January 18, 2007 Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 but generally i feel that letting a tune build & build to it's big moment makes the tune sound so much better I agree with that to some extent. Sometimes, I keep two copies of a track - one in its original state, and also one in its edited down status. It then gives me options when i'm mixing. If i'm doing a calmer set, then I can play the un-edited version, but if i'm doing my typical "oomph it out" style, then I can play the edited version. Also, one thing that really bugs me is tunes with ultra-short intro's. I absoluitely love Marco V's - Red, Blue, Purple - but it isn't very generous when mixing. I've done a short and simple edit that made such a difference - I simply added an extra 64 beats to the start to mke it much more DJ friendly - pretty much the same as Jules did with his. His version has an extended start too. Dance tunes are for mixing - so why do they make intro's and outro's that aren't very mixable? :? Only one thing is more annoying than short intro's/outro's, and thats tunes that have an odd block of 8 or 16 beats after each 32 beat block - throwing the mix out completely. Why oh why do they do that? :evil: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neuro Posted January 18, 2007 Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 I'm a firm believer in letting a record play. In the good old days, there was something special in hearing your favourite piece of trance on the radio being left to play a bit longer before it was mixed out... I distinctly remember Jules' show from the Live Cafe Bar in Bolton, after Jules announced the England score against Lichtenstein, good ol' Ferry (in his guest mix at the end) let his opening track play for almost 9 minutes. Wonderful with the right track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ducky Posted January 18, 2007 Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 I find that some of the more recent tracks have some pointless parts near the start of them that sound better when edited, where you didn't get this as much back in 98/99 etc. To examples of tunes in more recent years that were edited well by Jules and made better are Lamoen - increase and Moogwai - viola 2005 (Brisky remix). On the other side certain tunes that are fairly long would be wrecked if edited such as The Muses Rapt - "Spiritual Healing", this is an awersome tune that changes throughout and you never get board of listening to! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Kane Posted January 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2007 I agree with Briggsy's point, it always pisses me off no end when you buy a tune and find it's virtually unmixable, why bother with it in the first place? Certain 'Intro' tunes are nice to have but you only need one per set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.