When I do an interview with an artist / DJ, I don’t do it like a neutral journalist. I am a music nerd, and I do care about the music and the people that I write about.

However, doing a good interview is not easy. I tried various approaches and formats over the years, and my current approach reflects what I have learned. I’ll start with explaining how interviews are typically done to contrast that with my approach.

Record & cut: Lots of work for a little bit of content

I started doing interviews at the local student radio station when I was a student myself. When we started the initiative to create our own radio station, we turned to experienced radio journalists and learned from them. The first approach that we used a lot was to take a mobile audio recorder, go to the person we wanted to interview, ask our questions and then cut out the best parts. A radio-friendly interview was not supposed to take longer than 3 minutes.

This approach works, but recording and cutting the material is very time-consuming. You often ended up working an hour or more for one minute of interview.There is also one strange effect that I noticed a lot: People often said the most interesting things when the microphone was off before and after the interview. During the interview, a lot of people just talked very unnaturally, probably because they were afraid to say something wrong.

Live-interviews: Bad for shy artists

Live interviews combined with DJ sets seemed to be a great idea to me at first. You just invited an interesting DJ / producer to your studio, let him play his music and interview him in between. This approach is a lot better as you have more time and you can easily combine a good impression of the artist’s sound and the person behind it. I used that approach for quite a while, both at the student radio station as well as in the shows that I played at various web radio stations.

For me, this works quite well if I have an artist in front of me who is comfortable with speaking into a microphone and can talk straight to the point. However, not everyone is like that. Many times, I had guest DJs that played great sets, but were just too shy to present themselves well when being interviewed. I also got the impression that some people don’t like to listen to people talking in the middle of a DJ set. Even if the talk is interesting, it still interrupts the music.

What I do today: Talk & summarize

So this is what I do to today: I meet with the DJ / artist that I want to interview. We sit down, have a few beers, talk and simply have a good time. I take notes on the side that I use later to write the article. I do ask questions, but I don’t do a formal interview, and I am definitely not neutral in the interview since I like to comment, challenge or support the words of my interview partner. I also do interviews via phone sometimes, but that just means you have to leave out the beer.

After that, I take my notes and try to identify the topics that we talked about. There are often one or two topics that I find especially interesting in retrospective, and I try to choose those topics that my interview partner either has a distinct view on or a good story to tell about. For example, Elodie & Thompson talked a lot about their experiences in Ibiza, and CJ Masou’s topic was the combination of electronic music and Jazz.

I then condense these topics into a few paragraphs and add a few quotes from the artist. These quotes are often not something that my interview partner said word by word, but mostly a condensed version of what he said. A “real” journalist would probably scoff on that, but this approach helps me to show my perspective of the person behind the music a lot better than the other approaches. I also think that I am doing the artists a favor if I don’t give them the pressure of having to speak in a radio-friendly way. So far, the feedback was very positive.

I also ask my interview partners for a photo that they are comfortable with and a DJ set or other examples of their music. I think it’s important to have the interview, the music and some pictures together since that gives you a much better impression than just a magazine article or a radio interview. However, I believe that it’s better to separate the music from the words so that they don’t interfere with each other.

To conclude this, I would like to say that doing interviews and getting to know interesting people in the process is what I enjoy most about running this website – and that’s why I keep doing it.

While skipping through a few older posts, I found this post containing a video that was no longer hosted on the video platform where I originally got it from.

A broken reference on a music blog might not seem like a big deal, but this particular case is one that I find very annoying. I am talking about the video “Stylo” from the Gorillaz.

Normally, when I am looking for a video, I go to YouTube, like most people do. For me, YouTube (and other video portals) have become the true successor to MTV since they stopped concentrating on music. YouTube is usually a great source for music video from all different genres, and I often use YouTube videos as references.

However, a while ago, YouTube introduced a technology called geoblocking . Essentially, what it means is that you can or cannot view certain videos depending on the country you are accessing that video from.

Geoblocking is relatively easy to circumvent, but when I referenced that video, I didn’t want to give my readers the hassle of having to figure that out. So I looked for a different source – and finally found one on Dailymotion. This worked for a while, but apparently it was an unauthorized video upload and they removed it.

Of course, anybody wanting to see the video will certainly find it, but this shows a serious problem of video portals: You can’t use them as an archive.
You can never know if any video will be taken down for legal or business reasons. And just because something is released in one country does not mean it will ever be accessible in any other country.

I can see the business logic behind this kind of decision, since from a marketing standpoint, you might want to have full control over what is realeased when in which country.
Nevertheless, from a cultural point of view, I am strongly against this kind of technology.

Music is an important part of our culture, and the internet should be used to enable access to it, not restrict it.

Anyway, the video is still cool, so here it is again. I hope it stays there.

We all know those superstar DJs that are the headliners of big events, travel around the world and get paid big bucks for a two-hour set. So how did those people become what they are? How did they get to the top? After all, a DJ doesn’t do much more than playing other people’s records, right?

The truth is that DJing is not only about playing good music. I wrote about what DJs actually do a while ago, and there is no magic involved in that. In fact, while it may be necessary to master those skills to become a DJ, you will never be a famous DJ if you concentrate only on beatmatching, mixing and digging for music.

Producing tracks make DJs famous

This is more or less an open secret among DJs: If you release a hit record, your value as a DJ rises.

In a way, this is kinda strange. The skills involved in producing music are very different from the skills you need to be a good DJ.

However, even if a non-producing DJ is really good at what he’s doing, he is never going to get a chance to be the headliner at a big event. So if you have ever heard a local DJ that really rocked the crowd and wondered why he is always playing in the same local area and not on the big events, this is the reason.

Networking makes DJs famous

When someone organizes a party, it is very unlikely that he will be posting a job ad in a local newspaper and wait for applications.

Instead, he probably already has an idea on who he wants to book for that event. Most likely, this will be a mix of friends, people he owes a favor and maybe a few DJs that already are well-known and are likely to attract a crowd.

Selecting DJs for a party is not about picking the most skilled DJs with the best record collections, but about selecting DJs that are likely to attract an audience.

Being a king of a hill (sometimes) makes DJs famous

Sometimes, differentiation can also be a good strategy for a DJ career.

For example, instead of trying to be the most famous House DJ on the planet, it can be much easier to be the most famous DJ in a particular (sub-) genre. If you look at the House category on play.fm, you’ll notice that to get into the top 20 of, you have to have a relatively high number of listeners. If you look at the Dubstep category, much lower listener numbers are needed to get to the top.

Metaphorically, trying to be different than other DJs can make the different between being a king of a hill and being just one of many inhabitants of a mountain.

Staying famous is easier than becoming famous

Once a DJ has reached a certain level of popularity, he will find it much easier to stay on the top than it was to get there. Even if there should be a newcomer DJ to challenge him, the famous DJ has people’s perception on his side.

He doesn’t really need to be better than others. Most people will just believe he is better because he is famous.

In a way, this is natural: People will usually opt for something or someone they know instead of taking a risk. In a way, a famous DJ is like a consumer brand (Nike, McDonald’s, Apple, …). People like to buy brand products because they trust them more than no-name products. For the same reason, people want to see superstar DJs because they know more about them than about the newcomer DJs that are playing smaller venues.

I am not saying that this is a bad thing. It’s just how we humans make decisions. In many areas of life, it’s not about how good you are, but more about how well you know the rules of the game.

I’ll leave you for today with a very interesting and insightful video called “Life lessons from an ad man” that nicely shows how advertising can make a product better without changing the product itself.

Image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/merlijnhoek/483000614/ // CC-by-nc-nd

Live visuals are one of the things that make it unique to experience music during a performance. When this is done well, this can really make the event much more special and enjoyable.

Today, I saw a video that made me think about how good live visuals actually could be:

What I love about this video is that music and visuals seem to become one. What you see perfectly fits to what you hear and vice versa.

For comparison: What you usually get to see at electronic music events is something like this.

Don’t get me wrong, these are certainly nice-looking visuals that fit well to the DJ performance.

I just feel that there is an extra mile worth going here: VJs often simply add an extra layer to the music. They use pre-cut video loops that they put together during their performance to match the DJ’s performance. If the VJ is good, he/she actually manages to sync the video to the beats.

But why do you never see video performances that actually match to the melodies or whatever is going on in the track? I assume that current VJ tools just aren’t made for this kind of interaction between music and visuals – but this is definitely something that could take live visuals one step further.

There is a video going around the blogosphere that shows a 69 year old lady being an active electronic music DJ in paris. In case you haven’t seen it:

Even though this might seem a little odd, it actually makes a lot of sense to me. If you love music when you are young, why shouldn’t you still love music when you are old?

However, there could also be a rational side behind this: “Use it or lose it.” is more or less the motto that was derived by recent brain research. It basically means that if you are active and curious in old age, you are more likely to stay so for a longer time.

Many of us have probably observed this with older people they know: Those who still ride their bike, have an active social life or do something that they care about do not only seem happier, but also appear younger. A nice example from the music business is Les Paul, a legendary guitar player who still performed on stage when he was over 90 years old.

Of course your body will limit your possibilities, but there is no reason why you should not try to push those limits. It’s probably even a good thing to do – even if that means DJing in noisy clubs when you are 69.

In various discussions with non-DJs, I noticed a lack of understanding of what DJs actually do when they are spinning records. This can result in both a lack of respect for a DJ’s work as well as a certain mysticism around DJs.

So for all of you who ever wondered about this, here’s a little explanation of what the people at the decks actually do. I will concentrate on electronic music DJing here, but some things can be generalized to other genres. However, blending tracks into one another so that it’s hard to tell where one track ends and the next one begins is a quality that is valued more in electronic music than in other genres.

Beatmatching

Beatmatching can be considered as the core skill that any electronic music DJ has to master. The underlying principle is quite simple: Every track runs at its own speed, so if you want to mix two tracks seamlessly, you have to make sure they are running at the same speed.

You normally do that by using the pitch slider that every DJ turntable or CD-player has. This slider does nothing more than make the track play a little faster or slower.

The speed of a track is usually measured in beats per minute (BPM). Let’s assume we have track A at 130 BPM and track B at 125 BPM and you want to play track A first and then mix track B into it. That means you have to change the speed of track B by +4% so that both tracks run at the same speed.

Once both tracks have the same tempo, you also have to synchronize their rhythms. In electronic dance music, rhythms are usually based on a 4-beat measure. That means that elements are usually repeating after a number of beats that can be divided by 4. In order to have two tracks run synchronously, you have to start the track B so that it starts precisely at the beginning of the rhythmic pattern of track A.

A DJ software such as Traktor or Cue can help with this process, but many DJs still find it important to be able to do this by hand.

Fading and Equalizing

DJs typically use a mixing console that allows them to pre-listen to the next track while the current track is still playing through the main audio system. This also facilitates beatmatching as it is quite hard to sync two tracks without being able to listen to both at the same time.

Once both tracks are beatmatched, the DJ can simply use his mixing console to fade out the current track and fade in the new track. The simplest way to do this is to use the so-called Crossfader that automatically reduces the volume of one track while increasing the volume of another.

However, many DJs like to use the equalizer to make their mixing even smoother. The equalizer is used to emphasize or de-emphasize various frequencies of a particular track.

Example: If you emphasize the lower frequencies of a track, the bass becomes louder. If you emphasize the higher frequencies of a track, the hi-hats or vocals become more dominant.

By using the equalizer to emphasize or de-emphasize certain parts of a track, they can make the transition between two tracks very smooth.

Is that it?

These techniques are usually considered the basics of electronic music DJing. Beatmatching, fading and using the equalizer are usually the biggest part of a DJ’s performance. The theory behind those two techniques is not that hard, but it usually takes aspiring DJs a few weeks or months to master these.

However, a big part of being a good DJ is about having a good library of tracks to play. DJs often spend a considerable amount of time and money to build their library and to find tracks they (and their audience) like.

The order in which tracks are played also makes a big difference. Some tracks sound especially good when played after each other while some tracks don’t match well even though they are running at similar speeds. Many DJs also find it important to have a certain dynamic component in their set and  - for example – start with rather smooth tracks and work track by track towards music with a higher energy level.

I am just telling you all this to make you understand that the basic skills necessary to become a DJ are not magic at all. DJing is mostly a skillset that can be taught, understood, practiced and mastered. There is no big difference between what your local club DJ does and what a superstar DJ does when they are performing behind the decks.

I will write a bit more about what makes a famous DJ famous in a future blog post.

Image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/smeerch/225107882/ // CC-by-nc-sa

One of the downsides of being a music nerd is that there’s literally music everywhere. I am not talking about having my iPhone and headphones with me all the time: What I mean is that everyday noises often trigger my memory to think of a certain track.

I experience this effect quite often, and even though it somewhat amuses me, it can also be a little weird when rhythmic hammering turns into a Techno beat. Rhythmic noises that I interpret as beats is actually the most frequent manifestation of that effect, but there are other examples.

Sometimes I think of a certain track when I hear the sound of a train leaving, a dog barking or a glass clinking. It’s hard to explain what exactly triggers this, but I have an example that might make it understandable:

I have an old battery-powered electric shaver. I don’t use it very often, but I usually take it along when traveling since it is relatively light and robust. However, when I plug the shaver in after I haven’t used it for a while, it first charges its battery and then switches on the motor while the battery is charging.

The effect sounds like this:

When I hear that sound, it always reminds of Fatboy Slim’s “Rockafeller Skank”. Skip to 2:00 in the video below and you’ll hear what I mean.

Have you experienced that effect, too? Please feel free to share your own examples in the comments!

There seems to be something about electronic dance music that makes it work best late at night. Certainly, all sorts of music-related events take place in the evening or at night, but electronic music events often take it to the max.

Rock concerts typically start in the evening and end before midnight. Mainstream parties often fill up before midnight and often end in the early morning hours, with only a few hardcore party people sticking around until then. There are even so-called “After Work”-parties that begin at around 6pm and end before midnight.

However, I have rarely seen an electronic dance event where the party really started before 1am. There is also no other musical genre that has an equivalent to after hour parties that typically start around 6am.

What I have seen though is event organizers trying to start their events earlier – and fail.

I don’t mean to complain here. Yes, I would appreciate it if parties started a little earlier as that would make going out and having a day job more compatible. But that is not the point. I just got the feeling that there is a connection here that is worth looking at in more detail.

Drugs

The obvious explanation for this phenomenon is the pervasiveness of chemical stimulants (“Uppers”). While I personally have no experience with anything stronger than off-the-shelf energy drinks, it is no secret that many electronic music lovers like some pills or powder along with their music.

While uppers certainly give you the physical and mental ability to dance 24 hours non-stop, I feel that the drugs are not the only explanation for the night cult. After all, anyone willing to get these drugs will probably get them if they just try hard enough. So why isn’t it desirable for fans of other musical genres to dance longer than their bodies would normally allow them? And why is it desirable for many electronic music lovers?

Different styles, different vibes

There’s got to be something in the music itself that makes people want to dance as long as they possibly can. I am not sure if I fully understand this, but looking at a few different dance styles, I think we are on to something here.

Example: Look at these heavy metal dancers (“headbangers”):

They are certainly enjoying their music, but could you imagine doing this for more than a few hours? I guess you’d literally break your neck if you tried that, so it’s probably not desirable.

On the other hand, if you look at someone dancing to Minimal Techno, the difference is obvious:

Many popular styles of electronic music make people dance in a way that is physically sustainable for quite some time. If you don’t fall asleep, it’s not that hard to imagine doing that from midnight till morning.

I think this point is important: Many people describe the joy of electronic music parties as “becoming one with the music”. This takes time. You can’t just decide to become one with the music and expect it to happen instantaneously.

Nevertheless, there is not only one kind of electronic music. Some recent styles focus more on high-energy, distorted sounds and harder beats. If you see someone dancing to that kind of music, it might look something like this:

So is it just the type of music and dancing that determines if people go home at 3 am or at 11am? I don’t know, but this might play a role.

Alternatives

In theory, you could just go to an electronic music party and leave when you are tired. This just doesn’t feel right though. It always feels like you are missing something – and in many cases, you actually are missing something because the DJ you want to hear does not even start before 4 am.

I know quite a few people who like electronic music, but don’t go to parties any more because they don’t want two days recovery time afterwards. So does it really have to be the way it is now?

A few people have tried to find answers to that question. The obvious solution (starting earlier) does not really seem to work. If there are enough people who can dance as long as they want, they don’t care when your party starts. They will come when they feel like it. Event organizers who tried to start earlier often spend several long hours in an empty room before the true party animals show up.

Open air festivals are an exception to that rule: Dancing in the sun is just too appealing for many people to insist on their habit of only dancing at night.

There is also a larger number of bars that have DJs playing electronic music. This basically works: People show up earlier and the place fills up, but you usually don’t see a lot of dancing there.

The only party format I know of that works differently is the “120 minutes party”: The party starts early in the evening and ends precisely 2 hours later. Everyone knows this, so no one shows up late or wastes time with “warming up” first. In Cologne, this concept is successfully implemented by the Blitzbangers party crew. It is probably not a coincidence that they usually don’t play Minimal Techno, but rather rougher, more playful styles that encourage a faster and more demanding dance style.

Images:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/phunk/2912736373/ / CC-by-nc-nd
http://www.flickr.com/photos/childan/2557785245/ / CC-by-nc-sa

I buy a lot of music online, mostly through iTunes, but also through specialized electronic music download shops such as Juno Download, Beatport or Trackitdown.

However, I recently discovered Whatpeopleplay, and I really like some of the ideas behind that particular shop. Apart from the usual goodies such as genre lists or a flash player, they also offer quite a few social features that make it even more fun to shop for music. For example, you can create your own charts, publish them and share them in your blog.

While this is certainly not revolutionary, I think this demonstrates a little twist in online shopping: While real-world shopping is often a social experience, its online equivalent is quite the contrary. As humans are social animals, it is certainly a good idea to work on that particular aspect of the online shopping experience.

Whatpeopleplay is certainly not yet the holy grail of download shops, but I like their direction.

Oh, and by the way, here’s whatIplay:

Remixes of dance classics are a type of remix that is pretty common, but often scoffed at. The reason is that the amount of necessary creativity to create such a remix is often seen as pretty small. On the other hand, many people like re-brushed versions of familiar tunes because they remind them of good times without sound out-dated. I do understand both positions, but I think there is some truth to both.

Some examples: New Order‘s classic “Blue Monday” from 1983 is probably one of the biggest electronic dance anthems. I really do love that track, but if you listen to the original, you have to admit that it starts to show its age.

The original version still sounds fresh to me, but I can well understand that this does not appeal to a lot twenty-somethings who weren’t even born when this came out. However, there is a very nice remix by Hardfloor that made this great track accessible to a new generation of music lovers.

This remix is already 15 years old now – maybe it’s time for a decent 2010 remix?

One other example: The Utah Saints had a major hit with their track “Something Good” in 1991. I really liked that track when it came out, but didn’t listen to it for several years. It turns out that I didn’t miss much. The original version is a bit hard to listen to if you like current dance music. With its badly-looped “UTAH SAINTS!!!!”-shouts and a sound that has “90s” written all over it, this would hardly be a dancefloor filler in 2010. However, there is a newer 2008 remix, and it even has a funny video.

What I am trying to say here is that sound changes over time. Or to be more precise: The expectations on how a “modern” dance music track is supposed to sound changes over time. If there are no new versions of older tracks, these tracks either become timeless classics (it happens, but it’s very rare) or are more or less forgotten and only appreciated by those who were young when the track was released.

In a way, a “recycling remix” is a way to explain a great track to a new generation of music lovers. Doing a remix like that means translating an idea from the language of the past to the language of the present.

Many people believe that art is something that should be valued by preserving it in its original state. I believe this isn’t quite true. To prevent a piece of art from being forgotten, you have to re-imagine and re-interpret it again and again. In a way, remixing a dance classic is a way of paying respect and preserving it.