it's interesting to see how many of the criticisms levelled at non-traditional mixing are based on differentiations that exist outside the audio realm.
as evidence, let's look at some of the complaints:
i want interaction with the dj, i want to see he's enjoying it too, mixing records and cds together, not pushing buttons on a computer. Maybe thats just what i expect from a life performance
you dont want to pay top dollar and visit a club and see a guy clicking a mouse button (ala Kraftwerk)
I seen these guys in Sydney 2 years ago was highly disapointed all THEY did... was stand there infront of 4 or 5 laptops not even moving a muscle.
I pay to see a DJ PERFORM, NOT BE A KEYBOARD COWBOY.
They don't come to your live shows to see you behind a computer.
This is about turning the DJ from a performer into a some geek with a laptop.
1/2 the appeal of the DJ is the fact that he/she can be seen, can interact and feel the crowd. No, the crowd shouldn't be 'staring' at the DJ, but the DJ is a point of reference. He's a place where your eyes can rest during a breakdown. He's the engineer, the conductor, the origin.
and you want to stick him behind a laptop?
much of this appears to be visually orientated - i.e., nothing really to do with the quality of the music... placing a greater emphasis on some sort of higher 'performance' vibe that vinyl somehow possesses, and PC setups lack.
it seems there are a few relevant issues:
1) the differentiation between a LIVE act [PA] and a DJ set using a program to mix
2) that magical performance quality, immeasurable but desireable, which apparently computer-based setups cannot equal
3) difficulty in understanding how progams actually work, rather than mere medium-prejudices - and the resultant definition of what constitutes mixing.
the first point i'd like to make concerns the performance element. lots of people profess to be 'disappointed' when seeing DJs who are using some sort of computer setup... and these complaints appear to be almost entirely image-based.
this raises a few questions: firstly, have you ever seen a vinyl DJ who has been inactive behind the decks? i'll bet you have - everyone has. the number of DJs who do actually jump around and engage with the crowd properly is pretty limited, and certainly has nothing to do with the music format. i mean really - does every computer-orientated DJ just sit there 'clicking mouse buttons'? exactly how does the tactile manipulation of a control surface differ from the tactile manipulation of a record?
the real issue is whether people consider someone to have given a good performance overall. and i can't really imagine why the music reproduction medium has any real impact on this... because it's down to the performer and the performance - the instrument (as it were) has no more relevance than the amps. the performer is performing, not their particular music format...
most of these arguments were made about CDJs, as BL already discussed... and mashmetaller has pointed out the historical continuity behind this sort of transitional anxiety.
for me - personally - DJ interaction with the crowd in terms of a physical presence is important.
but i don't listen to someone's live set in order to see the 'jesus pose'. i LISTEN to the set; i DANCE to it. it's about MUSIC over image for me...
tell me, would you rather spend 4 hours listening to a beatmatch-proficient but deadly boring vinyl DJ playing bland trance and pulling the 'jesus pose', or 4 hours of scintillating psy mixed on an ableton-equipped laptop, with so much more versatility, real musical interactivity, and experimental capability?
i know which event would get my money...
i don't see how the much-derided 'pushing buttons' is seen as worse than, er, pushing buttons on a CD deck. as hydra mentioned, ableton is NOT traktor. CDJ1000s have an automatic BPM counter - fuck, you can buy plugin BPM counters for next to nothing - does that mean they're 'cheating' as well? some DJs even write down the BPMs of their records, or pre-plan their sets - presumably that's also cheating to some extent?
kyk's eloquent appraisal - the DJ as conductor etc. - is noteworthy, but flawed IMO - because a reproduction-only DJ (i.e. playing other records) is far more limited compared to an ableton production DJ. you really do have far more control over almost every aspect of the music... plus, you're thinking constantly about many different aspects of the music, its construction, etc. etc... to use your analogy, in my honest opinion - a DJ who is just playing records is kinda like the metronome, or the player-piano. a DJ who is using a closer-to-live setup really is the conductor, and the origin... far more so than the regular DJ, especially in terms of sheer manipulation of the sound itself.
i go to live shows to see someone behind a computer - because i don't go to shows to
see someone, i go to
hear them...