[x] Can a DJ be a band?

I've managed to link Belgian band Soulwax to the tree. Two of the members of that band, the Dewaele brothers, are also known as "2 Many DJ's", which is basically a DJ duo that is asked at big parties and techno clubs. They've released a couple of albums as 2 Many DJ's but these are actually just DJ sets: existing music mixed by the two brothers. Take a look at one of their sets here: [www.cduniverse.com] http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=3930078&style=music&cart=2...

Are these guys allowed in the tree as a band? They don't play any instruments on those records, they just 'mix' other people's music.

Hmm, this can get really tricky. I haven't thought about it much, but I'm initially siding on towards the "yes" camp. It might get hazy to try and define what making music really is. There are plenty of rock bands out there who record complete cover albums which easily fit into the system, but DJ re-mixing? One could make the argument either way as to the validity of there being music "made" by the DJ's. I'd say that if they can legally get away with being able to release this album (having rights to the music) then we could probably add it. Other opinions?


Kevin

In that case, the only audible contribution provided by the DJs would be the particular mix, which make them not unlike producers. They'd still have to make the "band member" cut though...

The difference with producers however, is that these DJ sets are done live in front of an audience. If a producer isn't satisfied, he starts over. The 'art of mixing' is being able to do an entire live set without screwing up transitions between two songs.

If they've got officially released albums that pass legal muster, I'm inclined to say they're in. I think Python's statement describes why a DJ is a "performer" much like a band member might be.

I note that quite a few hiphop groups have DJs as true members as well, though that's not quite the same.

Well, such "bands" as The Orb and The KLF have already entered the db. Someone more familiar with the various dance/techno/house genres might be able to distinguish the fine points of DJing vs. mixing vs. sampling, but my inclination is to say all performers should go in regardless of whether they fit some preconceived notion of "musician".

Clearly there needs to be a distinction made between producers and band members as Larry points out so that a standard studio producer can be distinguished from band DJ's like Terminator X for Public Enemy. I can't think of anything other than interpreting the term "acknowledge member" of a band. I don't think there is any other standard that can be applied here.


Kevin

As much as I love the 2 Many DJs disc (it's one of the two best DJ mixes I've ever heard, the other being Coldcut's "Journeys By DJ: 70 Minutes Of Madness"), I don't believe that such things qualify the DJ as being a band.

You can make a simple argument: Each track on the disc has a band credit. Unless the DJ is in that band (or is that band), you can't credit them with being a bandmember. If they're not a bandmember, then you can't credit them with being the band responsible for the music. And they don't have any "rights" to the music, except for the license to use it in that mix as released by that record company. It would be like crediting the person responsible for choosing the tracks of a compilation as a band.

Ah, but you say, the DJ is doing more than just compiling. They're layering the tracks, beatmatching, etc. (Don't assume they're doing it live - according to 2manydjs.org, it took them 7 days of digital editing to put that disc together.) We don't credit the people who do that for any other recording when they are not listed as bandmembers, so why would we do this here?

This is clearly different than the Terminator X "DJ as bandmember" situation. He's listed as a full-fledged member of Public Enemy.

Someone brought up The Orb, and suggested that in that instance (or similar ones), there might be a "DJ as composer" situation where we do credit someone for doing nothing other than what the "DJ as mixer" does. That may be, but in that situation, that person is still credited as a bandmember.

Also, there is a difference between licensing a song to be used in a DJ mix, and licensing a song to be used as a sample in a composition to be credited to someone else, so I don't believe that the two situations are completely analogous. In the sample case, you usually have a snippet or two of a particular song being used as a loop or a break or something as part of an overall composition, with the band credit being given to the party doing the sampling. In a DJ mix, usually a decent chunk of the song is used as is for a while, until it's mixed into something else, and the band credit is given to the party being sampled.

The best argument for the DJ mix is that they should get credit for the entire mix as a composition. But I think that, in effect, reduces to the "compiler" situation.

So I would say a DJ mix does not qualify the DJ as a band.

I agree with one point of yours in particular: that crediting the DJs "reducers to the 'compiler' situation". However, I don't agree that it's wrong to credit 'compilers' in such a case. Generally a compiler of a composition is not credited, either as an individual or as part of a group. THAT'S why I don't think we would credit the,. Were a "compiler" (or, in this case, a set of DJs) to be officially credited as the artists releasing a disc, I see nothing wrong with including them in the tree.

OK, I'm won over by AJW's argument.

pkasting:

So you would assign all those Back To Mine CDs to the compilers as the "band" responsible for the music on it? There's no mixing on those CDs; they are just collections of songs.

[www.amazon.com] http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0009HLD5U/qid=1134970501/sr=8-3/ref=pd_bbs_3/1...
[www.amazon.com] http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000A4GAU/qid=1134970501/sr=8-8/ref=pd_bbs_8/1...
[www.amazon.com] http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00006L3OC/qid=1134970501/sr=8-14/ref=pd_bbs_14...

And there are many more where that came from. The band name on the front represents the folks who chose the songs, but that's the complete extent of their involvment. If these qualify as official recordings by these bands, then I think we're stretching the definition too far. I doubt the bands themselves think of these as their own recordings.

I don't know, I perhaps would actually. But not if the band wouldn't think of them as their own recordings. I'm sure 2 Many DJs think of their releases as "theirs".

I don't think we should PREVENT a group from being listed in here solely on the basis that we don't think the group (which clearly has a name, a membership, and a set of official releases) "counts" as a band. I respect your arguments, but I don't see what advantage we gain by following them. There's nothing unclear or mistaken we're doing if we add the 2 Many DJs releases to the tree; they're not ambiguously anyone else's releases. To me trying to define what a band is and is not on the basis of what sort of roles they take when putting together their album seems... presumptuous. The albums are real and they're legal. So IMO they should go in unless doing so would in some way cause catastrophic harm.

Well, that album might not have been mixed live, but they do perform that set 'live'. It's not like they just press 'play' on their CD player when they're DJ-ing at a party. This is very similar to let's say, the members of Dream Theater, who record all the instruments seperately in the studio, spend some time mixing those tracks and then go out on tour and perform the songs live as a band. You can't compare that to producing an album or putting together a compilation album.

And for the record: I don't like this kind of music, I'm not a fan of 2 Many DJ's or Soulwax so I don't have any reason to *really* want them in the database. Also, I went to school with David and Stephen and I think they're assholes (well, at least they were 15 years ago).

Are we getting any closer to a decision on this? I'm very interested to know the outcome.

Also, I had another question: Let's say that a band releases a recording using a particular lineup that only appears within a DJ mix. If the DJ is a compiler, then this would simply fall into the "track on a compilation" case. But if the DJ is a band, then it would have to be listed as "appears on another band's recording." That feels wrong to me, somehow.

I think Mark and I are going to have to have a meeting on this one in our virtual underground lair, however I'm out of town for the entire month and Mark is gone for a few days himself and it's tough to make any big decisions or implement new features. Right now we focusing on adding bands until we have a chance to settle everything out. Sorry about the delays.


Kevin

So... DJ mixes are in? (2 Many DJ's)