Talk:Beatmatching

Unnecessary links

Removed a lot of linking here. It's not necessary to:

1. Link back to the current article
2. Link a word once you've already linked it before

Akchizar 05:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reformatting

This article seems a bit too much like a how-to guide, but I cant see how to re-write it so that its more like what an article should be without cutting a large chunk out of it. Any suggestions? StealthFox 22:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Cut away. Rootless 05:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm adopting this page. Perhaps the above cutting lead to the creation of the inexplicable article titled "Beatmixing". I'll find references, clean up the page, and find a way to describe the process of beatmatching so it's understood.(Drn8 (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

About this entire page

A lot of information on here is not correct.

A PA system is not required for beatmatching, and selecting proper records has nothing to do with the process itself. Beatmatching is simply matching the speeds of two records, and that's all this page should really say, along with the step-by-step process. Even though it is wise to select two records of similar speeds, it's not necessary, nor is it a part of the process.

Kalemika 22:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the page seems to use a different definition of beatmatching than the one I'm aware of. For me, beatmatching is purely matching the tempo of the "new" record with that of the "old" one (called Matching tempos in the article). This involves finding the start of the new track, starting the record, adjusting pitch control and pushing the record until the beats match. Anything else is mixing. I would propose splitting the article into beatmatching and mixing (DJ), but this style of mixing isn't the only one possible. Any better name? Rootless 02:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, here it is: beatmixing. Time to merge? Rootless 01:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the term "beatmixing" being used by anyone in common parlance. "Beatmatching" is often used to mean mixing, it is true, but I agree there is value in keeping them distinct, since there are many ways to mix two songs together (perhaps ultimately we can have many of them described). My preference would be to rename beatmixxing to "Mixing (DJ)" or the like and to more properly describe tempo matching as beatmatching here. csloat 03:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

On one hand, I don't think this historical term is really used these days, everybody just says "mixing" (I haven't heard "beatmatching" being used to mean mixing). On the other hand, an unambiguous word is needed; I sometimes find myself saying things like "techno-style mixing" and "beatmatched mixing" to describe it. I think I'm with you regarding the renaming, but we should probably mention beatmixing as a historical term. Want to propose the move?

BTW, I rewrote the beatmixing page, but my prose doesn't seem to deserve the term excellent. Rootless 04:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

DJ Mix exists. "Beatmixing" is purely fictitious. (Drn8 (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

Step by step process of beatmatching

Woohoo, my first ever wikipedia edit! The "Step by step" was horrendous; i've edited it so it is at least a little more accurate and relevant.. As per discussion above, i've removed any reference to mixing, and kept it to the steps required to "beatmatch".. I've also made it clear that this is only one method - there are many others out there (pitch chasing, on the fly, etc.) but i feel i have outlined the most basic and popular method.. I have certainly never heard of a DJ beatmatching two tunes, then taking a mean of the difference in tempo and attempting to bring both turntables to that speed, as instructed in the previous "how to"! dirtybobby 16:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Finally, some progress here. However, I think it should be more like a description of the technique rather than a detailed howto (which can, and probably should, be linked to under External Links). I tried to do it this way in beatmixing, but decided to throw in some useful hints as well.

Regarding the method -- I never restart the record during beatmatching, but just before mixing (i.e., start the record, beatmatch (pulling/pushing when needed), restart the record, close bass (or somt'n), bring fader up). Rootless 18:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this depends on the genre of music, as well as one's own personal style of mixing.. A lot of modern drum n bass, for instance, only has 32 bar intros, and so can require restarting the record to maintain a percussive section during the beatmatching stage.. I also tried to write it from a beginner's perspective - I'm sure many of us can beatmatch and lock a tempo within a few bars, but I imagine if you can do this already you won't be reading this anyway! dirtybobby 12:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it may depend on the genere. I'm with minimal techno, which mostly has constant beat throughout the track. In any case, you don't have to lock the tempo within few bars -- just push/pull the record along with adjusting the pitch so the beats coincide, and every time you do it the record should drift less. Not that it matters. Meanwhile I added a link to a tutorial. There's also a way to beatmatch without touching the record (using pitch control only (try it one day, it's nice)), I should probably describe it or find a link. Rootless 19:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"you don't have to lock the tempo within few bars -- just push/pull the record along with adjusting the pitch so the beats coincide" - the problem (for beginners) as i say is that drum n bass, for example, typically only has 16 or 32-bar intros - so if you haven't got the beat matched within these 32 bars the tune breaks down and you haven't got any beats left to match! with tunes running at 180bpm, 32 bars works out to less than a minute, which is why beginners very often have to restart the tune a couple of times to use the percussive intro to get their tempos locked.. i realise this isn't a problem found with most 4-to-the-floor genres, though, so i have edited the section to say that this step isn't necessary in all cases :o)

"There's also a way to beatmatch without touching the record (using pitch control only)" - this is called "pitch chasing," which i mention in my original post, above :o) i very often use this method, especially when i'm mixing acapellas in as it distorts the vocal less and allows you to tighten the mix on the fly! dirtybobby 09:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Since speaker delay was mentioned, should booth monitors be mentioned as well? Most clubs have them for this reason GEEbusT (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Added Sections

I added sectoins from the page "beatmixing" because they describe the process of beatmatching, and I have never heard the term "beatmixing" used in the DJ world. DJ mix page already exists.

The sections I added are ugly but I don't have time to fix them at the moment. I think I will adopt this page(Drn8 (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

Furthermore it seems the DJ Mix page is in need of some major work too.(Drn8 (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

"it is standard practice in clubs to keep the constant beat through the night" - really ?

I'm not a clubber, but a partner-dancer.

To me, constant beat sounds as though it would be at best monotonous, at worst 'cruel and unusual punishment'. Is there no equivalent of 'slow movements', ritardando, accelerando etc in classical music ?

"constant beat when a new DJ takes over" - that I can understand

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge Beatmixing into this page

There doesn't seem to be a section about the proposed merge, but for what it's worth, I support it. Beatmixing is an archaic term, I doubt anyone uses it anymore. Quaestor23 (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)