This article is an interesting read and it made me consider the aspect of djing that was always the most captivating part of the whole operation. I think that being a dj (at least used to) put one into an inherently critical space by its very nature. Sure, you were kind of expected to “have a more creative relationship with the creator“ that this writer accuses the new form of fan-critics of having. But this was absolutely the whole point of being a dj.
It is, at its root, a creative act defined at once by both the inclusion of certain songs in your sets as well as the exclusion of others. The power to “break” a record to a group of people simply by playing it at the appropriate time and place would seem to be the envy of the critic in any other art form. In fact, it can be viewed as the theory of criticism’s true praxis.
Djing also allows possibly the most well targeted kind of criticism possible. Unlike the film reviewer whose opinion is broadcast out into the world via a newspaper read largely by people who don’t care one way or the other about film, djing can be specific from a general radio audience down to the most underground of events full of nothing but the most educated of dancers and listeners.
For me, though, the best part of djing as criticism is its immediacy. It is basically a gut reaction from the dj when they are selecting the music to play, and the response to it from the crowd is also known in real time. Instead of pissed off letters to the editor, a selection that is rejected by the dancers is met with an emptying dance floor. And that reaction can be based on so many factors that can be weighed very quickly. Anything from “I don’t like this chord progression” or “that bass sound is annoying” to “this is just not music for the culture I am representing” can be a discounting factor for either the dj or the dancers.
This is in direct opposition to the written word criticism of dance music where it seems to me that there is more effort given to convince the audience of the qualities of something that in many cases just aren’t present. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen a “critically acclaimed” track generate little energy on a dancefloor while one that all critics ignored set the floor on fire.
This was always the weakness of written criticism of dance music for me. I would read about some track that was described in breathless detail telling how amazing it was, and then I would hear it and…. my gut reaction was to make it stop. In terms of finding useful written words about dance music, guest review columns by actual djs in magazines tended to be the most useful. These were done by people who, whether they are consciously aware of it or not, are able to have a connection to a culture, evaluate the effectiveness of any piece of music for its purpose within that culture, and then test it out and get direct feedback on their process.
That sounds like a damn good critic to me.
Obviously not every dj was a top level independent mind capable of doing this well. But the best djs were using this process to get the best possible results even if they didn’t know it, and I think that is still true today. And ironically, those same djs who excel at this are often times ignored by the written critics. I’m not sure why that is. But the dancefloor knows what is what.