Mixes without tracklisting: the new cover-ups

[jakartajive]

I recently got myself in a fairly undignified and clearly totally pointless little row on Mixcloud after a bad mood led me to post a comment on a mix along the lines of posting a mix without a track listing is essentially disrespectful to the musicians whose work is featured on the mix.

Now, rather than continue the row with the folk concerned, who clearly weren't going to shift their position, I thought I'd bring my thoughts here instead, what with VG+ being, among many other things, a home of relatively saner and measured debate about these things.

The more I've thought about it, the more mixes with no tracklistings have started to annoy the hell out of me.
In essence, if a musician has made a record, it's because they've wanted to be heard - and if you've found that song somehow and like it, and want others to hear it, it seems to me that the least you could do is say what it is so that folk know the name of the artist, can maybe track it down for themselves, buy a copy, maybe even find and interview the artist, etc.
Keeping it all secret makes it m ore about you than about the music you're supposedly touting, which seems wrong.

The response I got to my comment was predictably pissed-off (and hey, for all I know, may have been from someone who also posts here. If so, please learn to use THEIR and THERE properly, by the way ):

The ultimate disrespect to an artist is to make the assumption that in the day when everybody is a Dj that becouse we add tracklists people will run out and purchase there music! Num 2 is we spend years digging hunting trading selling sharing so when we take time to put a mix out for free after so much effort and respect paid to the game! The least someone could say is I really like your mixes and can I have a tracklist? We have always been honest and shared what little we know with whoever wants to know! I just don't want to hear some one who has read a tracklist downloaded a song or ripped it more like,with no effort work and just go about there day? Where is the respect in that..in fact why don't we give our records away after we have done a mix?? Sharing is about interactivity,bit like record digging! Its a shame you couldn't just ask at you wanted to know??


I dunno.
Maybe I'm just out of touch / date.
Maybe the cult of the digger / DJ has become so sacred that it's the right - or even prerogative - of the 'finder' of the tune (a concept that is basically bullshit, really, as everything has been heard and dug by someone somewhere before, hasn't it) to cover up and use this find to big one's own digging prowess up.

If so, it still strikes me as arsey.
And I don't like it.

What do you reckon?

[Tom B]

Exactly how rude were you?

[Filthy Rich]

As someone who just made a mix without a tracklisting (though I'd probably tell anyone who asked about any particular tune what it was) I have to slightly disagree. Not that you're wrong in what you say but I think there are more sides to the story than that - for example, I think it's quite fun to hear a mix and not know what stuff is and to try and figure it out and then hear it years later and finally know etc etc Plus, when I make a mix it's not gonna be heard by loads of people so I don't think it makes much difference to the original artist anyway.
For professional djs (not me) I reckon it basically boils down to not wanting to give out secrets. And I also guess that if you can get better gigs and thus more money because you have more knowledge then that probably trumps anything about respecting the original artist. I'm not sure that's right but that's life.
Does it make a difference if you're selling the mix or giving it away for free?

[ginghamkitchen]

I completely agree, Hugh. Credit where credit is due. I have ambivalent feelings about some of the people making careers out of other people's music: if it's done right and with due deference to the original artist it can be a wonderful thing, of course, but, increasingly, some people want to elevate themselves above the music - and can be quite shitty about it. This is not a wonderful thing.

Oh, and none of this is directed at you, Rich!

[jakartajive]

Exactly how rude were you?

It depends how you measure these things.
I wrote:

Covered up playlists. The ultimate disrespect to the artists who recorded this music in the hope that it one day might become better known. Why the secrecy?

I must say, I've been known to be ruder.

[medlar]

I must say, I've been known to be ruder.

I thought music was for sharing
Can't be arsed with this secret squirrel bollocks tbh, so H, I'm with you

[toby.d]

As someone who has gathered the majority of there (joke) music knowledge online, I've always relied heavily on track lists to lead me further down the rabbit hole.

Like you said, I've gone on to buy music from artists I've learnt about in mixes - sometimes records they'll see money from, sometimes not.

Having said that, I've never properly resented a mix maker for not posting a track list. I do get in a right state if I can't find a list/Shazam it/Soundhound it/google it but if anything it just increases my respect for the selector. I can understand why they do it - the listener wonders where they found this record which they can't find info on, re-listens to the mix instead of getting the record and listening to that instead and probably listens to their next mix for more untraceable goodies.

Yes it's self serving and yes it can be frustrating but I'm used to it and see it as part of the game.

[pitch]

I'm 50/50 on this. If the person/people who produced the mix were creating what they thought was something with artist merit in itself (maybe that is arrogance - but not always), and were indeed happy to share the tracklist, or tracks from it, if asked by interested parties - I don't see too much wrong with their stance. I recall that there was much fun to be had working out the tracks used in Votel mixes a while ago - people come together, or some time is spent researching, digging to complete the list. I'm guessing that hip hop sampling was often not credited - people had to work out what samples were used for themselves? It could be argued that a mix is done with love - that lost tracks are rediscovered and brought to a new audience. There is an element of respect in this process. Personally I like a bit of mystery - doesn't hurt my enjoyment... and if I want to identify I'm sure there is a way to find out. As Rich says - it is the commercial aspect that confuses this, whether a DJs attempt to keep certain secrets from the competition, or a mix that is for retail (which should surely credit the music anyway).

I'm interested in the need to label and define music in order to enjoy it? Is this essential? After all the music has been shared with you - it is on mixcloud - just the identity that has been withheld. Is it the disrespect to the musicians, or the inconvenience to you that is at the heart of the matter? A bit harder for you to go out and own a copy......

Anyway an area with lots of grey and not much black and white.......

[jahshabby]

If there's a mix with no tracklist and I want to know what it is, I ask the person who put it together. Every time I've done this, they've gifted the information with no hesitation. I've done it before, not because I wanted to hide things (rarely are there tunes I'd put on a mix that are that unknown), but just because I hadn't time to do it when I uploaded and generally figured that, if people wanted to know, they'd ask.

And, as Rich says, a lot of the time, I've quite enjoyed going off and doing the detective work for myself, searching lyrics etc. Occasionally I've bought things blind and they've turned out to be something I recognise (and loved) from a mix. That feeling I find hard to top.

[Tom B]

It depends how you measure these things.
I wrote:

Covered up playlists. The ultimate disrespect to the artists who recorded this music in the hope that it one day might become better known. Why the secrecy?

I must say, I've been known to be ruder.

Pretty mild, though I guess from the perspective of the recipient he's doing people a favour by sharing music & doesn't welcome the slap across the face. For what it's worth, I think bootlegging artists' work & not sharing revenue is more disrespectful than this. I've also enjoyed finding out who was on mixes like Trapdoor & some of the Votel ones so it seems a bit inconsistent to rail against secrecy now. But on the other hand, I agree with you that making out there's some mystique and creative genius behind compiling a good tracklist is some hubristic bullshit

[someblokecalledfuz]

You are not alone Hugh...

For me to listen to a mix / comp that doesn't have a track list it would have to be highly recommended to me by someone who's musical instincts I trust.

What annoys you more though Hugh, poor grammar / spelling and an inability to write proper sentences, or the musical secrecy?

[Filthy Rich]

You had better hope it's the latter!
(You want "whose" not "who's)

[Filthy Rich]

The more I think about it the more I reckon there is a big difference between a free mix and one you charge for - in the latter case if you're making money off someone's music and not crediting them then it's a bit much, but if you're not trying to make money out of it then I don't think that you have any obligations to anyone.

[Filthy Rich]

"making out there's some mystique and creative genius behind compiling a good tracklist is some hubristic bullshit"

But a good mix may be a lot more than a good tracklist - though many when you can use computers to mix it for you there is less technical skill involved if that's something that matters.

[Tom B]

But a good mix may be a lot more than a good tracklist - though many when you can use computers to mix it for you there is less technical skill involved if that's something that matters.

Agreed - which is why I guess for me the Trapdoor guys & Andy Votel have rather more justification for not revealing tracks. Though I can't say I've really thought through the rights & wrongs so this is more of a gut reaction.