Good DJ or Bad DJ?

[dicky]

We went to a party on Saturday night at a big posh hotel in Blackpool - as everything was paid by a company who supply us in our main business (Satellite / AV equipment) and that included our room for the night and breakfast we thought it would be very rude to say no :p

So there was this big party - pretty much all corporate guests, so basically the 'works christmas do' - after the meal and an Elvis impersonator we got to the disco

Now from my point of view the DJ had the floor filled all night. Basically he played current hits and dance music from the last few years (you know the Black Eyed Peas, David Guetta, Ellie Goulding, Taylor Swift etc all that type of stuff)

He played this style all night.

So that would suggest he was doing a pretty good job as the floor was always somewhere between 'occupied' and 'rammed'.

However as missus dicky pointed out, there were probably twice as many people who didn't dance all night. I went ask for some soul - got one record 'Land of 1000 dances' which also packed the floor - then it was straight back to current hits. We got one disco record (Tavares) and one 80s song (Erasure) all night - I only assume in response to other requests, both filled the floor.

So Missus dicky says the DJ was rubbish as he only played to a section of the audience - and played to the same group all night

Sooooo...... the big question.

Was the DJ good because he kept the floor buzzing all night as I pointed out.

Or was he in fact a bit rubbish because two thirds of the people either never danced or they got up for one or two records that they 'liked' when he did breifly change genre for one song, then vacated the floor again. Would a 'good DJ' have mixed it up a lot more given the broad range of age groups at this sort of Christmas party as the missus pointed out?


Rich

[Shakermaker Promotions]

Some may think a DJ is bad but others may think that same DJ is good and vice versa. I know that sounds pretty obvious but it's true.
I had someone come up to me once at a party when I had been playing a full range of music across the board all evening and say that they thought I was great. However, on the same night whilst packing down I overheard a conversation between 2 youngish guys (maybe they said it purposely so I could hear) where one of them said "That DJ was crap". I actually asked them why they thought that and they couldn't really answer to be honest with you.
I think one of them said something like "You didn't play anything I liked" so I said "Did you request anything?" - The answer was no.
So, was I 'crap' because I was just playing music that they didn't like? I don't think so at all. We are not mind readers and you can't please all of the people all of the time.

Back to the OP - All of the people on the dance floor may have been having a great time and may have thought the DJ was great. I'd say that he or she was trying to keep the dance floor busy and stuck with what was working. The problem is, that's easy to do but you find yourself playing to the minority and not the majority. When it comes to something like a Christmas party where all ages are attending then I think you have to play as much variety as possible especially if you are on limited time.
This year I found myself doing 20 minute slots for the majority of the time depending on the type of crowd.

I'd say that out of say 1000 people who attending the parties, probably 80% of them thought I was a good DJ but there's that other 20% that probably thought I was a bad DJ because I may not have been playing the music that they liked.
I think it's easy to just say "Oh, he's a crap DJ" when that DJ isn't playing the stuff you like. The DJ could be the best around....who knows?
I know a group of DJ's who play Drum & Bass and Dance music. It isn't my cup of tea but I know they're good. They don't like what I play but they know I'm good at what I do.....well, I'd like to think they do.

[DJColsie]

I like to think that I have done a good job if everyone has been on the dance floor at some point in the evening.

If the dance floor has been full all evening while that has happened then surely no one can complain!

[funkymook]

Was the DJ good because he kept the floor buzzing all night as I pointed out.

Or was he in fact a bit rubbish because two thirds of the people either never danced or they got up for one or two records that they 'liked' when he did breifly change genre for one song, then vacated the floor again. Would a 'good DJ' have mixed it up a lot more given the broad range of age groups at this sort of Christmas party as the missus pointed out?


Perhaps all the requests were for what he was playing and the only requests he got for other genres were from you, which he duly played.

But if he wasn’t chock a block with requests then I’d say a bit more variety would be in order.

[Nakatomi]

Perhaps all the requests were for what he was playing and the only requests he got for other genres were from you, which he duly played.

But if he wasn’t chock a block with requests then I’d say a bit more variety would be in order.

:like:

My own definition of a 'bad' DJ would be somebody who is arrogant, selfish, unsafe or just rude to customers. Oh, or technically incompetent - and by that I don't just mean somebody who can't put a simple segue together.

[dicky]

Interesting answers

Just should clarify - I only requested some soul (got one song) the one Disco and 80s song we got were nothing to do with me, but were equally popular

[Shakermaker Promotions]

That's what I was saying. It seems to me that this DJ was more than likely playing it safe. If the Soul, Disco and 80s requests that he played also kept the floor busy then maybe he should have put a few more on and at least tried to see if a change in style would of worked.

[Benny Smyth]

I'm with the majority that maybe a bit more variety would have been better.

However, if the people who didn't dance as much still had a good time, then the DJ can't have done a bad job. :)

[mattydj50]

How big was the dancefloor in relation to the number of guests?

I have a venue where the current thinking is cram in as many as you can (they see the £ signs in every bum on a seat). So this year, we have been playing to 230 - 260 each night.

Now, there has also been a band/singer/act on each night so the room has a plethora of tables in for the guests, a 5 section stage and me, leaving room for a dancefloor that comfortably holds around 80 people (100 intimately).

So, a "full dancefloor" for me means I have approximately one third of the guests attending dancing whilst the majority have to find something else to do. This can mean leaving the main room to go to the bar, and sometimes remaining there.

Its not ideal from my point of view, because I can select one genre of music and get a full load, but I know I could probably change it and get another full load in. My request list becomes ever more varied and crowded (at one time last Friday I had 21 songs on the list from all over the shop. Trying to develop a flow was like skiing uphill, without any snow (or skis come to that).

So at the end of the night, do I measure success by having a full dancefloor all night or by the overall number of guests that were able to shake their thangs at some point during the night.

The hotel manager was happy so I guess that's all I need to hear!

[Jim - Scotland's Party DJ]

There's not really a right or wrong answer - was he good - to some folk, was he bad - to some folk.

If he was GREAT then everyone would have thought he was good which means tryinng to cater to everyone in the crowd. Playing stuff one bunch of people are getting right into all night is easy but if as you say over half of the people weren't engaged or enjoying what he was playing then he's doing something wrong.

[Excalibur]

There's not really a right or wrong answer - was he good - to some folk, was he bad - to some folk.

If he was GREAT then everyone would have thought he was good which means tryinng to cater to everyone in the crowd. Playing stuff one bunch of people are getting right into all night is easy but if as you say over half of the people weren't engaged or enjoying what he was playing then he's doing something wrong.

The last two posts, by Matty and Jim have said it all. By definition, if he kept the floor full all night, then he was good. No question.
However, if two thirds of his audience didn't get ( enough of ) their ( perfectly reasonable ) requests, he was bad. As we have seen, it's therefore quite possible to be Good and Bad at the same time.

[yourdj]

We went to a party on Saturday night at a big posh hotel in Blackpool - as everything was paid by a company who supply us in our main business (Satellite / AV equipment) and that included our room for the night and breakfast we thought it would be very rude to say no :p

So there was this big party - pretty much all corporate guests, so basically the 'works christmas do' - after the meal and an Elvis impersonator we got to the disco

Now from my point of view the DJ had the floor filled all night. Basically he played current hits and dance music from the last few years (you know the Black Eyed Peas, David Guetta, Ellie Goulding, Taylor Swift etc all that type of stuff)

He played this style all night.

So that would suggest he was doing a pretty good job as the floor was always somewhere between 'occupied' and 'rammed'.

However as missus dicky pointed out, there were probably twice as many people who didn't dance all night. I went ask for some soul - got one record 'Land of 1000 dances' which also packed the floor - then it was straight back to current hits. We got one disco record (Tavares) and one 80s song (Erasure) all night - I only assume in response to other requests, both filled the floor.

So Missus dicky says the DJ was rubbish as he only played to a section of the audience - and played to the same group all night

Sooooo...... the big question.

Was the DJ good because he kept the floor buzzing all night as I pointed out.

Or was he in fact a bit rubbish because two thirds of the people either never danced or they got up for one or two records that they 'liked' when he did breifly change genre for one song, then vacated the floor again. Would a 'good DJ' have mixed it up a lot more given the broad range of age groups at this sort of Christmas party as the missus pointed out?


Rich

I would say no unless the half that were not dancing was an exaggeration.
I good Christmas DJ should be able to cater for all guests tastes, even a "blokes" set playing ska and such like.

So IMO a busy floor does not equate to a successful night, especially if there is no other entertainment. Sounds like he had a good crowd. in another party that would bomb (like my wedding last night, which was full of 20 year olds wanting 70's & 80's).

[dicky]

No exageration - There were 300+ iin the room - maybe even 400 (was the Devere Urban Resort Blackpool which is pretty upmarket IMHO, at least as far as the NorthWest gets :p)

The dancefloor held maybe 60-80 or there abouts so work the percentages for yourself - however in fairness he filled it and some of the surrounding carpet too

The reason for this thread (at least from my point of view) is not a derogatory one against the DJ playing, I thought he did a pretty good job contrary to the missus point of view (which I consider equaly valid to be honest) but it was hopefully to more to understand the dynamics of these sort of parties and how to pull off the (damn near to) perfect gig in this sort of venue :)


Rich