Show Your Setup Part II

[GrimFandango]

there is only i thing i want to say after looking on all of those pictures... people please turn your turntables to the side... also know as battle style... its really really more comfortable...

completely arbitrary.
I'm fine with either but if I have the room I'll gladly set em up the "regular" way.

[mostapha]

Skip this post if you want to get back to the setups. Sorry…it seemed on-topic…ish. I'll post some gear porn in a bit.

Using the Circle of Fifths is nice if you can remember the system or just memorize each step. Basically you take whatever Key your in and go up 4 whole steps making a fifth.

It's actually not 4 whole steps, it just looks like it. There's only a half-step between B and C and between E and F. A Perfect Fifth is 7 half-steps, which is 3.5 whole steps, not 4. 4 whole steps is a minor 6th.

Plus if you study music at all you'll quickly learn that there are other keys that mix harmonically other than say 8A can goto 9A,7A or 8B. There are lots of other keys that would also be fit in harmonically with that key, again showing how the Camelot system while being good it does hinder you in the long run.

Actually, the Camelot system covers all of those. The reason 8A can go to 9A or 7A has to do with why a Perfect interval (like a fifth) is called Perfect (they result in the same quality of interval when inverted, and yes that word has a specific meaning). nA->nB is switching to relative major/minor (though I don't remember which because I don't use camelot notation).

The inner circle is a little harder to explain basically each key has a relative minor. I just memorized them I don't really know the whole theory behind why they are what they are maybe someone else could better explain that.

Every key in modern western music (meaning it can be written the notation that we've all hopefully seen…the staff thing) follows the same pattern of notes. If you ignore the letters and assign your root note to be 1, then the scale degrees 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 make up a major scale. The 4 and 5 are perfect fourths and fifths up from the root, etc, etc.. Switching to a relative minor means you go down a minor third from the 1 to a 6 and use that as your root note. For C Major, the relative minor key is Am, because A is the 6th scale degree of the C Major scale.

The reason that works has to do with the fact that not all scale degrees are a whole step apart. The 3 and 4 are only a half step apart, as well as the 7 and the octave above 1. In simpler terms, the intervals between each note in the major scale are: whole whole half whole whole whole half. The minor scale is different, it's whole half whole whole whole half whole, which is the same thing shifted over 2 intervals…which is analogous to starting on the 6 instead of the 1.

The intervals all work out, and the scale degrees–though used differently in chords–are all the same.

So a major scale, using that notation, is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
A minor scale, using the same notation, is 6 7 1 2 3 4 5.

A key based on a Major Scale's 6th degree is called a relative minor, because using the same note values, the scales/chords that you develop using the same ideas would be minor instead of major.

It also works the other way. If you're in a minor key and call the root note 6, then the 1 is its relative major.

The really funny part that I find about Camelot Notation is that it's irrelevant. Yeah, the numbers 1 through 12 in order are marginally harder to remember than the order of the circle of fifths. But, it's a series that comes up in a lot of music. It's basically the same as the order of sharps in a key signature that uses them: FCGDAEB. To keep going past that point, you just pretend that things like C# G#, etc. make sense until you get to the loop.

So, it's F C G D A E B F# C# D# A#…and then you know to stop either because that's 12 keys or because you know that E# is the same thing as F, B# is the same as C, and so on.

A# isn't really used compared to Bb, but it's the same thing. And that kind of thing keeps happening…there are 2 equivalent names for most keys, though one is usually preferred because of how easy/hard it is to write the key signature with sharps or flats.

I know I've had more formal/classical musical training than a lot of people on any DJ forum, but FCGDAEB comes out of my head just as quickly as 1234567…I think I memorized it in 3rd grade. If you need help, the canonical mnemonic is Fat Cows Go Down And Eat Barley…for some reason…no, I don't know why I remember the mnemonic or where it came from.

The really fun part that Camelot Notation really obfuscates is that Perfect Fourths also usually work about as well. They're 5 half-steps up from the root, and I'll let you figure that one out on your own. Also…going up a whole step often sounds good. Going down a Perfect Fourth or Fifth works two, and those kinds of changes have been used in western music for a long time to great effect.

If you read up on musical Cadences (in a harmonic context, not a rhythmic context…same word for different topics) you'll find several other things that you can use for specific effects. Basically what the Camelot System is doing is teaching you to constantly use something like an Authentic Cadence, which leads into the next section. Basically…the notes sound okay together because of the way most scales/chords tend to work and the last time you hear the outgoing song resolve on a root chord, it's replaced with a fifth chord, which feels incomplete and leads you into the rest of the new song, anticipating an actual resolution. By the time the 2nd song ends, you've played the new root chord enough that you can do it again…and again…and again…etc.

But, for it to really work, you need to pay attention to the chords used in your songs and not just the keys. But keys alone kinda work/help. That and teaching yourself to hear these things.

Along those lines, giving people an actual resolution can have other effects. For instance, I really want to experiment with injecting Plagal Cadences into my sets and see if it works as well as I suspect it will at sending people to the bar for another drink. If it works, sweet. If not, whatever, it'll still sound okay. And that's something that the Camelot System would never have taught you by itself.

[D.S.M.I.T.]

Thanks Mostapha for this great post, real interesting. I didn't get this though:

To keep going past that point, you just pretend that things like C# G#, etc. make sense until you get to the loop.

Could you explain what you mean ?

Cheers

[Xonetacular]

ok i respect that... but as a turntablist/skratch dj i hate the tonearm being in my hand area... thats why i said it

the majority of this board is not scratch djs...

[MrPopinjay]

[D-Kem]

Hi all,
took a couple of pics with my bb whilst having a spin today. Pics aren't great and my room is a mess but it's a true representation of the area i practise in.

In the pic is;
2 technics 1200 m3
1 VCI 100 1.4 (SE still at mates waiting to get fixed)
Kontrol x1
1 cdj800mk1
Novation Twitch
2 x Midifighters
Allen & Heath S2 (really need to buy the rotary panel)
Peavey EQ
Phonic Xover

Under the Twitch lives a 2tb fw external drive, a powered hub and the audio 8. Everything in the rack is good to go and has a power strip down the side so no hassle setting up when hitting the road.

Technics 300w amp under the desk, driving 2 JBL control12 sr's.

As you can see i dont go for the sleek, minimal look.

[D.S.M.I.T.]

^ Nice setup man. Tell us how you use it all, MFs for cuepoints ? Twitch for sample decks ?

[bartboy]

@Mostapha Thanks for giving a much more detailed and correct response to the Camelot/Circle of 5ths discussion. I have very limited classical music training and I'm glad someone could give a much more detailed explanation of the whole subject.

[D-Kem]

^ Nice setup man. Tell us how you use it all, MFs for cuepoints ? Twitch for sample decks ?

Well the first Twitch died after an incident in a rowing club but Novation kindly replaced it. Only just arrived but i've started remapping it and plan to use it for sample decks and other bits n bobs. So far mapped the armyofme sweep to the original filter knob with feedback toggle set to the filter on/off. The filter has been moved to the encoder below with on off toggle set to push on encoder. Loads more in the mapping to destruct but will get on it. Don't use internal so will probably map some fx to the faders.
MF's used as deckalised/instant grat and cue points are prefered on the MF. Having said that the pads on the Twitch are lush.
The VCI is still there as i love it. Can't part with my first controller.
The x1 is being used for the sample decks at the mo ( mapping kindly shared by padi ) but once i crack the Twitch map then the x1 will most likely be sidelined and only used for club gigs when on timecode.

[mostapha]

Thanks Mostapha for this great post, real interesting. I didn't get this though:

*the quote got snipped…it was the thing about the keys looping*

Could you explain what you mean ?

Cheers

There are 12 major keys and 12 minor keys. There are 7 distinct letters that we use as note names. The "loop" develops because the circle of fifths is a circle, and it's slightly more confusing than camelot notation because 12 is not divisible by 7.

"F C G D A E B F# C# G# D# A# E# B# F## C## G## D## A## E## B##…" would be basically valid (even though it looks dumb) except that E#is the same thing as F, B# is the same as C, F## is the same as G…so it makes more sense to loop back around to the beginning at that point instead of continuing to add sharps that just make things more confusing and harder to read.

And, yes, double-sharps and double-flats are things. You use them in sheet music when you want the musician to play a note that is a half-step away from a note that already has a sharp or flat on it from the key signature. It doesn't come up that often, but it does happen.

@Mostapha Thanks for giving a much more detailed and correct response to the Camelot/Circle of 5ths discussion. I have very limited classical music training and I'm glad someone could give a much more detailed explanation of the whole subject.

You're welcome.

Also…random note. You can do something similar to mix with perfect fourths (which also form a circle), except that you follow the order flats are added to key signatures instead of sharps. That order is BEADGCF, and loops in a similar way, adding flats to the next section. So, B E A D G C F Bb Eb Ab Db Gb comes out. That tends to sound pretty good for harmonic mixing too, and it's literally the same thing, just backwards.

So, that's the actual musical theory version of the Camelot System (up or down by 1 and relative major/minor). It's really not that hard, and compared to everything else that you can do, I still fail to see how the Camelot System adds anything…because that's just scratching the surface of what you can do.

Considering I've written so much about this while bored at work and working on my resume, it's a bit weird…but I rarely think about this very much when actually mixing. If I can't pick a next song, I'll sort by either bpm or keys and think a bit…but it still mostly happens by feel and guesswork. I guess the things I want to stress are that it's waaaay more complex than the insanely simplified view that only pure circle of fifths mixing gives you and that the Camelot system didn't add any new knowledge to music theory…so don't limit yourself like that as an absolute just because someone decided to invent a notation that's marginally easier for people who've never seen a staff and have no inclination to learn about music. And I really don't understand how a DJ could not want to learn anything about music. It's fine if you don't; I just don't understand it…which is completely my failing.