u/CoastOrg

So I’m a full time DJ, sometimes I’ll walk into a club and they have their own setup, which is cool.

Sometimes with these controllers, like in the case of a Rev-7, when I go into the Serato settings, the “crossfader curve” knob is grayed out. Which makes sense, because the Rev-7 has it’s own built in crossfader adjustment knob.

But recently at a gig I picked up, the club has an XDJ-AZ. This controller has no crossfader knob, but in Serato the crossfader curve is grayed out. Which obviously tells me that there is likely a built in setting for it on the controller. But when I go into the settings, tell me why this ridiculously expensive controller has only 3 possible crossfader curve settings (fully open, medium, and fully closed)?

I do a lot of mashups and blends during my set, and generally I’ve found that the crossfader curve at a 2 o clock position (on a knob) works the best. 12 o clock reduces the volumes of each track too much when I’m blending the outgoing song from the incoming one.

I love to use the crossfader as an extra volume fader to essentially compensate for potential volume differences from track to track. Either way it doesn’t matter, my question is why Serato can’t override built in limitations. I think a lot of the XDJ models have this same quirk, where you get literally only 3 crossfader options, which seems like a crazy limitation for such an expensive unit. ESPECIALLY when we’re hooking it up to Serato. Like I’d get it if I was using USBs, but I’m curious why Serato doesn’t have an override. Or moreso, why companies release $3-$4k controllers without this basic functionality.

For reference, a few years back, Robin Thicke lost a lawsuit filed by the estate of Marvin Gaye, as they found that the song "Blurred Lines" has the same "atmosphere" as Marvin's track "Got To Give It Up". Although no lyrics were borrowed, the sound of the percussion and the background "talking" was considered enough to definitively win the lawsuit.

Meanwhile, Post Malone's song Circle's uses the same chords as Runaway Train, borrows a good chunk of the melody from Runaway Train, and even has "Runaway, runaway" in the chorus as well. But after searching the internet exhaustively, I've found no lawsuits related to these songs between the two artists, nor did Post Malone credit any members of Soul Asylum as writers. But the rip off is one of the most blatant that I've ever heard in music (this isn't counting songs where they deliberately make a nod to the original artist, or borrow the hook completely, while pre-emptively giving the original artist writing credits).

So why do you think Soul Asylum hasn't sued for writing credits when, compared to the justification for Marvin Gaye's legal win, this seems like a slam dunk of a case? Do you think they are just unaware? This seems unlikely to me, as "Circles" was a pretty big song. Do they not care? (Also unlikely because I'm sure the members of Soul Asylum aren't exactly living like kings financially) Or do you think the legal argument wouldn't be sufficient?

For reference, a few years back, Robin Thicke lost a lawsuit filed by the estate of Marvin Gaye, as they found that the song "Blurred Lines" has the same "atmosphere" as Marvin's track "Got To Give It Up". Although no lyrics were borrowed, the sound of the percussion and the background "talking" was considered enough to definitively win the lawsuit.

Meanwhile, Post Malone's song Circle's uses the same chords as Runaway Train, borrows a good chunk of the melody from Runaway Train, and even has "Runaway, runaway" in the chorus as well. But after searching the internet exhaustively, I've found no lawsuits related to these songs between the two artists, nor did Post Malone credit any members of Soul Asylum as writers. But the rip off is one of the most blatant that I've ever heard in music (this isn't counting songs where they deliberately make a nod to the original artist, or borrow the hook completely, while pre-emptively giving the original artist writing credits).

So why do you think Soul Asylum hasn't sued for writing credits when, compared to the justification for Marvin Gaye's legal win, this seems like a slam dunk of a case? Do you think they are just unaware? This seems unlikely to me, as "Circles" was a pretty big song. Do they not care? (Also unlikely because I'm sure the members of Soul Asylum aren't exactly living like kings financially) Or do you think the legal argument wouldn't be sufficient?

The joke was “gay”, but “gay” wasn’t the butt of the joke. They flipped the script on those old 80s beer commercials, usually featuring a couple dudes surrounded by smoking hot women, but replaced the babes with ripped dudes. And they played the role so sincerely, without insulting gay people. They just acted like dudes. Super funny for such a simple sketch