"DJ Mix" vs "Continuous Mix"

So MBz seems to prefer “DJ Mix” to describe any kind of release or recording that is a continual piece of music that is made up of other existing recordings strung together (by means of cutting and chopping, fading, scratching or beat matching).

However I feel that the term “Continuous Mix” is a lot more suitable, as there are a few examples I’ve encountered where it can’t actually be confirmed that a release has been mixed by a DJ. DJ implies a person (or persons) have mixed the tracks themselves, whereas there have been many releases over the decades where there is no defined DJ, and it is likely the tracks were “mixed” together by an application or unknown entity.

What do people think?


I think you’d have a LOT of edits to do if the mix type was added. :rofl:

Certainly agree that is makes sense to better differentiate the skill of mixing from some bloke with a fader on a VA collection. Would need a very good definition of the border between the two types as there will be plenty of overlap

1 Like

Not expressing a preference here but I think “gapless” is another term to consider…

I feel the same with the new Karaoke work type being added

Indeed, either way DJ-mix does lend itself to thinking that an actual individual/s were involed with the mix

1 Like

I don’t think gapless works as there are many albums like Dark Side of the Moon that are “gapless” by design. Not mixed in the same sense these DJ mixes overlap two separate tracks.


“Gapless” is often just a technical term for a feature in audio players that avoids creating an artificial gap after one song finishes but the next one wasn’t loaded yet (usually by loading the next one in the background a short duration before the current one ends).

1 Like

And also, many tracks are mixed by some DJ, without being part of a continuous mix.

1 Like

The Wikipedia article is titled “DJ mix”, not “continuous mix”:

FWIW, it’s common in Japan to see the terminology “nonstop mix”.

1 Like

Yes, or even NON-STOP MEGAMIX. :grin:

1 Like

But that article still refers there being an actual DJ present; mine are when things are not.

I do see there is the Compilation of relationship too

I think “compilation of” is for when two or more tracks are combined without any mixing between them


Is the thinking that “DJ Mix” would only be used if the DJ is known? Or that the current “DJ Mix” would be renamed and used for both attributed and anonymous mixes?

This one :slight_smile:

There is DJ software that has an automix feature, but those usually don’t result in releases. What’s an example of a release that doesn’t have a known DJ person having done the work, but is a continuous mix?

I only have one NON-STOP MEGAMIX release, if I remember correctly, and it’s precisely not a DJ endorsed mix. But I guess there are many such releases.

You are mistaken.

Disc 1 DJ-mixed by Y&Co.
Disc 2 DJ-mixed by B4 ZA BEAT.
Disc 3 DJ-mixed by NEW GENERATION.

1 Like

I don’t have a lot of knowledge in this area, so take my input with a grain of salt, but it seems odd to me that an identical recording could change type based solely on whether or not we know the DJ’s name.

1 Like

Thanks I never noticed that. :slight_smile:
It’s true that I never imagined no-one did the non-stop megamix… :thinking:

I found continuous mix more easy to understand, but it’s as someone not familiar with DJ music.

And the DJ-mix doc is already quite good, in fact.
And DJ-mix can mean more than just continuous or non-stop. You can imagine it also includes when they also shout or scratch and everything, on top of changing speed to match BPM and cross-fade, etc. It can be quite more complex than just continuous. :wink:

Discogs seems to use the “mixed” term

deadmau5’s 4×4=12 has a continuous mix version, I think some of his others are too… not too sure

on the whole, I don’t personally see enough of a distinction between the two to have a new relationship type, but it might be helpful to some :man_shrugging: