DJ mag aint what it used to be. The top 100 is pretty much a joke to most people who care about music.

Yeah the top 100 is super weird, it’s all these commercial EDM DJs but the weird thing is the magazine doesn’t otherwise really seem to target that audience. I don’t read it but I have come across some good long form pieces like this from them online, so actually I think they are trying to do some good stuff.

I'd imagine that it's because the DJs ask people to vote for them. A lot of the DJs I follow do that every year. If the big commercial DJs with the biggest following do that, then they would naturally land at the top.

Yeah I guess what I mean is that it seems to go against the rest of their brand, the magazine usually covers slightly more underground dance music it seems - not super underground, still big names, but not stadium EDM stuff.

Maybe their philosophy is that the Top 100 should be an open thing and they shouldn't restrict who can enter based on music style... to me, it makes DJ Mag way less credible, but I guess they probably make money out of the Top 100 being so big.

+1 Feels like they don't care who's their readership. Felt like they told me: "If you're not in the industry, Google it."

DAW : Digital Audio Workstation https://www.masterclass.com/articles/what-is-a-daw

> +1 Feels like they don't care who's their readership. Felt like they told me: "If you're not in the industry, Google it."

Caring about their readership is exactly what they're doing, just that you happen to not be what they think of when they imagine the typical reader. The typical reader is already into music production and with a 99% certainty know what a DAW is.

I wouldn't expect every tutorial on "Google's Official Android Developer Blog" to explain that "JVM" means Java Virtual Machine, some resources really are for people who already know a bit about the subject area.

I wasn't in this instance, but am in general. For industry folks they probably don't even realize it's not a word--surprised it hasn't lowercased to daw by now /s.

In the same way I don’t expect a biologist writing for biologists to explain “DNA” stands for “deoxyribonucleic acid”, it’s probably not necessary for a music producer writing for producers and engineers to define “DAW”.

Users here probably feel the same way about HTML, FIFO, DAG, etc

No. The main audience for this article already know what a DAW is

The fact that the article was in DJMag might have been a clue?

Defining DAW is like defining SQL. If you need the definition, you are definitely not the target audience.

D'OH!!!

In the time it took you to Ctrl+F DAW you could have googled it.

100 percent