Live bands v DJ'd music at dances

[Haydn]

I've been thinking about the differences between live bands and DJ'd music at Lindy Hop dances. The odd thing is that a band's music is often harder to dance to than DJ'd music (often because the band aren't used to playing for dancers), but despite this a live band will consistently draw more people.

I've noticed that with a band in the room, the focus is on the band, whereas with DJ'd music only the focus is on ... ? ... the dancers I suppose. With a live band, the band generate atmosphere, but without this the DJ and dancers need to create it themselves, which takes more time to build up. Perhaps this is why beginner dancers often prefer live bands, and why promoters find a live band draws a bigger crowd. But when I talk to experienced dancers, they often prefer DJ'd music to a band.

Any thoughts?

[fredo]

Haydn--

I guess I would look at your first description of dancing to live music, that's its harder to dance to than DJ'd music. I think I see it differently-- lindy hop was created in the context of live music; perhaps many of the people lindy hopping today did not learn in this context, and would find themselves not always familiar with dancing to live music, but I do not think that adds any difficulty to the music itself. Indeed, some find it more inspiring and somewhat easier to dance to.

Past that, I would agree that having a focal point outside the dance floor is more entertaining for people and allows everyone an equal point of reference, despite whether they like the band or not. Agreed totally about the atmosphere of a live performance being a positive over DJ'd music (thats probably why they get paid more)

As for whether this means that beginners prefer live bands and the experienced prefer DJ'd music....I guess it must differ from scene to scene (as all of this subject matter might). I'm familiar with beginners that enjoy live music and DJ'd music alike, so long as they're having fun and making friends. And the experienced dancers, I tend to think they crave good live music and will take it when they can get it-- if they stay home it's probably out of difference in tastes, or just indifference.

[Lawrence]

The odd thing is that a band's music is often harder to dance to than DJ'd music (often because the band aren't used to playing for dancers), but despite this a live band will consistently draw more people.

Oh my GOD!!! He said it: The Emperor is wearing no clothes!

There are obvious counterexamples, but I generally agree, and the reason is exactly what you pinpointed. It is not universal, but unfortunately MUCH more common than most people want to admit.

[russell]

I agree that Lindy Hop was created in the context of live music, but this context was bands playing for dancers. There was a lot of music that was created to be played not for dancers eg some of Duke Ellington stuff.
Difference today is that most bands focus is not playing for dancers.
An example, I work with several guys that play in a local big band. I had a discussion with who was enthused because they have a new arrangement of "Things aren't what they used to be" done in a funk style. That is not going to be very danceable. He likes it because it will be a challenge.
I love dancing to live music but sometimes it is not much fun with 7-8 minute songs with long drum solos which is great entertainment but not fun to dance to.

[Albert System]

It is sad that this discussion has to exist. The reason that is does is because there are so few professional bands. A professional band knows the difference between a club/ concert gig- where they can play a wider range of styles, tempos and song lengths- versus a dance where they have to cater to the dancers. It's not a difficult thing to do if you have a band with regular personnel and a large enough repertoire. But unfortunately, there just aren't that many bands around that can do it right. Or are willing to!

[fredo]

I agree that Lindy Hop was created in the context of live music, but this context was bands playing for dancers.

Difference today is that most bands focus is not playing for dancers.

It is sad that this discussion has to exist. The reason that is does is because there are so few professional bands.

It's true, it is sad, but not hopeless. There are bands out there that understand what it means to be a dance band, even if just for a night. The trick is to support them when they play dances, and encourage promoters to book the good ones. Of course in the mean time there are lots of mediocre bands attempting to play for dancers and really just turning people off. I think this contributes to people'a skepticism for bands and makes them feel safer with deejays. (not that deejays are guaranteed to be any better)

Still though, the shortage of good dance bands doesn't make dancing to live music any harder, in my opinion. Dancing to bad live music (or just live music inappropriate for dancing) that can be hard to dance to is not enough to make me feel that live music in general is harder to dance to.

My solution, only hire good bands, or start your own!

[Toon Town Dave]

Gotta agree with your last statement Freddie.

I have to partly disagree with Paul. I agree that pros should recognize/accept that playing for dancers is different, indeed some do not. What really bugs me is the bands that bill themselves as a "dance band", are "professionals" but play like crap. I'm not sure if it's a case of organizers doing a poor job of communicating what's expected or just that the bands aren't very good playing outside their usual comfort zone.

I'd tend to blame the organizers who keep hiring the same bands, providing only positive feedback despite sub-standard music. It gives a false impression to the musicians that dancers like what/how they are playing and to dancers re-in forces that live music is inferior to recorded music.

Locally, we currently have one non-pro band and one other pro band that is working to specialize in swing music for dancers. I'd have no problem booking either for a swing dance event. The former has been playing for dancers for many years and has a good idea what we like. The latter is doing a really good job at figuring out what works and what doesn't and get better every time I hear them.

[Albert System]

I totally agree with you. A band can call themselves whatever they want. But if they are hired to play for a dance, and do not know how to do it right, then they are not a professional dance band- no matter what their resume says.

And keep in mind that dancing to really crappy DJ music is often EVEN rougher than dancing to a mediocre live band.

I just think it is ridiculous that bandleaders do not know what to do in different situations. May band has different repertoire and different combinations of instruments for when we do dances, weddings, corporate events, different theme parties etc. You have to know your audience and cater to them to some degree- while still holding true to your style. It is not easy to do, but again it takes a certain level of experience, professionalism, and a willingness to play to your audience.

[Lawrence]

I'd tend to blame the organizers who keep hiring the same bands, providing only positive feedback despite sub-standard music. It gives a false impression to the musicians that dancers like what/how they are playing and to dancers re-in forces that live music is inferior to recorded music.

ABSOLUTELY! Many people have considered me uppity for DARING to suggest that we provide the band with some clear directions. As one musician friend told me when I shared that concern, "What, you mean find out what we can do to PLEASE THE CUSTOMER?!? What a novel idea!"

Here are some essential directions, in order of importance (the first four being absolutely essential):

1) No songs over 4 minutes, with most songs between 3:00 and 3:30. (They will violate it and go 4:30, which is fine, and which also is why I don't say "No songs over 5 minutes"). If they don't have enough material without stretching out songs to 6-7 minutes, then direct them to play songs twice at opposite ends of the set, perhaps even with a slightly different tempo or "feel."

(Shortening the songs not only makes them more appropriate for dancers, it also focuses the musicians to play better and more focused. Dancers are not the only ones who get lazy or bored playing/dancing to the same song for ten minutes.)

2) Vary the tempo; and "Vary the tempo" does NOT mean to constantly bounce from 200 BPM to 100 BPM. Vary the tempo by INCLUDING several (if not most) songs between 140-160 BPM, not just songs over 200 BPM or under 110 BPM.

3) Only one solo per song (helps enforce Rule #1). Feature a different soloist each song to divide the solos up evenly.

4) No "Sing, Sing, Sing;" No "Jump Jive & Wail;" No "In the Mood;" No "It Don't Mean A Thing."

5) Except for transitions, maintain a constant, walking bass line with no two-beat feel (emphasizing the 1 and the 3).

6) No high-hat on the cymbals; tap the beat out on the ride cymbals. (We've had this debate before, but very few if any drummers know how to use a high hat for a swing rhythm; they end up creating a choppy, abrupt beat that interferes with the rhythm instead of accents it).

7) "Energy" does NOT mean "Speed."

[fredo]

wow, you actually list all of those out for bands when you hire them?

that's pretty funny.

I can understand some of the underlying issues you're trying to solve with these rules, but to me, if you have to be as specific as you are with them, then you're probably not hiring a dance band anyway.

Song length and tempo variation are the most likely things a band will misunderstand for dancing, and I can see needing a few comments with the band leader on those topics, because they're simple enough for the band to work with.

But, one solo per song? is that really necessary? haha.

No "sing, sing, sing". Sounds like a band choice issue-- dont hire bands that play the types of songs you dont want to have at your dance. You can listen to them before you hire them.

Only a walking bass line-- no two beat feel. Two beat only can get tiring, but no two beat at all? seems too limiting. Two beat is still fun to dance to. Here again though, sounds like a band choice issue.

[trev]

5) Except for transitions, maintain a constant, walking bass line with no two-beat feel (emphasizing the 1 and the 3).

I agree with your other points, but I think this is too limiting. No Lunceford? I think it takes away a lot of opportunity for interesting dynamics.

[GemZombie]

5) Except for transitions, maintain a constant, walking bass line with no two-beat feel (emphasizing the 1 and the 3).

I agree with your other points, but I think this is too limiting. No Lunceford? I think it takes away a lot of opportunity for interesting dynamics.

Agreed... all your other points are good, this one is a bit limiting... maybe if you have a band where that applies.. dunno.

If you can be picky with your bands, you should provide them with some positive direction and explain to them what dancers like. They might not be able to accommodate everything at the start, but if they are a good band they can start to understand playing a different venue. A good band, like any professional, needs to adapt to the situation... and a dance is far different than a concert. A band who won't listen to polite suggestion from the people who are hiring them probably isn't worth it anyway.

My best experience was when we, as dancers, were hired to be "entertainment" for a car show and party. The organizers asked me which band I recommended, and the best local band on the California Central Coast(for whom I must plug right now) is Dawn Lambeth and the Usonia Jazz Band... a band I have a great relationship with anyway. We had a prepared routine and the band asked us what song we'd like, we told them "Christopher Columbus"... to which we got "Sure, no problem". When it came time to perform, they literally asked me to count off the tempo. That blew my mind. They loved playing for us, and we loved dancing to them. (it doesn't hurt that they have a true love and understanding for 30's-40's music that most bands just don't have).

The best Dance bands are the ones who *get it*... Boilermakers, Campus 5, Mora, Stompy Jones, Usonia, etc.... That's why they get hired again and again for dances.

[GemZombie]

6) No high-hat on the cymbals; tap the beat out on the ride cymbals. (We've had this debate before, but very few if any drummers know how to use a high hat for a swing rhythm; they end up creating a choppy, abrupt beat that interferes with the rhythm instead of accents it).

Actually, I take it back... I think rule #6 is 180degrees off base. Ride symbol? Freakin hate the ride symbol and how most bands overuse it. Take a listen to this version of Lady Be good by Engelbert Wrobel's Swing Society. The drummer gets it, and has good use of the closed hi hat... especially starting at 0:51.

I guess I see your point... if the drummer can't cope with the Swing Concept then opt out for the easy method that will disrupt less... but I dunno, I'd rather encourage them to play correctly

[Toon Town Dave]

I pretty much agree with Jesse on all points.

The tapping out the rhythm is a great way to communicate desired tempos.

I'm generally not a fan of using primarily cymbals for the rhythm. If the drummer can work the hi-hat (like Jo Jones), I can dig it but more often cymbals just don't have the chunky feel that makes me feel like swinging out. I feel more like shuffling along doing fox-trot or something of that nature.

Then again, a drummer (or band in general) who can play a variety of rhythms is best. Too much of the same gets boring.

I think there are enough great musicians out there that organizers shouldn't have to suffer with sub-par live music. One group of musicians that played with Solomon Douglas at the 6th Prairie Lindy Exchange were amazing, the best I've ever heard Solomon's arrangements played. The same musicians played jump-blues/novelty arrangements that they usually play (because that's what organizers usually want) and they just didn't have the same enthusiasm.

Perhaps some of us (organizers and dancers) are underestimating what good musicians are capable of, simply because we haven't put in the effort to effectively communicate what our ideal music is.

[Campus Five]

3) Only one solo per song (helps enforce Rule #1). Feature a different soloist each song to divide the solos up evenly.

4) No "Sing, Sing, Sing;" No "Jump Jive & Wail;" No "In the Mood;" No "It Don't Mean A Thing."

5) Except for transitions, maintain a constant, walking bass line with no two-beat feel (emphasizing the 1 and the 3).

6) No high-hat on the cymbals; tap the beat out on the ride cymbals. (We've had this debate before, but very few if any drummers know how to use a high hat for a swing rhythm; they end up creating a choppy, abrupt beat that interferes with the rhythm instead of accents it).

7) "Energy" does NOT mean "Speed."

Some of these comments are really on point - mostly #4 and #7. But the problem with some of these other rules is that they really don't get to the real goal - which is good, actual swing music. I understand your desire to improve or fix some of the problems you have had. But #3, #5 and 6, only remedy the "problem" and don't actual make the music any better, or any more authentic, or more whatever.

A secret to danceability is varied sections in a single song. Listening to a swing-era big band arrangement, like "Rockin' the Blues" by Basie, each 12 bar (or 6 8-counts if you prefer) there is a change. If you only had one solo, you have one long (often boring) solo per song. That doesn't help. You want a change every 12 bars, or every 16 bars (in an AABA song). Split the AABA choruses 1/2 and 1/2 or just switch the soloist on the bridge. That will help keep the variety of textures and dynamic levels.

The 2-beat / 4-beat thing is another example where you really limiting them without need. Obviously, when I think "swing" I think all 4-beat, but 2-beat is good way to break up the feel on a song. Plus, 2 beat on a slower song is perfectly danceable - the problem is on faster stuff, the 2 beat will have less energy. Above 170bpm, I wouldn't go into 2-beat.

Also, the hi-hat thing. Just playing ride isn't going to make better music. The same problem with the hats, will be carried over the ride beat.

Listen, I know where you are trying to go, and I know why. It's why I started a band. Just don't lose the forest for the trees.