I understand your point, and some Exchanges definitely lean far too much on the side of "National" DJs, which I suspect is the ultimate point of this whole thread. That's also why I have tended to give locals DJs better slots at our Austin Exchange.BryanC wrote:Exchanges are for two purposes: tourism and dancing. Ideally, visitors to a dance scene and host city should experience things they wouldn't otherwise experience at home. Why have nationally renown DJ's unless it's a special, differently-themed event? It's like making the trip to Russia to eat at Macdonalds. * * *
However, the term "Exchange" contains the essence of what an Exchange is all about: an "exchange" of "dancing stuff" that benefits both locals and visitors. It is just as much about showing off a host city/scene as it is about bringing new influences, music, and dancers to the host city. As such, it DOES make sense to use "National" DJs because otherwise its just the same DJs you listen to locally every week.
(Straw man fallacy if there ever was one.) The point isn't to chop and dice and cram it into tiny pigeonholes, but to come up with/agree upon terms that describe the music we are talking about so that the discussion moves forward from overly broad generalizations attached to good and evil monikers. It helps us understand and hopefully appreciate the differences between "Groovers" and "Vintage Lovers," instead of just exchanging uninsightful insults. It also helps enhance our (or at least my) understanding of the music by forcing us to really listen to the music a bit closer and identify what it is that makes Gene Harris' "Don't Get Around Much Anymore" sound like a COMPLETELY different song than Duke Ellington's original version.BryanC wrote:And what, for chrissakes, is with this incessant, ovsessive need to cut and chop and dice the music to be crammed into tiny, pigeonholes?