Getting pushed out

Message

coreyj5 · #16 Post by **coreyj5** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 2:35 pm

Come DJ here!!!! Honestly the dj who runs 2 out of the 3 nights hates to dj and has very minimal knowledge of music. Pretty much anybody who wants to dj, can. I love the guy, he's a very close friend of mine, but he's killing our nights.

Lawrence · #17 Post by **Lawrence** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 2:43 pm

It depends on too many factors that only you or the venue owner knows. Sometimes the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Sometimes it just gets replaced. It could be just a natural ebb and flow in the schedule. It could be that the venue owner doesn't like your music even though the crowd does. It could be that the venue owner likes your music but wants to experiment with others to see if attendance increases. It could be many, many different things, the only answer to which, to be blunt, comes from talking to the owner, yourself, instead of venting to complete strangers to your scene.

One other note. Running my own venue makes me far less susceptable to feeling "left out" of the rotation at another venue here in Austin. (It also makes it so that other people go to bat for me if they notice I'm not DJing enough; I don't care, but THEY do.) If you play at someone else's venue, you are always beholden to them and need to placate them and their preferences.

Nate Dogg · #18 Post by **Nate Dogg** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 4:18 pm

Edited my earlier response.

Lawrence, please clarify with me offline, are you talking about things that have happened lately?

Petitetonya · #19 Post by **Petitetonya** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 8:14 pm

This venue (that mainstem is referring to) has had a dj battle actually...it is one of the ways that they got some of the new dj's out of the woodwork. That was a while ago...tastes are always changing so perhaps another round of battles would be a good way to liven up the dj rotation again and find out who the dancers actually like and don't like. The only problem with battles though, is if a lot of the dj brings their friends to vote for them, it skews what the actual regulars want/don't want. I like Peter's suggestion at one point on having a blind dj battle...there is a curtain or screen that covers who the dj is so there is no bias. That would be awesome I think.

Toon Town Dave · #20 Post by **Toon Town Dave** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:52 am

Gee Kevin, that seems like an odd situation. The few times I've been to Seattle, there was generally a pretty good crowd out dancing when you were spinning. I'm pretty sure I know the venue you are referring to and I'm sure the prime motivating factor in the decision process is getting paying customers through the door and minimizing costs. Perhaps what's happening is an attempt to attract a broader audience or perhaps appeal more the the people who are buying drinks at the bar. I doubt it's personal.

In terms of connecting with the audience, that can sometimes be very difficult. I'm convinced that here we have two incompatible groups of musical tastes. There are basically two of us who DJ, I tend to play more swing, jazz and blues while the other DJ spins more pop, neo, pop-swing and a few selections from left field. In general we are not that dissimilar in what we play in an evening. When I spin, I usually hear from a small vocal group that whines for more "modern" (aka pop/neo) music while I hear from people that complain about the music when the other DJ spins. I think the main difference is that I try to appeal more to the masses and the other DJ pays more attention to the swing dance club clique.

I don't think the blind DJ battle idea is going to help this situation but I do think it's a neat idea anyway since there are a lot of DJs in or near Seattle.

Mr Awesomer · #21 Post by **Mr Awesomer** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:03 am

Petitetonya wrote:I like Peter's suggestion at one point on having a blind dj battle...there is a curtain or screen that covers who the dj is so there is no bias. That would be awesome I think.

God damnit, that was my suggestion!

ScottieK · #22 Post by **ScottieK** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 4:14 pm

Wouldn't be too hard to place a video camera on a tri-pod and hook it up to a monitor in the DJ Curtain. You could see out using the monitor but people couldn't see in.

Toon Town Dave · #23 Post by **Toon Town Dave** » Thu Dec 18, 2003 9:27 pm

BryanC wrote:Stupid question: How does the DJ know how the crowd is reacting from behind the curtain? Peephole?

Feel the pulse of the floor, stronger pulse=more dancers!

morte100 · #24 Post by **morte100** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 6:04 pm

I have no need to kiss a$$ on this one, so there's no hidden motivation behind my comments. Mainstem is one of my favorite DJ's ever, anywhere and my primary inspiration for getting into DJing at all. I don't think there's any chance of the problem being that he's losing touch with the dancers. TTD brought up a thought, though.

Toon Town Dave wrote:getting paying customers through the door and minimizing costs.

Possibly the "owner", who has been extremely cost conscious of late (for good reason), is concerned about $$$. I presume that you command a higher fee than some of the others.

It also seems like she is trying to woo beginners again (admirable and smart). Is there a chance that she thinks you aren't well received by the uninitiated?

I'm a strong supporter of the "lay it all out on the table" approach. My suggestion: muster up all the diplomacy that you can and bring your concerns directly to her - I mean, the "owner".

Petitetonya · #25 Post by **Petitetonya** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 7:07 pm

GuruReuben wrote:
Petitetonya wrote:I like Peter's suggestion at one point on having a blind dj battle...there is a curtain or screen that covers who the dj is so there is no bias. That would be awesome I think.
God damnit, that was my suggestion!

Oh stop whining you self glorifying baby!

Mr Awesomer · #26 Post by **Mr Awesomer** » Sat Dec 20, 2003 1:09 pm

Petitetonya wrote:Oh stop whining you self glorifying baby!

There you go confusing me with Peter again. HAHAHAHA

Lawrence · #27 Post by **Lawrence** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 12:04 am

morte100 wrote:
Toon Town Dave wrote:getting paying customers through the door and minimizing costs.
Possibly the "owner", who has been extremely cost conscious of late (for good reason), is concerned about $$$. I presume that you command a higher fee than some of the others.

This brings up one reason I respect Lance's efforts at Lindy Groove: paying to fly in DJs because he realizes that great DJs are not fungible and cannot be replaced by anyone willing to DJ for free.

We fight this problem in Austin. Because the main venue does not pay its DJs (or only recently started paying a piddence), many [edit: should be "some"] good, experienced DJs end up giving up because it simply is not worth it once the novelty wears off.

[In general, sometimes] organizers who don't pay attention to or who don't know the music don't care [about the values that good, experienced DJs bring] because there are always plenty of newbie DJs to fill the spot. Because there are so many willing to do it for free, some organizers cop an attitude and treat DJs as surfs. But the newbie fill-in DJs need to re-learn all the lessons about reading the crowd, paying attention to the flow, developing a diverse library, etc.

Also, newbie DJs might appease newbie dancers, but the real asset about an experienced DJ is being able to appease both newbies AND experienced dancers. Without keeping them happy, the scene has constant turnover, and never evolves.

One great aspect of Lindy DJs is that they DJ out of their musical interest, not just to get paid. However, the "DJ for free because you love it" scenario also creates a contrary force that results in the "dumbing down" of the Lindy scene from a musical standpoint. The demand that DJs should DJ for free instead of treating it as more of a vocation/profession makes it perpetually an amateur night thing.

That's how the hands-down best venue in Chicago when I was there (Java Jive) has apparently fallen apart.

funkyfreak · #28 Post by **funkyfreak** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 7:00 am

"Great DJs are not fungible and cannot be replaced by anyone willing to DJ for free." Awesome.

But are you saying that more DJs need to be paid so that they'll become respected by the venue owners?

I don't really understand that, because I find that if an owner is an asshole without paying, often they're an even larger asshole with paying, since now it involves even more of their interest. The owners that do already give monetarily usually do so because they already understand the importance of treating the DJ right, and would do so without paying money.

*shrug*

...but money is a good way to convince me to stick around when owner is an asshole

-FF

Nate Dogg · #29 Post by **Nate Dogg** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 8:39 am

Lawrence wrote: This brings up one reason I respect Lance's efforts at Lindy Groove: paying to fly in DJs because he realizes that great DJs are not fungible and cannot be replaced by anyone willing to DJ for free.

We fight this problem in Austin. Because the main venue does not pay its DJs (or only recently started paying a piddence), many good, experienced DJs end up giving up because it simply is not worth it once the novelty wears off. The organizers who don't pay attention to or who don't know the music don't care because there are always plenty of newbie DJs to fill the spot. Because there are so many willing to do it for free, some organizers cop an attitude and treat DJs as surfs. But the newbie fill-in DJs need to re-learn all the lessons about reading the crowd, paying attention to the flow, developing a diverse library, etc.

Also, newbie DJs might appease newbie dancers, but the real asset about an experienced DJ is being able to appease both newbies AND experienced dancers. Without keeping them happy, the scene has constant turnover, and never evolves.

One great aspect of Lindy DJs is that they DJ out of their musical interest, not just to get paid. However, the "DJ for free because you love it" scenario also creates a contrary force that results in the "dumbing down" of the Lindy scene from a musical standpoint. The demand that DJs should DJ for free instead of treating it as more of a vocation/profession makes it perpetually an amateur night thing.

Lawrence:

While I agree with some of what you wrote, much of the content of your post insults the other DJs in Austin.

What good, experienced DJs quit over money?

Other Comments:
* The issue of pay and quality is not necessarily the same. I think they can be related, but for the most part, they are separate discussions. For example, the Board could limit the DJ pool and demand a certain amount of quality from each DJ, without paying any more to them. They could also pay the DJs $25 and hour and only book the mediocre DJs. I think both scenarios exist in other cities.

* If you look at the Austin DJ Team, most of the DJs have several years experience and a proven track record. We have two very new DJs and one who has been DJing less than a year. The latter is doing a good job by most people's accounts. If you are referring to the two DJs, you should be more specific. I can think of eight DJs that don't fit "newbie" description, only two of DJs are new enough to fall under that heading.

* I just hate to see our dances protrayed as "dumbed down." It really offends me, especially when the evidence supports the opposite viewpoint. People do take notice when we have bad DJ nights and they let the Board know about it. So, there is a standard of quality that is met by most DJ sets on most nights. When that standard is not met, the problem DJ stands out.

* We would all like more money and most of us agree that we are worth it. Many of also agree that certain people have historically underestimated the value that a DJ brings to the dance. On that point, I agree with you.

* At some point, a DJ is likely to emerge that will suck enough that he or she will force the "anybody can get on the pool" policy to change.

mousethief · #30 Post by **mousethief** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 9:04 am

Lawrence wrote:
morte100 wrote:
Toon Town Dave wrote:getting paying customers through the door and minimizing costs.
Possibly the "owner", who has been extremely cost conscious of late (for good reason), is concerned about $$$. I presume that you command a higher fee than some of the others.
This brings up one reason I respect Lance's efforts at Lindy Groove: paying to fly in DJs because he realizes that great DJs are not fungible and cannot be replaced by anyone willing to DJ for free.

We fight this problem in Austin. Because the main venue does not pay its DJs (or only recently started paying a piddence), many good, experienced DJs end up giving up because it simply is not worth it once the novelty wears off. The organizers who don't pay attention to or who don't know the music don't care because there are always plenty of newbie DJs to fill the spot. Because there are so many willing to do it for free, some organizers cop an attitude and treat DJs as surfs. But the newbie fill-in DJs need to re-learn all the lessons about reading the crowd, paying attention to the flow, developing a diverse library, etc.

Also, newbie DJs might appease newbie dancers, but the real asset about an experienced DJ is being able to appease both newbies AND experienced dancers. Without keeping them happy, the scene has constant turnover, and never evolves.

One great aspect of Lindy DJs is that they DJ out of their musical interest, not just to get paid. However, the "DJ for free because you love it" scenario also creates a contrary force that results in the "dumbing down" of the Lindy scene from a musical standpoint. The demand that DJs should DJ for free instead of treating it as more of a vocation/profession makes it perpetually an amateur night thing.

That's how the hands-down best venue in Chicago when I was there (Java Jive) has apparently fallen apart.

If you're bold enough to post this here, you might as well put it out on Austin Lindy as well. This is just brutal and, as has been pointed out, uncalled for.

Well, I'm sorry that Austin has been "dumbed down," but seeing as how you're an organizer, doesn't that say something about your input? Or maybe the best bet to revitalize the scene is eliminating some headcount?

Heh.

and it's "serfs" and "pittance."

Kalman