Does it swing???

Message

CafeSavoy · #31 Post by **CafeSavoy** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 3:33 pm

the other interesting thing about the swing era was that there was more
general knowledge of a variety of dances. including those we now call
ballroom dances; which were done differently then they are done now
since that was before the hegemony of the dancesport phenomenon.
i remember reading in some of the old liner notes about how some people
would quickstep to some of the faster songs too. also there was that
swing foxtrot dance; i think Frankie and Norma demonstrates on one of
the Herrang video.

also we tend to forget about the effects of general trends. in basie's bio
he mentioned how when he was approached to play the Roseland ballroom
he was asked about his tango repetoire. this would have seemed a liittle
odd but i had just read a tango history which noted the huge impact of
tango on the world. to a large extent it had replaced charleston as the
trendy dance. same thing in the 40's, the whole world had mambo mania.

Lawrence · #32 Post by **Lawrence** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 3:38 pm

I do not "fail to comprehend" it; indeed, after I read your set list, I don't think there is much disagreement, here.

I did not mean to imply that they danced exclusively to slower stuff and never, ever danced fast. I also clarified that I meant that they did not generally dance fast all the time, as the popular recorded stuff (especially Chick Webb's studio recordings) mistakenly implies. Your set list seems quite accurate, if not just slightly bent towrd your preference for faster stuff. Let's not pick a fight where none exists.

CafeSavoy · #33 Post by **CafeSavoy** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 4:13 pm

the question of tempo is an interesting. just speaking from a smallish
sample it seems the early/transitional swing music (fletcher henderson, mckinney cottonpickers, etc) was faster; seems to mostly start around 200. and in the next generation of music the mode seems to be between
160 and 200. with the earlier stuff it also seems to be either hot or sweet
and so much in the middle.

Mr Awesomer · #34 Post by **Mr Awesomer** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 4:27 pm

Lawrence wrote:I also clarified that I meant that they did not generally dance fast all the time, as the popular recorded stuff (especially Chick Webb's studio recordings) mistakenly implies.

Just did a little math on the complete studio recordings of Chick Webb, which I just happen to have, and since he's the one who "especially" creates a mistaken impression. Came to an average bpm of 167.4, which to me represents a mellow tempo, and though I'm sure on here may think that's uptempo... I don't think anyone would call it "fast."

So, are you speaking to your uninformed perceptions of the music, or what the "popular recorded stuff mistakenly implies?" Looks like your perceptions are getting in the way of the facts.

PS For anyone curious enough, I'll gladly post the data this average is based upon.

CafeSavoy · #35 Post by **CafeSavoy** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 4:43 pm

GuruReuben wrote: PS For anyone curious enough, I'll gladly post the data this average is based upon.

sure, post it with song names and tempos, so we won't have to count all those beats.

Lawrence · #36 Post by **Lawrence** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 5:19 pm

Dman, man, you're turning casual conversation into an academic debate with twisted statistics and all. (There is a difference between the average and mean, a difference between all his recordings and his popular ones, and a difference between the average/mean of all his songs and the average/mean of his non-ballad, Lindy Hoppable songs, none of which I find at all interesting....). I'm not getting into a flame war with you based on who is uninformed or stupid or whatever. Pick a fight with someone else.

Mr Awesomer · #37 Post by **Mr Awesomer** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 5:25 pm

Click Me

Kyle · #38 Post by **Kyle** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 6:42 pm

not to be a stats nerd. but, just taking the average bpm based on total tracks dividing by etc.... would not be too accurate. it doesnt account for the excessively fast or excessively slow.

if you have 4 songs. 180, 180, 180, and 94 bpm. the average would be 158.5. but in reality that one song at 94bpm doesn't have that strong of an effect as the stats would like you to think.

if you looked at the range of bpm's as a bell curve, or similar, you would have a better idea as to what the "average" bpm is

Mr Awesomer · #39 Post by **Mr Awesomer** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 7:18 pm

I think the "bell curve" tells a simular story to just a simple average:

main_stem · #40 Post by **main_stem** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 10:38 pm

Lawrence wrote:Those recordings were for listening, not for dancing.

And I quess everything recorded after the swing era was ment for dancing?

Greg Avakian · #41 Post by **Greg Avakian** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 11:42 pm

GuruReuben wrote:

man, you are such a geek.

Nate Dogg · #42 Post by **Nate Dogg** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 12:11 am

Rueben's chart is another benefit of the web interface. Additionally, the never ending "what is swing" debate has been segemented away from other topics.

Mr Awesomer · #43 Post by **Mr Awesomer** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 12:30 am

Greg Avakian wrote:man, you are such a geek.

...says the guy who started the thread in the first place.

Greg Avakian · #44 Post by **Greg Avakian** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 8:08 am

I've never bell-curved my BPMs ...That's what I meant.

I figure we are all geeks to an extent, but I'm proud that one of us has stepped ahead of the pack.

falty411 · #45 Post by **falty411** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 9:23 am

CafeSavoy wrote:i remember reading in some of the old liner notes about how some people
would quickstep to some of the faster songs too. also there was that
swing foxtrot dance; i think Frankie and Norma demonstrates on one of
the Herrang video.

At the savoy, they would tend to do the peabody around the track to the really fast songs.