The stuff you don't like

[mousethief]

Man, I don't want to go to any dance where a classic swing song totally undoes the night. Yeah, a DJ could make a bad choice with regards to tempo, etc but totally kill a night?

Ugh.

Kalman

[julius]

but like I always say, I'm no DJ.

can't use that line anymore ;-)

I'm still in denial.

Naturally if you play the wrong song for the wrong crowd they will not appreciate it very much, but I think you've expressed a tautology: the wrong song will kill people's enjoyment ... by definition.

But as usual we are reduced to discussing what song is "wrong" which is why we have DJs. Obviously there are songs that don't work and most people dislike, but just as obviously there are songs that don't work and most people dislike but THEY DANCE ANYWAYS.

Here's the rub. When a slow song comes on that people don't like, they will probably dance to it anyway. When a faster song comes on that people don't like, they will probably NOT dance to it, because they CAN'T. Both sets of dancers equally dislike a certain style of music, but there is an asymmetry on how full the floor is.

And that's why slower (more modern, groovy, whatever loaded and baited word you want to choose) music is played so much more: it's easier to dance to, and easier to DJ. The DJ feels like he's doing his job keeping the floor full. But it's potentially full of invisibly unhappy people. Yes, it is a contradiction. But it happens. We all know that.

[Nate Dogg]

It also reflect the fact that I don't play, say, Celine Dion or Poison, both of which would probably kill the vibe even worse than any vintage swing music. "Probably," that is.... [just kidding].

Dude... it depends on what Poison song.

"Talk Dirty To Me" rawks! *does token "thumbs up big hair band fan" gesture*

Tina

To further annoy people, Poison also did the Loggins and Messina cover, "You're Mama Don't Dance." I bet somebody could six count/ECS to that. Not that they should, but they could.

[julius]

Uh, that was my convoluted attempt at explaining why classic music (which tends to be faster) is a 'vibe killer'. Faster music: empty floor. Slower music: full floor.

But how full the floor is, while important, isn't the only metric for "vibe".

[mousethief]

It also reflect the fact that I don't play, say, Celine Dion or Poison, both of which would probably kill the vibe even worse than any vintage swing music. "Probably," that is.... [just kidding].

Dude... it depends on what Poison song.

"Talk Dirty To Me" rawks! *does token "thumbs up big hair band fan" gesture*

Tina

To further annoy people, Poison also did the Loggins and Messina cover, "You're Mama Don't Dance." I bet somebody could six count/ECS to that. Not that they should, but they could.

WOULD.

Kalman

[main_stem]

1) how much I actually DO like vintage music (the benefits of at least a SOMEWHAT open mind) and 2) how playing a vintage song can sometimes COMPLETELY DESTROY the vibe at a dance if it is not worked in appropriately.

LOLROTF

[Nando]

Here's the rub. When a slow song comes on that people don't like, they will probably dance to it anyway. When a faster song comes on that people don't like, they will probably NOT dance to it, because they CAN'T. Both sets of dancers equally dislike a certain style of music, but there is an asymmetry on how full the floor is.

That looks like bait to me.

You're basing that on tempo and people's athletic abilities alone. If I don't like a song, I won't dance to it regardless of tempo. The only thing that may overrule my preference is on the lady I may end up dancing with at the time.

Yes, I may be less likely to dance to a fast song I don't like (based on my own personal athletic ability and stamina at that time.) However, your comments make it sound like a a spineless crowd will dance to anything slow. That may be true of some people, but I'd like to think the general crowd is smarter than that.

And that's why slower (more modern, groovy, whatever loaded and baited word you want to choose) music is played so much more: it's easier to dance to, and easier to DJ. The DJ feels like he's doing his job keeping the floor full. But it's potentially full of invisibly unhappy people. Yes, it is a contradiction. But it happens. We all know that.

Yes, slower songs are easier to dance to. But I've seen DJs clear a floor with a slow song before.

[Greg Avakian]

Here's the rub. When a slow song comes on that people don't like, they will probably dance to it anyway. When a faster song comes on that people don't like, they will probably NOT dance to it, because they CAN'T. Both sets of dancers equally dislike a certain style of music, but there is an asymmetry on how full the floor is.

That looks like bait to me.

You're basing that on tempo and people's athletic abilities alone. If I don't like a song, I won't dance to it regardless of tempo. The only thing that may overrule my preference is on the lady I may end up dancing with at the time.

Yes, I may be less likely to dance to a fast song I don't like (based on my own personal athletic ability and stamina at that time.) However, your comments make it sound like a a spineless crowd will dance to anything slow. That may be true of some people, but I'd like to think the general crowd is smarter than that.

And that's why slower (more modern, groovy, whatever loaded and baited word you want to choose) music is played so much more: it's easier to dance to, and easier to DJ. The DJ feels like he's doing his job keeping the floor full. But it's potentially full of invisibly unhappy people. Yes, it is a contradiction. But it happens. We all know that.

Yes, slower songs are easier to dance to. But I've seen DJs clear a floor with a slow song before.

I couldn't agree more on every point. The fact is that "groove" (or whatever baited word one chooses) events consistantly attract a bigger crowd nation-wide than do "classic" (or whatever baited word one chooses) events do. Yes, there are exceptions, but everyone knows this is a valid generalization.
-----

I gotta go along with the Austion boys here: I try to carry a diverse collection of music. I will add that I enjoy pleasing people on the dance floor, so if I have to spend a little money buying a used CD for $3 on half.com, it's a small price to pay for keeping busy and getting nice pats on the head.

If I don't have it with me I say so and ask what else they might like?

[kitkat]

Actually, that makes sense to me as an explanation that people don't necessarily like slower music better, yet how a bad faster song will clear the floor more easily than a bad slower song.

I suppose the argument really applies more to the debate on JiveJunction about why people like slower music better than it does under this thread. But I think it makes perfect sense.

[yedancer]

I'd like to think the general crowd is smarter than that.

It's not a matter of being smart or dumb, it's a matter of dancing in your comfort zone. Most people don't like to dance outside their comfort zone, which tops out at about 180 BPM.

Yes, slower songs are easier to dance to. But I've seen DJs clear a floor with a slow song before.

But it's much easier to clear the floor with a fast song, because people are more likely to sit out songs they CAN'T dance to. Which was the whole point of Julius's post.

[mousethief]

I don't care if it's free, I'm not going to carry something that my enjoyment of would run a close second to chewing a mouthful of ground glass.

I'm not there to please all those making a request and could never do it anyway. I'm more about getting their desired feeling from within my own collection.

Kalman

[Nando]

I'd like to think the general crowd is smarter than that.

It's not a matter of being smart or dumb, it's a matter of dancing in your comfort zone. Most people don't like to dance outside their comfort zone, which tops out at about 180 BPM.

Yeah, but if you want to go to an extreme - it would be easier to play a metronome under 180 at a venue than to DJ fast music. I mean that falls under what's being said. The crowd won't like it, but they'll probably dance because it's in their comfort zone. They just won't be happy about it. The floor would be filled with unhappy people dancing to a device that mimics a windshield wiper on a moderate speed.

Yes, slower songs are easier to dance to. But I've seen DJs clear a floor with a slow song before.

But it's much easier to clear the floor with a fast song, because people are more likely to sit out songs they CAN'T dance to. Which was the whole point of Julius's post.

But the original point was that people would be more likely to clear the floor with a fast song they don't like. If they CAN'T dance to fast songs, they probably won't dance to them whether they like them or not.

I understand Julius's point and I know that the comfort zone of the average lindyhopper may top out at 180. I realize that a fast lindy hopper can dance better to a slow song than a 'slow' lindy hopper can dance to a fast one. I understand that there are a good amount of lindy hoppers who can't dance to fast music. I also realize that in a a locale or scene like LA, where most people are more used to fast lindy, they'll probably dance to a slow song even if they'd rather hear faster music. While a locale that breeds 'groove' dancers will have a crowd that won't dance to fast music - regardless of musical taste.

I'm just saying that people generally won't dance to music they don't like. They may not be as opinionated as some of the DJs on these boards regarding musical tastes (me included,) but give them a little more credit for knowing a good song when they hear it, regardless of tempo.

[Lawrence]

Here's the rub. When a slow song comes on that people don't like, they will probably dance to it anyway. When a faster song comes on that people don't like, they will probably NOT dance to it, because they CAN'T. Both sets of dancers equally dislike a certain style of music, but there is an asymmetry on how full the floor is.

And that's why slower (more modern, groovy, whatever loaded and baited word you want to choose) music is played so much more: it's easier to dance to, and easier to DJ. The DJ feels like he's doing his job keeping the floor full. But it's potentially full of invisibly unhappy people. Yes, it is a contradiction. But it happens. We all know that.

I would like to bring in my attorney, Johnny Cochrane, to present the defense to this argument...

This... is Chewbacca.

Chewbacca is a wookie. Like all wookies, Chewbacca comes from the planet Endor. My question is: Why?!? Why would a seven foot tall wookie come from a planet that has all these small, cuddly Ewoks? Who did he play with as a child? How did he grow so tall? How can he ever mate and reproduce? He must potentially be so very invisibly unhappy!! Yes, it is a contradiction: he comes from Endor where all the Ewoks are three feet tall, and he is seven feet tall, himself!!

It... does not... make sense!!

And what does this have to do with this case? What possible relevance could this argument have to the merits of fast vs. slow songs. Absolutely NOTHING! It is irrelevant. Which is why you must reject Julius' argument:

It... does not... make sense!!

I rest my case.

[Lawrence]

(My apologies to the folks at South Park.)

[Mr Awesomer]

Wow, even when quoting South Park he isn't funny.