What are you essential edits?

[Mr Awesomer]

I don't agree with editing in general. I think it panders to the dancers.

Isn't a DJ's job at a dance to make people, you know, DANCE ?!

You can do that without resorting to pandering.
After all, pandering is just the lazy man's means of entertaining/selling.

[fredo]

I don't agree with editing in general. I think it panders to the dancers.

Isn't a DJ's job at a dance to make people, you know, DANCE ?!

You can do that without resorting to pandering.
After all, pandering is just the lazy man's means of entertaining/selling.

agreed. What's wrong with challenging people every once in a while? Besides, it's hard to imagine an audience that would actually crave edited/mixed music at a swing dance-- most people would rather you spent your time finding music they like without having to edit it.

This discussion may be getting a bit over generalized-- I don't play edited music, but even if I did, I can't see it having enough of an impact to really make anyone say, "YES! Finally a DJ that made that song easier, and therefore more fun, for me to dance to!"

and as for "mixing" two songs over each other... sounds like the making of a new nickname: DJ Frankenstein

[Lawrence]

It seems like most of the critiques ignore the fundamental rule of editing a song: whatever you do, make sure it doesn't SOUND like it was edited. So long as the transitions are smooth and the musical structure of the song remains intact, I don't see what all the fuss is about, at all.

[CafeSavoy]

agreed. What's wrong with challenging people every once in a while? Besides, it's hard to imagine an audience that would actually crave edited/mixed music at a swing dance-- most people would rather you spent your time finding music they like without having to edit it.

This discussion may be getting a bit over generalized-- I don't play edited music, but even if I did, I can't see it having enough of an impact to really make anyone say, "YES! Finally a DJ that made that song easier, and therefore more fun, for me to dance to!"

That's a bit of a straw man argument. Aside from the editing of well known songs, it would seem that most songs that would be candidates for editing are ones that generally are not played at dances.

[Lawrence]

agreed. What's wrong with challenging people every once in a while? Besides, it's hard to imagine an audience that would actually crave edited/mixed music at a swing dance-- most people would rather you spent your time finding music they like without having to edit it.

This discussion may be getting a bit over generalized-- I don't play edited music, but even if I did, I can't see it having enough of an impact to really make anyone say, "YES! Finally a DJ that made that song easier, and therefore more fun, for me to dance to!"

That's a bit of a straw man argument. Aside from the editing of well known songs, it would seem that most songs that would be candidates for editing are ones that generally are not played at dances.

Exactly, especially considering how most modern jazz songs tend to be over 5 minutes: splicing a three-minute bass solo out of a seven-minute song can turn it from being too long with an awkward dance twist to just right without the awkwardness of losing the rhythm for three minutes.

Or like cutting out a smooth-jazz or bebop sax solo (that ignores or intentionally distorts or alters the swing rhythm) so you can focus on the Oscar Peterson or Monty Alexander piano solo (that plays with and enhances the swing rhythm).

[Eyeball]

Exactly, especially considering how most modern jazz songs tend to be over 5 minutes: splicing a three-minute bass solo out of a seven-minute song can turn it from being too long with an awkward dance twist to just right without the awkwardness of losing the rhythm for three minutes.

Do those who play authentic Swing era recordings have this problem?

Curious! One leaves the Swing era recordings on the side and plays recordings from another era for Swing dancers and suddenly they require editing so that people can dance to them.

[dancin_hanson]

Do those who play authentic Swing era recordings have this problem?

Curious! One leaves the Swing era recordings on the side and plays recordings from another era for Swing dancers and suddenly they require editing so that people can dance to them.

Ha! Touche....

[Greg Avakian]

Do those who play authentic Swing era recordings have this problem?

Curious! One leaves the Swing era recordings on the side and plays recordings from another era for Swing dancers and suddenly they require editing so that people can dance to them.

Wow! I didn't know there were fake recordings that were made in the swing era!


Seriously, I think that is also a weak argument -unless you dance in a scene that is made up entirely of people who prefer vintage music.
*Lindy hop is still a street dance, it evolves and so does the music we dance it to (blah, blah to either side of this argument -we all know it a la nausea, so what's the point of bringing it up?).*

The fact is that if the music industry was capable of it, "swing era" recordings may have included many songs that were "too long" to dance to by our standards today.
In addition, radio broadcasters were not interested in playing long songs; it cuts down on variety and ad time. A really good example of this is a 45 that my dad produced; the take was so good that no one wanted to touch it -but it came out over two minutes long.
The solution? Have the record label printed up to say that the song length was "2:64".
=========
Anyway, I use goldwave. The freeware lets you use it with full functionality including saving your work for something like 2,000 functions. I liked it well enough to buy it for (I think) $40. Any function I would use is easy to find on the tool bar and it is so intuitive even I have never read any of the instructions.

An example of a fantastic song I would not play "as is" would be Ray Brown's "Classical in G" (7:21).
I have 2 edited versions: in the first, I kept part of the bowed bass intro so we get a little blues dancing in the beginning, a great "gotta swing out" tune in the middle and a "blues dancing" ending when it goes back to the bowed bass (4:15). The second edit cuts the intro completely except for the solo piano (I think 4 bars) right before the theme kicks in. (2:59).

A simpler edit example would be taking out the long slow intro to "This little light of mine" by the Steeles.

Lawrence, I feel your pain; I edited out a long outro to a Paul Tillotson song and shorty Dave got mad at me.
He is certainly aware of the music; once I played a song he liked and he came up and asked if it was fast; sure enough the pitch change had been moved less than 1.5% on the CD deck.

[CafeSavoy]

Do those who play authentic Swing era recordings have this problem?

Curious! One leaves the Swing era recordings on the side and plays recordings from another era for Swing dancers and suddenly they require editing so that people can dance to them.

Ha! Touche....

You generally don't have length issues with pre-ww2 songs. That is partially a function of recording technology. Most of the early bebop recordings also had short songs. But Eyeball does have a point in that there was a change in jazz around ww2 towards a more listening audience and there became more space on recordings to draw out solos. So it is probably true that more of the candidates for editing are more modern songs.

[Mr Awesomer]

plays recordings from another era for Swing dancers and suddenly they require editing so that people can dance to them.

They don't require editing so that people can dance to them... most dancers just suck.

[Lawrence]

Do those who play authentic Swing era recordings have this problem?

Curious! One leaves the Swing era recordings on the side and plays recordings from another era for Swing dancers and suddenly they require editing so that people can dance to them.

Ha! Touche....

You generally don't have length issues with pre-ww2 songs. That is partially a function of recording technology. Most of the early bebop recordings also had short songs. But Eyeball does have a point in that there was a change in jazz around ww2 towards a more listening audience and there became more space on recordings to draw out solos. So it is probably true that more of the candidates for editing are more modern songs.

Exactly. Indeed, many people from "back in the day" noted that bands played many of the vintage recordings faster than they played the same songs live, purely to meet the 3-minute time limit of 78 records. LPs freed them from that constraint. With LPs, the focus on brevity not only was lost, it sometimes shifted to "take as long as you like" so as to fill up an entire LP.

The shift from big to small band also affected the brevity. Instead of featuring one (MAYBE two) soloist(s) per song, each band member in a small group combo routinely started taking solos on each song, which makes the songs all MUCH longer, which in turn makes me inclined to want to edit out the weaker solos. Doesn't happen in Big Bands as much, because you simply cannot go around the horn in a big band.

Another factor comes with the cost of recording. As the cost went down, the number of "excessive" recordings went up. The focus on making a recording your best shot diminished because another recording opportunity was just around the corner.

Another element is that improv soloing started becoming the heart of jazz in the post-swing era. But with improv comes lots of experimentation, which artificially extends the length of all solos. It is a trade-off that a listener welcomes or readily accepts because he just needs to sit there, whereas s dancer needs to keep moving.

The change also didn't happen overnight because arrangers and musicians from the Swing Era still held onto their habits. Only when the new generation of jazzmen arose in the 50s did the obsessive focus on brevity get completely weened out from the jazz ethic. Now a brief solo is considered odd.

[Eyeball]

Lawrence-

Just about everything you said in your post is not true. Flat out wrong. You have reached erroneous conclusions based upon specious premises. You really need to do some research before you post these things as 'facts' for you do not have a handle on things as they were.

Exactly. Indeed, many people from "back in the day" noted that bands played many of the vintage recordings faster than they played the same songs live, purely to meet the 3-minute time limit of 78 records. LPs freed them from that constraint. With LPs, the focus on brevity not only was lost, it sometimes shifted to "take as long as you like" so as to fill up an entire LP.

OK - what people back in the day noted that live performances were slower than the recorded ones? In fact, it was Gene Krupa, IIRC, who "noted" that live performances of recorded tunes tended to get faster as time went by.

Likely the only tune of consequence that you can name as sounding slower live is IN THE MOOD.

I cant think of any tunes right now that have stood out over years of listening where the tempo was markedly different between the recorded and the live.

More over - the 10" 78 disc had about 3.45 of time on one side. If they made the performance a 2-sided disc, you could have a 6 - nearly 8 minute recording.

On LPs, the focus on brevity was *not* lost...and who says 3 plus minutes is "brief"? On LPs, people expected to get 12 - 16 songs.

"Take as long as you like" - bogus theory. The only people really stretching out were Jazz and classical artists - and neither of them were reaching out to a dance audience.

It is amazing to me how you keep trying to dance to music that was not created to be danced to.

The shift from big to small band also affected the brevity. Instead of featuring one (MAYBE two) soloist(s) per song, each band member in a small group combo routinely started taking solos on each song, which makes the songs all MUCH longer, which in turn makes me inclined to want to edit out the weaker solos. Doesn't happen in Big Bands as much, because you simply cannot go around the horn in a big band.

Again you issue a blanket statement. Not everyone in a group soloed on each song and not everyone soloed extensively nor for long minutes at a time.

Another factor comes with the cost of recording. As the cost went down, the number of "excessive" recordings went up. The focus on making a recording your best shot diminished because another recording opportunity was just around the corner.

Specious premise! Your second sentence is pure crap. Talk to the musicians who couldnt pay rent back them..or now.....and has it ever been cheaper to record?

Another element is that improv soloing started becoming the heart of jazz in the post-swing era. But with improv comes lots of experimentation, which artificially extends the length of all solos. It is a trade-off that a listener welcomes or readily accepts because he just needs to sit there, whereas s dancer needs to keep moving.

Baloney! You seem to have forgotten the decades of New Orleans and improvised Jazz that pre-dates the Swing Era. Improvisation has always been one of the hearts of Jazz. It had to share the spotlight when arranged music of the Swing Era was top dog, but there was still much improvised Jazz soloing.

'Artificial extension of solos'? Only someone who does not understand Jazz could come up with a concept such as that.

The change also didn't happen overnight because arrangers and musicians from the Swing Era still held onto their habits. Only when the new generation of jazzmen arose in the 50s did the obsessive focus on brevity get completely weened out from the jazz ethic. Now a brief solo is considered odd.

Nothing much up there. Just more curious notions.

There was never an "Obsessive focus on brevity". Where do you come up with this stuff?

"Now a brief solo is considered odd."?? On what planet? What are you talking about? Can you back anything up at all?

Dude - just go be a dancer.

[Lawrence]

I wonder what's on t.v.... (*yawn*)

[Eyeball]

The gentleman from the great state of Texas makes himself look even less learned when he dismisses the truth under the guise of rudenes and uses the guise of rudeness and half-wit as a shield to protect him from knowledge that he does not possess and a logic he can never comprehend.

I'll sleep soundly.

[djstarr]

I'm thinking about making an edit of Jumpin' at the Woodside, that piano intro always bothered me and is not very danceable..... then perhaps the song wouldn't always start a jam.