SwingDJs

SirScratchAlot wrote:

main_stem wrote:Uhm, what? Lets get something clear here Basie's bass players from Eddie Jones to Buddy Catlet to John Clayton, and all the others in between played in the same style adn manner as the origionl bass player, Walter Page. A walking, boyant, unatrusive style. Hell the Basie rhythm section never really changed stylisticaly from the classic AARS group. .

haha, No way....I WAY strongly disagree. The Basie Rhythm changed big time....Next time we are together I'll play selections that show the obvious differences , not only in the Rhythm section but the Bass players themselves as well...

Exactly. The later Pablo recordings even got "groovier" (more sustained, elongated bass beat) than the "New Testament" bands of the 50s and 60s, even though Kevin is correct in implying that Basie's New Testament rhythm section did not play as "groovey" as Ramsey Lewis sometimes did.

Perhaps you're mistaking what was meant by the oft-noted fact that Basie never strayed from played with a swing rhythm despite the progressive (Stan Kenton), Bebop (Charlie Parker), Bossa-Nova (Henry Mancini), and other influences on Jazz rhythms during his life. Although Basie definitely remained true to Swing rhythm despite those rhythmic deviations throughout the Jazz world, his rhythm sections did evolve the way in which they played swing rhythm.

yedancer wrote:I was primariy referring to the handful of people who have their panties in a bunch over the word "groove," which is a term I freely use. For some reason, they are choosing to be offended by it. I'm just saying that I don't use the word to "impose" myself on people, or "have the power to re-define others," and I also am not "too lazy to understand a thing and would rather lump things in by association rather than actually taking the time to broaden {my} horizens."

As I understand it, "groove swing" is a descriptive term, not a normative term, (a term with moral implications: contrast "Jew" (descriptive) vs. "Kyke" (normative)). Even though a descriptive term can sometimes be USED normatively (e.g., "Dirty Jew;" "Damn Groove DJ"), that does not make all (or even most) descriptive terms normative. (I chose "Jew" because I'm Jewish, so please don't attack the example ).

I'm shocked, SHOCKED that you would use the term "panties in a bunch" freely. Perhaps the Groove DJs with their "panties in a bunch" should chime in on the thread about how to recruit more female Swing DJs, because we could use some good, female, groove DJs....

because we could use some good, female, groove DJs....

No...we have enough thank you...

Lawrence wrote:I'm shocked, SHOCKED that you would use the term "panties in a bunch" freely. Perhaps the Groove DJs with their "panties in a bunch" should chime in on the thread about how to recruit more female Swing DJs, because we could use some good, female, groove DJs....

and I just can't resist - as stated elsewhere only the boys on here seem to get their "panties in a bunch"....maybe because they aren't use to wearing them?

perhaps instead of groove vs. vintage the poll should be boxers vs. briefs?

djstarr wrote:and I just can't resist - as stated elsewhere only the boys on here seem to get their "panties in a bunch"....maybe because they aren't use to wearing them?

Exactly.

djstarr wrote:perhaps instead of groove vs. vintage the poll should be boxers vs. briefs?

Well, that choice DOES somewhat depend on whether you are dancing slow or fast.

I was going through Allmusic.com not to long ago and I had a thought that I wanted to share. I guess this could fit numerous threads, but for now, I will put it here.

I have noticed that AllMusic allows for multiple classifications, for example:

Jimmy Witherspoon is listed as
Jazz Blues, Jump Blues, Urban Blues

Willie Nelson is listed as
Outlaw Country, Nashville Sound/Countrypolitan, Country-Pop, Progressive Country, Traditional Country

Oscar Peterson
Swing, Bop

It seems logical to me, that we should be equally as open minded. Allmusic loves to categorize and their categorizations are not mutually exclusive.

It seems that too often, many of the DJs on this site try to pigeon hole artists/albums/tracks into one specific category. All this does is just set up stupid arguments. DJs pull out their swords and work to disprove one another, when in my opinion, most of the time there is some truth/inaccuracies/generalizations in both positions.

I agree that with the above examples, you can find specific recordings that more fit one category than other. But, you can also find tracks that bridge categories and are more hybrids of two categories.

Nate Dogg wrote:I was going through Allmusic.com not to long ago and I had a thought that I wanted to share. I guess this could fit numerous threads, but for now, I will put it here..

that said Gene Harris is listed as:

Hard Bop, Fusion, Soul-Jazz

NO ONE SAY THAT HE SWINGS EVER AGIN!!!

yes! I WIN! thank you Allmusic.COM

*puts sword away*

<deleted original reply>

never mind.... it was funny in my head and less so on screen.

Nate Dogg wrote:I have noticed that AllMusic allows for multiple classifications. It seems logical to me, that we should be equally as open minded. Allmusic loves to categorize and their categorizations are not mutually exclusive.

That is what I have been saying all along!! Categories more appropriately fit performances or recordings, not the musician's entire book! The categories of music played by a musician often break down when discussing, e.g., Basie, Ellington, or even Jimmy Witherspoon.

But it does nonetheless make sense to refer on this list to, say, Gene Harris as a prototype "Groove Swing" musician because all of his swing material is groove swing. All of his other music is irrelevant to our discussion. Likewise with categorizing Chick Webb as a prototype "Classic Swing" or (even finer-tuned) "Harlem Swing" musician, if only because he didn't live long enough to develop into other genres.

Also, Allmusic categorizes music for listeners, not Lindy Hoppers. We naturally will (and should) come up with more finely-tuned distinctions within the overall genre of music that gets us dancing.

Benny Goodman lived almost 3 times as long...I still consider him to be "Classic Swing". But that's not your main point, so I digress.

-FF

funkyfreak wrote:Benny Goodman lived almost 3 times as long...I still consider him to be "Classic Swing". But that's not your main point, so I digress.

Death is not the only thing that might prevent a musician from evolving. Nonetheless, Goodman did evolve into more classical stuff after the Swing Era subsided, which is reflected in his style in later recordings.

don west and i have adopted the following terms and/or phrases, which should be used in a nebulous and confusing manner.

smakka!
rerrid!
hadoken!
your words mean nothing to me!
hacksaw to you!
dare! dare!


kalman

Lawrence wrote:I'm shocked, SHOCKED that you would use the term "panties in a bunch" freely. Perhaps the Groove DJs with their "panties in a bunch" should chime in on the thread about how to recruit more female Swing DJs, because we could use some good, female, groove DJs....

Though I'll never submit to being put in a useless "groove vs. vintage" box or whatever the hell they're fighting about that second, I will assure you of one thing: my panties are never in a bunch. And for those whose are, I understand that thongs completely eliminate that problem.

Why do so many people continue to see this as a binary switch? It's not like there's a linear scale of swing taste where one side is "whatever they're calling modern jazz that concentrates on small groups" and one side is "whatever they're calling old timey sounding music". There are millions of taste choices we make as DJs: vocal/non, bouncy/smooth, big band/small group/jump blues/rock and roll/organ heavy/horn heavy/piano heavy/solo heavy/ensemble heavy.....

Most DJs have an extensive collection of one style of music because that's what resonates with them. Some have broader tastes than others. This isn't an us vs. them debate where there are only two teams.

Except if there is one team of DJs who read the room and are flexible with what style mix they play, and one team that only plays one style no matter what happens on the dance floor. It's obvious to me who wins in that case.

Shanabanana wrote:Why do so many people continue to see this as a binary switch? It's not like there's a linear scale of swing taste where one side is "whatever they're calling modern jazz that concentrates on small groups" and one side is "whatever they're calling old timey sounding music". There are millions of taste choices we make as DJs: vocal/non, bouncy/smooth, big band/small group/jump blues/rock and roll/organ heavy/horn heavy/piano heavy/solo heavy/ensemble heavy.....

I agree. But just because there is a broad range between the two poles, that does not mean that the two poles don't exist. There are other poles as well, not just this single-dimensional split between classic and groove DJs. But the primary split is along those lines, which is why the subject gets so much discussion. Identifying the two poles clarifies what the discussion is about.

It also helps to classify the classic DJs so we can vilify them, and vice-versa. We need a name for those whom we ridicule.

Seriously, for all the piss and vinegar, the whole debate has made me less "groove" oriented, recently, and inspired me to listen to some older stuff that has been languishing in my collection. Hopefully it has had a similar effect on the anti-groove camp, as well, and they can see why "we" dig the groove stuff.

One's ridicule is someone else's praise.