SwingDJs

Toon Town Dave wrote:Too much of the same gets boring.

Not necessarily. If you listen/watch the Campus 5, the rhythm comes from Jonathan on guitar, and unless he's taking a solo, he's constantly playing the "chug, chug, chug" rhythm for all of the songs. The drummer will normally play the bass drum in compliment to that same rhythm, or play the 2/4 beat on some songs for a slightly different sound, but the rest of the drum beats are used for more accents and laid back (in the pocket) kind of back beats.

You can make many songs sounds completely different, but still have that "chug, chug" sound driving the rhythm and pushing the tempo, which all dancers appreciate . . . and I definitly don't consider Campus 5 to be boring.

All decent points, and the "disputes/misunderstandings" about the latter guidelines are part of why I listed them lower down. It is tough to describe in written words what I meant by each, and each would get some clarification to avoid those misunderstandings.

Regarding using the ride instead of the high-hat to tap the beat on the cymbals, (and as we have discussed before) what I am trying to avoid is the common, abrupt, campy impression of Lawrence-Welky "swing" beat from the 60s big bands (where the high-hat clamps down hard and abruptly to over-emphasize the syncopation: Tssssst, t, t, Tsssst, t, t, Tssssst, t, t, Tsssstt...), not the subtlety of what drummers like Jo Jones did with the high-hat in the big bands of the 30s. Because most modern drummers I have encountered tend to use the high-hat with that abrupt, BBC-BigBand type of campy swing rhtyhm, I have "gently instructed" some drummers to just stay off the high-hat, entirely, and it worked completely. It is not entirely their fault, just the prevailing paradigm of what "swing" is in their musical world.

Also, this suggestion (plus the walking bassline, plus avoiding a the two-beat-feel) reflect my stylistic preference for more of a subtler, bass-oriented "Groove Swing" rhythm, which I respect might differ from some other's preferences. That is why I put them in lower priority on that list.

Campus Five wrote:A secret to danceability is varied sections in a single song. Listening to a swing-era big band arrangement, like "Rockin' the Blues" by Basie, each 12 bar (or 6 8-counts if you prefer) there is a change. If you only had one solo, you have one long (often boring) solo per song. That doesn't help. You want a change every 12 bars, or every 16 bars (in an AABA song). Split the AABA choruses 1/2 and 1/2 or just switch the soloist on the bridge. That will help keep the variety of textures and dynamic levels.

I agree about the single soloist: it is not a hard-fast rule, just one that helps keep song lengths down. The prevailing jazz performance tendency is to allow each soloist to take not just a few bars each (like you suggested), but several choruses each. That is one of the primary reasons why songs tend to drag on to 7 or 8 minutes.

The same goal can be accomplished by limiting solos like you suggested. Not only does it keep the song lengths down, it also focuses the soloists so that they don't treat a performance as if it is just practice. Get to the point, keep it interesting, get out. And it allows the musicians to play off each other.

It also depends on whether you have an instrumental or a vocal song. I envisioned the one soloist limit for a song with vocals, not an instrumental.

Haydn wrote:I've been thinking about the differences between live bands and DJ'd music at Lindy Hop dances. The odd thing is that a band's music is often harder to dance to than DJ'd music (often because the band aren't used to playing for dancers), but despite this a live band will consistently draw more people.

I've noticed that with a band in the room, the focus is on the band, whereas with DJ'd music only the focus is on ... ? ... the dancers I suppose. With a live band, the band generate atmosphere, but without this the DJ and dancers need to create it themselves, which takes more time to build up. Perhaps this is why beginner dancers often prefer live bands, and why promoters find a live band draws a bigger crowd. But when I talk to experienced dancers, they often prefer DJ'd music to a band.

Any thoughts?

I"ve always attributed it to the glut of DJs versus live bands, and audience. A swing DJ NEVER pulls in a crowd who just want to listen to the music like a band does. If that happens, adding another night seems to put an end to that problem. OTOH, there will always be people to hear a live performance, not to dance.

The other thing I don't think was covered yet is that the elements that make for a better live performance are almost in contradiction as to what makes great dancing music. Breaking the time, faster tempo, getting away from the four-four, solos and fills, they energize a listener but tax a dancer, especially if they're a beginner. And in dance crowds, too many experts spoil the mix. It makes it too intimidating for the average joe to dance.

remysun wrote:... the elements that make for a better live performance are almost in contradiction as to what makes great dancing music. Breaking the time, faster tempo, getting away from the four-four, solos and fills, they energize a listener but tax a dancer, especially if they're a beginner. And in dance crowds, too many experts spoil the mix. It makes it too intimidating for the average joe to dance.

The irony is that a live band will attract a crowd to a dance in the first place.

remysun wrote:The other thing I don't think was covered yet is that the elements that make for a better live performance are almost in contradiction as to what makes great dancing music. Breaking the time, faster tempo, getting away from the four-four, solos and fills, they energize a listener but tax a dancer, especially if they're a beginner. And in dance crowds, too many experts spoil the mix. It makes it too intimidating for the average joe to dance.

Actually, I never really liked it when band did those gimmickey things even before I learned how to dance. For example, I used to go to see Lonnie Brooks several times a year in Chicago, and I specifically remember wishing he would stop all the rock-rhythm experimenting and just lay some down-home, groovy blues (with a swing rhythm I later learned). I remember thinking that his best songs were BY FAR when he dropped the schtick and stuck to a basic, mid-tempoed, swing rhythm, in large part because there is still so much room to experiment within that rhythm and basic song structure.

Although I agree that few people ever come to just listen to the music, I do try to DJ my sets so they are decent for non-dancer listening, not just for dancing.

Lawrence wrote:Actually, I never really liked it when band did those gimmickey things even before I learned how to dance. For example, I used to go to see Lonnie Brooks several times a year in Chicago, and I specifically remember wishing he would stop all the rock-rhythm experimenting and just lay some down-home, groovy blues (with a swing rhythm I later learned).

Yeah, actually I remember this feeling as well when hearing bands in bars (with a drinking crowd, not a dancing one). The numbers which go down best with the crowd (including me) usually have a solid rhythm, some light and shade in the arrangement, and a vocal. The numbers which get too 'clever' tend to down worst. With the 'solid rhythm' songs, it feels as if the crowd are getting sucked in to the rhythm of the music, and an atmosphere is created between the band and the crowd.

Bands can offer a more complete entertainment package. While it's easy to go overboard on the gimmicky stuff, it can add to the fun. I suppose it may also depend on the audience. A group of swing dance geeks may get easily annoyed while it might add to the experience for casual and non-dancers.

Another plus with bands is some flexibility in doing jams and stuff like that. It's relatively easy for a band to add a few choruses when the energy is there but difficult for a DJ.

If I'm dancing, I generally prefer DJ'd music. In many cases, I've just found the sound of a live band just gets boring after 6 or so numbers, especially if they are of the trad jazz style.

I did however, witness the awesome 'Battle of the Bands' competition in Lake Como at the SwingCrash event. Two swing bands (one from Italy and the other from Switzerland) were on stage at once playing alternate numbers to recreate the Webb/Basie battle. They played off each others energy and the atmosphere was absolutely electric. I didn't stop dancing for the entire set, which is probably why the heel fell off my one of my Aris Allens!!!!

Balboa Chris wrote:which is probably why the heel fell off my one of my Aris Allens!!!!

I get the feeling they don't make'm like they used to.

fredo wrote:

Balboa Chris wrote:which is probably why the heel fell off my one of my Aris Allens!!!!

I get the feeling they don't make'm like they used to.

I've been thinking that lately too. A friend of mine bought a pair and there was a nail sticking out that missed the heel entirely. How does something like that slip through quality control?

Surreal wrote:

fredo wrote:

Balboa Chris wrote:which is probably why the heel fell off my one of my Aris Allens!!!!

I get the feeling they don't make'm like they used to.

I've been thinking that lately too. A friend of mine bought a pair and there was a nail sticking out that missed the heel entirely. How does something like that slip through quality control?

Uh, perhaps it's because they're making them in China now ...? At least, that's what the box my last pair came in said.