ECS/Lindy/WCS - Bridging the Gap

[Lawrence]

Lawrence... the ball is firmly in your court. I'll stop trying to speak for you and eagerly await your response to all this tom-foolery.

Nathan told me last night that a HUGE controversy erupted from my post. I don't see the controversy or know what ball is in my court. I completely agree that friendliness and good people are the most essential aspects to growing the scene. I've said so repeatedly, and emphasize it to my instructors. Indeed, many have noted that factor in sticking with our classes at Austin Lindy Hop: our instructors are not snooty, make people feel welcome, and dance with all students, not just their friends.

But we were talking about the music. Someone suggested playing faster, up-tempo music to recapture/replace the energy and excietment of Neo Swing. I pointed out a more essential aspect of Neo Swing that made it popular and drew most of us (or the people who inspired/taught most of us) to dance: accessibility to popular musical tastes. (Neo Swing is crap compared to "real jazz," but was more similar to rock music, and thus more accessible to pop rock fans).

I also merely noted that groove swing is not as much of a stretch in musical tastes as, say, Chick Webb (whose music I love because it makes me smile), from what normal, average people listen to on their own. Tina was right that it can serve as a bridge toward developing an interest in jazz, but the ultimate point was to play music that is *accessible* to current musical tastes.

To cover the obvious retort, no, I don't mean to suggest playing Celine Dion in lieu of Ella Fitzgerald.

[Lawrence]

Me too. I seriously doubt that convenience has as much to do with the reasons people attend a venue as much as the music that's played there.

We were talking about LindyGroove specificly, not venues in general.

Boys! Sheesh.

I don't really care how a venue got successful so long as it successful. There are some venues around Dallas that make me squirm but they add to the scene and they add something other places don't provide.

Actually, I think the subject is precisely how a successful venue got so successful... and how can others use that formula to repeat its success elsewhere.

[julius]

It confuses many of us when you say groove swing is not as big a stretch for modern pop-attuned audiences as classic swing is. We're wondering what you mean by groove swing.

Simple enough for you?

That ball. That court.

[julius]

Why is Lindygroove, in particular, successful? I hate to do this because inevitably someone will disagree with me about some of these reasons, and I hope you all realize this is my take on the subject, not his:

1) Lance avoids politics as much as possible
2) He is a great guy and a pretty good communicator
3) He constantly seeks feedback about his venue.
4) He has a quality sound system
5) He has periodic special events
6) He has a birthday system
7) He makes the club incredibly friendly to everyone.
8) The music has an agenda (i.e. what Lance likes to dance to and what did not used to be available in LA) but is flexible depending on the DJ. I won't speak for Lance but you'd be surprised what he urges DJs to play.
9) Good floor, relatively speaking. Much better after refinishing.
10) Free parking in the garage
11) Located in Pasadena, which is central to 75% of LA's dancers.
12) He does not charge too much
13) He has no vested interest in running a venue except that he wanted a place to dance to the music he likes, i.e. he does not teach or perform and does not rely on Lindygroove for income
14) He makes an effort to reach out to dancers he does not know

It all boils down to the fact that Lance is a great guy (yes, I'm his friend, call me biased if you want) and has had a LOT of previous experience running clubs (non-swing).

The number one reason why venues start failing is, in my opinion, politics. Once a certain "core crowd" stops going to a venue because of conflicts, other people stop going too.

[Greg Avakian]

...Lance is a great guy

No argument there.

[julius]

As far as music goes, I have to actually agree with Lawrence in that groove swing IS more accessible to modern audiences, if only because modern audiences are used to thinking of low-fi recordings as not worth their interest. When newbies go dancing, they don't think about the musicianship, the skillfulness of the arrangement, or the nuances of the vocals. They think "this recording is really bad! where's the beat? oh crap this is hard! is that chick looking at me? oh god i can't keep up, she thinks i'm a dork, i'm never coming back!". It introduces an extra obstacle to their enjoyment, an enjoyment which is based not on jazz, but on THE DANCING.

Remember, newbies generally know squat about the music. They'll dance to anything. We've all been there, except Harrison, who needs a kick in the nards to dislodge the rod up his butt anyway.

The real problem is that DJs who play "groove swing", with its connotation of high fidelity swing music, seem to emphasize lower energy music than "classic swing". On the one hand, one has the energy. On the other hand, one has the fidelity. Why can't we have both? Plenty of classic swing recorded in high-fi exists, and there's plenty of energetic "groove swing" as Greg or Jesse can attest to. I think we're all trapped in some sort of false dichotomy.

[mousethief]

We were talking about LindyGroove specificly, not venues in general.

Boys! Sheesh.

I don't really care how a venue got successful so long as it successful. There are some venues around Dallas that make me squirm but they add to the scene and they add something other places don't provide.

Actually, I think the subject is precisely how a successful venue got so successful... and how can others use that formula to repeat its success elsewhere.

Yeah, but until the owners or organizers post, it's just hearsay and opinion. It's a circular argument. A better option would be having Reuben or Greg give their thoughts on what has worked in the venues they have helped build, not someone else's.

Besides, we're talking about a new scene in KC, not a sprawling metroplex like LA. Very new dancers, very different musical scene as far as musicians go - although Austin might be a good parallel, being blues driven.

Kalman

[mousethief]

But we were talking about the music. Someone suggested playing faster, up-tempo music to recapture/replace the energy and excietment of Neo Swing. I pointed out a more essential aspect of Neo Swing that made it popular and drew most of us (or the people who inspired/taught most of us) to dance: accessibility to popular musical tastes. (Neo Swing is crap compared to "real jazz," but was more similar to rock music, and thus more accessible to pop rock fans).

I also merely noted that groove swing is not as much of a stretch in musical tastes as, say, Chick Webb (whose music I love because it makes me smile), from what normal, average people listen to on their own. Tina was right that it can serve as a bridge toward developing an interest in jazz, but the ultimate point was to play music that is *accessible* to current musical tastes.

I would counter by saying that the drive and simplicity of the music, the emphasis on making a buck and the incessant promotion of the "good times" schtick was what made Neo-swing popular, but I can see your point now that it is more clearly defined.

When Joe Jackson released "Jumpin Jive," there wasn't anything like that on the contemporary market. Neo-swing came along at the same time as the Tupac and B.I.G. wars. So, I would hazard a guess - and that's all it is - and say that the simplicity of the music and it's feel good culture are what attracted people. You could just hang out in it, which is what rockabilly fans had been doing for years. You didn't need to take lessons or travel to workshops. You could go, grab a beer and grab a girl and be okeh.

But I disagree that groove swing - the Lou Rawls, the Oscar Peterson, the Jack McDuff or whatever, is in line with current musical tastes. It may still make you happy, it might make you want to dance but does that encourage lindy hop?

Kalman

[mousethief]

As a DJ, I try to avoid the low-fi for obvious reasons, but I agree with Julius in that there are untapped reserves of quality music that has drive, energy and something to say.

So, I'm going to avoid talking about "groove" music altogether and talk about "good" music; good for the crowd, the organizers and the house.

I'll try to post a list of my fave pre- and post-war songs that I use to maintain momentum at my local dances sometime tomorrow. My scene has a lot to do with my choices, but I think the thread could stand a shift from ideology to actual music.

Kalman

[Lawrence]

The real problem is that DJs who play "groove swing", with its connotation of high fidelity swing music, seem to emphasize lower energy music than "classic swing". On the one hand, one has the energy. On the other hand, one has the fidelity. Why can't we have both? Plenty of classic swing recorded in high-fi exists, and there's plenty of energetic "groove swing" as Greg or Jesse can attest to. I think we're all trapped in some sort of false dichotomy.

I disagree that "groove djs" play low-energy music. I might agree if you instead wrote "slower tempo music," but just as much energy can be conveyed in a slower tempoed song that is either explosive or full of that... ummph! I often sweat more while dancing to slow songs than fast songs.

As for defining groove swing, I've done it several times and received the usual flames from the "to define is to limit" and "it's all swing" crowd. Not worth it right now.

[Mr Awesomer]

Yeah, but until the owners or organizers post, it's just hearsay and opinion. It's a circular argument. A better option would be having Reuben or Greg give their thoughts on what has worked in the venues they have helped build, not someone else's.

You know what works? Blind stinking luck of the right factors coming together at just the right time. What those factors are... I don't think anyone really knows. ha!

[julius]

I disagree that "groove djs" play low-energy music. I might agree if you instead wrote "slower tempo music," but just as much energy can be conveyed in a slower tempoed song that is either explosive or full of that... ummph! I often sweat more while dancing to slow songs than fast songs.

Yes, yes, I too sweat buckets no matter what the song is. But I make three assumptions regarding the "what gets newbies hooked" question.

1) dancing to slower music often focuses energy inwards, not out. and the only reason i say "often" instead of "always" is because I saw Ogden and Amanda in Blues at ALHC 2001.
2) Newbies love the outwards energy, the flash, the trash.
3) low-fidelity recordings are a turnoff

Given these assumptions, low-energy and/or slower tempo music are not ideal for attracting newbies. Ideally you want hi-fi, high-energy, fast music. Does that describe a genre of music we know? Oh yeah, neo.

The thing is, it describes a lot of jazz too. A lot of jazz that I, personally, would love to dance to.

[Greg Avakian]

A better option would be having Reuben or Greg give their thoughts on what has worked in the venues they have helped build, not someone else's.

Well, I've done this quite a bit -and I also want to say that I am happy to discuss this with anyone who doesn't want to post -so you can always send me an e-amil or a PM -or even call me if you want to talk: 215-476-8287.

Actually I think Lance is an awesome role model, and I think Julius said some pretty accurate stuff about LG.

I've hosted Westie nights, ECS nights and Lindy nights and I've spun for almost every kind of swing dancer. I do a lot of different gigs -although I'm not always happy about all of them. In the end though, I really love it when the room is full and people are having fun. My goal is to get them to stay longer than they planned to -even if I don't like the music/venue/whatever as much as they do.

As a DJ, play what the room likes without losing your self and being completely styleless. Get lots of music and spend some time just listening to other DJs while watching the floor to see what happens. Ask dancers questions.

To get people to come to classes, make the class fun so people want to be there. Keep people moving, use examples that people can relate to and don't forget to play music. I'll never be a great dancer, so I'm not much of an inspiration, but I think people come to my classes because they are informative and fun.

To be a good host is to be really welcoming to everyone. And don't post your opinions on your local message boards.

One thing I found is that the more I traveled, the less I was in touch with my local scene. I realised about two years ago that I could either get really into traveling or really into teaching in Philly. I was getting alot of invitations to teach and DJ around the country and I looked around and saw that there were a bunch of people in Philly who were really into the local scene in a way that I was not, so I basically gave up my involvement so I'd have more time to do other things. I think in order to run a successful venue, you have to be motivated to do so.

[Nate Dogg]

Yeah, but until the owners or organizers post, it's just hearsay and opinion. It's a circular argument. A better option would be having Reuben or Greg give their thoughts on what has worked in the venues they have helped build, not someone else's.

You know what works? Blind stinking luck of the right factors coming together at just the right time. What those factors are... I don't think anyone really knows. ha!

I doubt the Lance would say that the success of Lindy Groove was blind stinking luck.

People have to work hard and make good decisions. Each venue/scene has its own situation, so it is hard to make too many generalizations (though keeping things fun is a big one).

Good demographics, venues, talent are also essential, and I think that is what you were driving it, those are harder to control. Some cities are harder to develop than others. But, in the end, Kenny in KC has to make decisions and work hard (or somebody should, if he wants to the scene to be more lindy friendly).



Nathan

[Yakov]

Me too. I seriously doubt that convenience has as much to do with the reasons people attend a venue as much as the music that's played there.

For me, the only reason i can go dancing is that every venue is bussable or walkable from my house.