50s bands for swing dancing

[mousethief]

There is a difference in style between the different eras of Basie. The 30s and early 40s groups was based on head arrangements. They may be very good for dancing and for letting the soloists (Clayton, Edison, Basie, Young, etc) blow, but honestly the lack of defined and written out arrangements make a constant diet of Basie a wee bit boring.

So... head arrangements and limitless improvisation make for more boring material than off-the-shelf Hefti arrangements?

I could listen to KC Basie all day. Now, Cab Calloway, I can do maybe two songs. Harry James, maybe one.

When you get into the 50s and on, you have a whole host of great arrangers writing for the band - Hefti, Wilkins, Foster, O'Farrell, Nestico (70s), etc.

I love to listen to all eras of the Basie band, but for pure quality arranging and for listening to swing and hard swing, the Basie from the 50s and on is in my opinion a better band.

*shakes head*

The purpose of a swing band is to swing; it's not orchestral music. It's dance music. It should make you wanna dance, which "Flight of the Foo Birds" does not.

Kalman

[Jerry_Jelinek]

The live big bands I have heard and danced to don't usually have wild-ass horn section stabs all over the place.

For dancing, the only large band around here definately has the loud and blaring horns that some of the dancers don't enjoy. The charts are from the Basie, James, Henderson, Goodman, Gibbs, Billy May etc song book.

For dancing, I've only heard the local big band (Ernie Krivda and the Fat Tuesday Big Band). Also I just recalled hearing the current Basie band at a battle of the bands.

I recall I read somewhere that head arrangements arose out of riffs that band members would play in solos.

Very much so. What I've read and heard interviews of, is the rhythm section (Basie Rhythm - Green, Jones, Page) would start the chart. Then Basie would join in. Members of the band would typically come up with answering riffs to each other (section versus section). Then soloists would weave in and out of the riffs.

When you have the incredible talent that Basie had, you could make that work. The freedom Basie gave the members was also a HUGE attraction for soloists.

After the swing era died out(after WWII - 1945), Basie went to a small group. Then in the 50s resurrected the big band with more organized arrangements. The era was different. The band still swung the heck of out charts. I have heard Ella say "...they swung so hard, they would swing you into bad health!". The music was arranged for listening and dancing.

For me it's hard not to filter my appreciation of jazz through the lens of dancing since I learned to appreciate the music through dancing.

That is a huge distinction. I have never been a dancer. I have grown up listening to my parents jazz swing collection. So I find the music as the main attraction. I can enjoy Kenton, Basie, Ellington, Gerald Wilson, Chico O'Farrell, and even contemporary big bands of Maria Schneider because of the artistic arrangements.

Now the limiting portion of big band music that is swing AND is danceable is what I'm still trying to learn about. I can listen to a 50s swing chart and hear the same elements that were in the Basie band and wonder why the dancers don't enjoy it.

The blaring horns with wide dynamics is something that some dancers don't enjoy. I'm just now learning that.

I'm going to post some new clips to hear the pro swing DJs impression.

Then we can begin the discussion anew!!!!

[Jerry_Jelinek]

So... head arrangements and limitless improvisation make for more boring material than off-the-shelf Hefti arrangements?

I could listen to KC Basie all day. Now, Cab Calloway, I can do maybe two songs. Harry James, maybe one.

Yes very much so. As Brenda keeps reminding everyone, there is a difference between the radio DJs job and dance DJs job.

For me, a typical 15 mins of radio would include:

Fast swing, med swing or jazz, and a slow ballad.

For radio it is very important to offer a variety of vocal versus instrumental. Also you can't play 15 mins straight of dance music. Nor can you have 15 mins straight of ballads. It becomes monotonous.

So I find having the same Basie style of the 30s repeated over and over to be boring. Now when I do my Basie centenial show later this year, I'll do 2 hours of Basie music. The show will have a mix of 30s, 50s, 70s Basie mixed with vocals by Rushing, Humes, Ella, Eckstine, Vaughan, Williams, Lambert-Hendricks-Ross etc. So it will be a constant variety of styles and eras. That is needed for radio DJ'g.

As I was joking with one of the swing DJs: if I would ever DJ a dance, I would be thrown out of the DJ booth after 15 mins of my radio style programming!!!

*shakes head* The purpose of a swing band is to swing; it's not orchestral music. It's dance music. It should make you wanna dance, which "Flight of the Foo Birds" does not.

I will disagree somewhat. The swing music style is great for listening and dancing. I can't limit myself to say it has to be danceable to be good. That is still my biggest hangup. If the music isn't good for listening, then I'm not going to consider using it. Now if the music is listenable AND is danceable, then that is a bonus.

But I can't limit myself to only dance music. It would make the whole musical enjoyment way too limiting.

[mousethief]

If a given piece is a good dance tune, then it's good for listening as well. If it excites me, it excites me because it's just damned good and I want to dance to it. A good dance song has to be a good song in the first place.

I could DJ a 4 hour dance using early Basie comps and never have it get boring. The sheer weight and diversity of the early recordings pretty much assures I can get what I want. Even for radio, I could piece together enough sets using Original Recipe Basie to hit the fast-slow-ballad-instrumental-vocal structure without much effort. Jimmy Rushing doesn't sound like Helen Humes or Billie Holiday and Lester Young could dominate a small session all on his own. You could take pieces from Jones-Smith, Inc. or The All American Band and keep the playlist running all day.

I don't think that anyone would ever suggest not listening to music that doesn't swing, because many of us like Bop, Hard Bop, Western Swing, Funk, etc. However, we are all DJs for lindy hop and that's our particualr niche and how we'll generally approach in-genre or near-genre music.

Kalman

[julius]

Just to reiterate, I think most of us own and enjoy good jazz beyond the swing music we like to dance to. But as Kalman said, most of us approach the music from a dancer's standpoint. Ballads, for example, are usually completely ignored by most swing DJs. They would rather play a slow blues than, say, Moonglow or Stardust, even though Stardust may have the most beautiful melody of any song ever. So to say that something is more 'danceable' is not necessarily equivalent to saying that it's good, and that other music isn't good.

Another thing worth remembering is that the most vocal people on this board tend to be the types who favor classic era swing music, whereas the types who favor 50s style swing are usually rather quiet. Except for Lawrence, but he's been oddly silent on the issue.

[mousethief]

I submit that you are wrong, as always julius!

Kalman

[mousethief]

Another thing worth remembering is that the most vocal people on this board tend to be the types who favor classic era swing music, whereas the types who favor 50s style swing are usually rather quiet. Except for Lawrence, but he's been oddly silent on the issue.

My Yehoodi Radio set is maybe 40% post-war, maybe more.

So there!

Of course, that 40% is Jacko, Earth Wind & Fire and Motley Crue pieces...

Kalman

[julius]

Heh, I'm bursting with thoughts on the subject.

Another thing to remember is that we're really vastly overgeneralizing. The whole 'blaring horns' issue is one example. Really, when I criticize the clips you posted, it's more about having a reaction to the music and then trying to figure out why I am not excited by it, rather than vice versa. So maybe I fixate on things that don't just appeal to me, but which might be OK on its own. But when several things like the dynamics, the rhythm and the arrangements all don't appeal at once, my reaction is much stronger.

[julius]

I submit that you are wrong, as always julius!

You're scaring me.

*drinks*

[Jerry_Jelinek]

Ok to add fuel to the debate fire, I put up 10 new clips:

http://www.wkhr.org/SwingDJs/

Now I had to take away the true swing definition to these clips. Most of these are quasi swing. I still think all are danceable (except Clip 10).

I also had to limit the selections by not having much in the way of blaring horns. I also tried to limit the 'Jo Jones' style of hi-hat usage that many objected to in the first set.

Without the blaring horns and the traditional Basie style of hi-hat usage, it becomes increasingly difficult to find swing style of big band music.

Also I cheated a bit. One of the tracks is from the mid 1960s.

Also the bonus track is the definitive slowest version of Take the A Train that I have ever heard. You be the judge. Also the bonus clip is from a 1990s recording.

Enjoy,

[julius]

immediate reactions:

1. reallly slow for lindy hop, would be good for foxtrot
2. drummer is dropping bombs again .. rhythm section isn't four on the floor
3. pretty mellow, but the "groove" DJs might dig it. this is more in line with what modern lindy hoppers seem to enjoy
4. is this illinois jacquet? nice energy, feels post-war, not as tight section work as i'd like, but i'd dance to it
5. the celeste/xylophone has to die ... would be nice otherwise. reminds me of more "sweet" band arrangements than "hot", but it has moments
6. shoo shoo baby. see #3, although not as mellow
7. i know this song, i'm blanking on the title. swingtime in the rockies? nice trumpet solo, nice section work. is this harry james? i like how the rhythm section provides a SOLID foundation for the riffing and soloing
8. see #3, i like the rhythm section though, really grounded although i would like to hear the guitar more prominently for that 'chunk' sound
9. again the rhythm section needs to be more balanced...a lot of 50s stuff sounds heavy on bass to me. nice energy, sounds 60sish. benny carter?
bonus. yech. what's the point?

[Doug]

Jerry - PM me with your e-mail address. I will send you my currently active dj play list - about 500 to 800 songs long. My total jazz collection contains significantly more than 10,000 but less than 15,000 songs from which I have chosen my play list. It includes everything from classic big band to bebop - including bop singers (I love Giacomo Gates - who is from Pittsburg??) - to modern dance bands such as Mora, Bill Elliott, Jonathan Stout and recent jazz including both big band (Frank Capp, LCJO etc) and small groups. I think that you will find that most swing djs actually have pretty broad tastes, although as Julius points out, they indeed do often run tunes through the "danceability filter".

I do have to admit that I own an Ernie Krivda CD which I never dj with because I find the arrangements too annoying.

[mark0tz]

1. decent foxtrot song indeed. probably wouldn't play it unless the crowd was older and clearly wanted some foxtrot or smth.
2. I don't think I'd DJ this personally, but like if the band was there playing this -- I'd dance to it and I know others would, too. A lil' slow and ambling, though.
3. Hrm, this sounds better... danceable, curious what happens after the intro.
4. good energy, a bit in your face. danceable.
5. haha what julius said. *
6. a little slow... i liked the energy, ideas. would like to hear'm play it a bit faster...
7. does sound like harry james. this is good. curious how the wind solo in the middle resolves itself, and where it goes from there. favorite song of the bunch.
8. a little too mellow...
9. hrm, nice listening, doesn't make me wanna dance, though. love the sax.

*edited to swap julius for doug, oops

[Doug]

Julius - I know you were just funnin with us regarding Sugarfoot Stomp (#7)

[Doug]

1. - Yup. A foxtrotter. Wake me when it's over. Don't know the song. But it is too mellow. Sweet!
2. - Not bad, but at the extreme low end of tempos I might play.. In fact, I might use it. Sorta groovy, but ya. It's OK. Just slow.
3. - Same comment as 2.
4. - No way. And I am known as a generally up tempo DJ. But this one is Blaring, blatting. And I do not like uptempo 2/4 at all. An OomPah band. Give me that 4/4 time at this tempo. But good solos. Jazz, not sweet. But I still wouldn't DJ with it.
5 - It isn't "Ain't This a Wonderful Day", but it kinda sounds like it. Yes - Loose the bells!! It sounds a little too cute. I hear those little blue birds flitting by. Sweet. Sweet. Sweet.
6. - Slow. Indeed, it's shoo shoo baby. But I have such better arrangements. For example John Kirby's. I could not play this. Toooo slow. Toooo slow!
7. - Sugarfoot Stomp. Good arrangement. I might DJ with this. But I find the insistant cymbal work annoying. Give me 4 on the pedal at this tempo. Despite the generally high energy playing and the musicianship, the energy is not there for me. But I still might play it.
8. - Not too bad. If it were live, I'd dance to it. But I probably would not DJ with it.. Sounds too much like a TV theme. Insistent cymbal work on 2&4 becomes annoying.
9. - A little better energy. More of a 4/4 feeling once you get past the intro stuff. Bass pushes it along. Good sax playing. I might use this?? Can't hear the rhythm guitar playing quarter notes though.

In general, at high tempo I really prefer solid 4/4. I do not like the heavy back beat that the high hats can impart. And I need a rhythm guitar playing 1/4 notes.

At lower tempo a lot more is OK although I never like the heavy 2/4. It just doesn't seem to swing as much as a solid 4/4. Or something.