SwingDJs

Lawrence wrote: Au contraire, I'm pointing to one rhythmic thing (the syncopated rhythm) missing from what we're referring to as "Motown music" and asking why it's considered more "essential" than SEVERAL other essential things that DO carry over. The "one thing missing" problem is the argument with which I am disagreeing.

There are several things that must be present. Each thing is necessary, but not sufficient. In my opinion, to take away any one thing is to diminish the whole. Motown music takes away more things than does, say, new testament Basie. Punk takes away even more. Classical music takes away almost everything required for lindy hop.

To you, taking away only one or two things isn't a big deal. To other people, it is. To me, taking jazz music out of the dance is a pretty big dealbreaker. Let me head off the inevitable "but elements of jazz exist in Motown" argument by saying that Motown is not jazz. While Pistol Allen may have been a jazz drummer, he will never admit to playing jazz on any Motown dates.

edited "Earl Palmer" to "Pistol Allen". Earl played on session dates in LA, but Pistol was the Funk Brothers drummer who played on most Motown sessions. He too was a jazz drummer who was told to put aside the jazz for sessions.

I will state that I don't think one or two Motown songs is a bad thing - unless it's 1 or 2 songs every week. Even worse, if it's - as someone pointed out - 1 or 2 Motown, then 1 or 2 funk, then a Latin song...

Kalman

julius wrote:

Lawrence wrote: Au contraire, I'm pointing to one rhythmic thing (the syncopated rhythm) missing from what we're referring to as "Motown music" and asking why it's considered more "essential" than SEVERAL other essential things that DO carry over. The "one thing missing" problem is the argument with which I am disagreeing.

There are several things that must be present. Each thing is necessary, but not sufficient. In my opinion, to take away any one thing is to diminish the whole. Motown music takes away more things than does, say, new testament Basie. Punk takes away even more. Classical music takes away almost everything required for lindy hop.

To you, taking away only one or two things isn't a big deal. To other people, it is. To me, taking jazz music out of the dance is a pretty big dealbreaker. Let me head off the inevitable "but elements of jazz exist in Motown" argument by saying that Motown is not jazz. While Earl Palmer may have been a jazz drummer, he will never admit to playing jazz on any Motown dates.

One of my favorite lines (which I will have to paraphrase) comes from Barry Gordy, who said he lost his record store trying to sell jazz to people who wanted to buy blues.

Kalman

Lawrence wrote:Note, I'm still not saying "why can't we dance to only modern music," but "why ONLY old music?"

You keep making similar comments to this, and I keep asking for examples of who thinks like this... so again, who is advocating ONLY old music? (and by old I assume you mean 60-70 year old music as opposed to 40 year old music.)

GuruReuben wrote:

Lawrence wrote:Note, I'm still not saying "why can't we dance to only modern music," but "why ONLY old music?"

You keep making similar comments to this, and I keep asking for examples of who thinks like this... so again, who is advocating ONLY old music? (and by old I assume you mean 60-70 year old music as opposed to 40 year old music.)

Different debate. Not "vintage swing," but "old music." In this context, I'm referring to any music of an older musical form, which even would include much of "groove" swing music. While "Motown" is a relatively old music of the past (40 years ago), it is a newer form of music than Swing music is.

Your Marilyn Manson Lindy Hop is also right up the alley of what I'm talking about: Lindy Hopping to new music, not just old school music. Not at all like the staid, Luther VanDross stuff I have heard at Westie events.

julius wrote:

Lawrence wrote: Au contraire, I'm pointing to one rhythmic thing (the syncopated rhythm) missing from what we're referring to as "Motown music" and asking why it's considered more "essential" than SEVERAL other essential things that DO carry over. The "one thing missing" problem is the argument with which I am disagreeing.

There are several things that must be present. Each thing is necessary, but not sufficient. In my opinion, to take away any one thing is to diminish the whole. Motown music takes away more things than does, say, new testament Basie. Punk takes away even more. Classical music takes away almost everything required for lindy hop.

I agree about classical music. It almost always lacks even a beat. But what are those "things" that are jointly sufficient? The scales and chord progressions of jazz music, the rhythmic elements I noted, or something else? And why are they all necessary? I tried to explain what those things are and argued reasons why they are not all necessary, as opposed to merely asserting that they are not.

mousethief wrote:Because it was designed for dancers in mind?

Wasn't it the other way around?

Swifty wrote:

mousethief wrote:Because it was designed for dancers in mind?

Wasn't it the other way around?

I guess that depends if you are talking about a dance form or just plain dancing. Sure, it's a reach to say it's Lindy-able but it was certainly designed for the dance floor.

Hell, "Memphis Blues" says "Foxtrot" right on it. Can't get more commercial that that I guess.

Kalman

Lawrence wrote:

GuruReuben wrote:

Lawrence wrote:Note, I'm still not saying "why can't we dance to only modern music," but "why ONLY old music?"

You keep making similar comments to this, and I keep asking for examples of who thinks like this... so again, who is advocating ONLY old music? (and by old I assume you mean 60-70 year old music as opposed to 40 year old music.)

Different debate. Not "vintage swing," but "old music." In this context, I'm referring to any music of an older musical form, which even would include much of "groove" swing music. While "Motown" is a relatively old music of the past (40 years ago), it is a newer form of music than Swing music is.

Your Marilyn Manson Lindy Hop is also right up the alley of what I'm talking about: Lindy Hopping to new music, not just old school music. Not at all like the staid, Luther VanDross stuff I have heard at Westie events.

Once again, no examples of people who advocate ONLY old music. It's like you're fighting an imaginary evil.

Swifty wrote:

mousethief wrote:Because it was designed for dancers in mind?

Wasn't it the other way around?

Exactly. Lindy Hop was designed to the music, not the other way around. Why not do the same thing today (design the dance to the music) with the same dance to music that has the same structure and similar enough rhythm (steady, four-beat feel)?

Lawrence wrote:

Swifty wrote:

mousethief wrote:Because it was designed for dancers in mind?

Wasn't it the other way around?

Exactly. Lindy Hop was designed to the music, not the other way around. Why not do the same thing today (design the dance to the music) with the same dance to music that has the same structure and similar enough rhythm (steady, four-beat feel)?

It's arleady been done, maybe you should start DJing at stepping events in Chicago or Imperial swing events in St.Louis, These dances developed around motown and they look and feel completly different then Lindy Hop.

Lawrence wrote:

Swifty wrote:

mousethief wrote:Because it was designed for dancers in mind?

Wasn't it the other way around?

Exactly. Lindy Hop was designed to the music, not the other way around. Why not do the same thing today (design the dance to the music) with the same dance to music that has the same structure and similar enough rhythm (steady, four-beat feel)?

Whoa whoa whoa.

I never said it was designed to match Lindy patterns. Those were your assumptions. If you're trying to point out that I could have worded it better, point taken. If you're trying to make it central to your argument(s) of the evolution of Lindy Hop, then find another sucker.

I defy you to find the words "Lindy Hop" in my original post. *waits*

I said - see above - it was designed for dancers in mind. It was designed for dance venues in many cases. Duke's Cotton Club pieces were designed as part of a floor show, which included dancers. And yes, I am referring to the swing era. And they danced more than Lindy then too.

Kalman

Reuben wrote:

Lawrence wrote:Note, I'm still not saying "why can't we dance to only modern music," but "why ONLY old music?"

Once again, no examples of people who advocate ONLY old music. It's like you're fighting an imaginary evil.

The original point you quoted was just a trivial qualifier to prevent others from demonizing my position, not to demonize others. It was not the gist or heart of my argument, at all. As for fighting an imaginary evil, although I understand the ardently-Christian proclivity to divide the world into good and evil over everything, I haven't spoken in good/evil terms, nor would I about this debate. Moreover, I'm not "fighting" or "shooting" anyone; I'm trying to see if my theory that Motown music is appropriate Lindy Hop music stands up to debate.

If you think "Motown music" is not appropriate "Lindy Hop" music because it is incongruous or somehow "doesn't fit" the dance, then "you" are an example. But Julius, Kevin, and Jeremy seem to disagree and think that the syncopation is necessary to Lindy Hop. If everyone agrees that Motown music (as well as 4/4, "4-beat-feel" funk and hip hop and rock and punk music) is appropriate Lindy Hop music (ideal, fun, easily-adapted, would love to hear it and dance to it), then, yes, there's no debate and I am out of line. I don't think so.

If it just comes down to arguing vanilla or chocolate preferences ("I just don't like Motown," or "I like Motown"), then so be it. But it seems there is a lot more to it than that.

mousethief wrote:Whoa whoa whoa.

I never said it was designed to match Lindy patterns. * * * * I said - see above - it was designed for dancers in mind. It was designed for dance venues in many cases.

Cher's most recent hit was designed for "dancers," too: dancers in a boom-boom disco club. So is Britney Spears and Janet Jackson. So is Roscoe (salsa). But somehow I don't think you are suggesting that Cher and Roscoe are as appropriate for Lindy Hop as Duke Ellington. Indeed, I suspect that was the contrary of your point, actually, so now I'm genuinely confused as to what you meant.

How about this?

Motown sucks for swing dancing. So does funk. There.

There are other dances for those. Dances that actually fit the music, for God's sake.

No matter how hard you try to revise it, adjust it, jackhammer it or manipulate it, dancing to Motown is not the same as the music that originally drove the dance. And the more formulae you have to throw at it to justify matching the dance to the music just underscores how off it really is.

Swing music may have grown from hot jazz but it also spawned the concept of the dance band and popularized partner dancing in America to a degree never seen before or since. Musicians aren't so far from human that they do not walk away from their successes (unless you're Artie). So when I say that much of the music of the period was designed for dancers, not only is that what I meant, but it's also all I said.

Kalman