Bringing the topic full-circle to the original question, specifically limiting any "guidelines" to training new DJs (as opposed to handcuffing more experienced DJs) is a good, general concept that is valuable one to make to to this thread, not just specifically to Austin. The problem that caused me to take the thread on the Austin-tangent was that the loose and informal (albeit unquestionably well-intentioned) "guidelines" for new DJs in Austin did not make that limitation, and they eventually somehow become "rules" that eventually applied to all DJs.
Although I don't want to go so far as to suggest that any level of "experience" makes a DJ immune to criticism or policing (even me
), the task of drafting sufficiently-broad but meaningfully-specific standards that would apply to experienced DJs is MUCH more difficult and politically-charged than the task of providing guidance only to new DJs. That said, it does sound like the new policy would heed the general points I have been making and would be more permissive and less restrictive (as Keith noted) and thus less-capable of being abused, even though it technically would still leave open the issue of what "swing music" is. However, it seems that the new policy is meant more to distinguish the venue from, say, salsa or disco venues, than it is to try to impose taste preferences amongst different "Swing" factions as to what "real" swing music is. To that extent, it would be a definite improvement because it would not be able to be misused by one political Swing faction against another.
It also keeps it simple, instead of over-complicating the task.
(Keith and Nathan, I am interested in discussing the new guidelines further, but we should do that off this Board.)