SwingDJs

Toon Town Dave wrote:I think the goal of this discussion (and the Austin policies) is to establish some terms of reference or baseline skills that a new DJ should learn. * * * * I do think it is a good reference for new and potential DJs to identify what they should be trying to learn.

Actually, the "Austin policies" were promulgated as "guidelines" (not even policies), but in subsequent years suddenly became treated as "rules," exactly as I had suspected they would be. That is the danger: the overreach and MISAPPLICATION of well-intentioned but poorly-drafted guidelines, not the good intentions behind creating them and the intended purpose behind creating them.

In one instance, someone complained last year that I had violated the "rule" against playing more than two "non-swing" songs per hour. I got reprimanded for doing so even though the DJ coordinator hadn't heard my set to verify that I had played more than two non-swing songs, which I hadn't. Indeed, the irony is that I had received more spontaneous COMPLIMENTS for that particular set--from complete strangers, mind you--than almost any other set I can remember, which would not have happened if I had not stuck to mostly swing rhythms. The floor was packed, and the gig was a blast! The newbie complainer just didn't know what constituted "swing" (swing rhythm), got a copy of the "rules," and twisted them to get me in "trouble." He or she considered Blues music (including Jump Blues) to be non-swing because it didn't sound like Benny Goodman or Cherry Poppin Daddies. (The other problem stemmed from taking an anonymous complaint at face value, but that problem stemmed from having the rules, in the first place, upon which to base the anonymous complaint).

In a flippant act of defiance, I intentionally flaunted the "rules" for a few months thereafter to test the issue and show just how successful a set could be while blatantly flaunting the rules, until some friends convinced me to just continue to simply ignore the guidelines instead of intentionally trying to push the issue. Of course, they were right and the "rules" have faded back into obscurity where they belong. But they are still there to be abused, again.

Toon Town Dave wrote:Like anything, there is a certain point at which you learn enough to be dangerous but not quite enough to realize how much more you still need to learn. Enumerating some of the requisite knowledge as we are attempting to do in this discussion is a worthwhile step to help new DJs become great DJs.

+1

--Stan Graves

Lawrence wrote:Actually, the "Austin policies" were promulgated as "guidelines" (not even policies), but in subsequent years suddenly became treated as "rules," exactly as I had suspected they would be.

This is a lot of discussion about a set of guidelines/policies/rules/pointers/tips that most people here have not read. Sight unseen, it is difficult to comment. Would anyone who has a copy care to post it?

--Stan Graves

Lawrence wrote: (The other problem stemmed from taking an anonymous complaint at face value, but that problem stemmed from having the rules, in the first place, upon which to base the anonymous complaint).

It sounds like this is the problem, not the guidelines/rules (unless they included take anonymous complaints at face value).

Someone here or on another forum pointed me to the Austin DJ guidelines a while back so I'm somewhat familiar with the text. Nothing really struck me as too far off the mark. A little rigid perhaps but not out to lunch.

From your description above, I don't think the rules themselves are the problem.

Sorry I'm comming in on this conversation very late.

As a sound engineer, one of the things I find is that most DJ's know very little about PA systems and mixers.
There is a lot of stuff that can be covered in this area, but some basic info on cables and equipment would be well worth while.

Brian

I have to agree. Even stuff as trivial as rolling cables.

One of my co-workers used to do live sound. From my conversations with him, there's way more to know than DJs probably need but some basic audio concepts and care and feeding of equipment are important for a good DJ.

Dancers are tough critics, so anyone who is willing to figure out what would best help new DJs master basic concepts quickly and be able to maneuver in the social/political minefield that is swing DJing should be lauded.

New DJs should know right away that they are going to get feedback and that they DO need to master some basic concepts before DJing. Basic DJ training is not about forcing someone to have a certain music style, but to help them understand what to expect in the booth and how to avoid the most common mistakes their first few times out. For example, I think it is wise for a new DJ to lean on the standards their first few times out, so that they can focus on the "how-to's" rather than "will this song go over okay?"

People should know the expectations of the different booths in town and how to figure out which venues or shifts would best match their music style. If someone wants to focus on one style, talk about how that will affect their DJing opportunities in town.

I believe that every venue has the right to set up DJ guidelines as they see fit. Is there a point where polices might feel too strict for me? Yes. No matter how loose or strict, the venue should be clear with the DJ about expectations and not just provide negatives, but give them the positives of the sets, too. Overall, it is my decision about whether or not I want to DJ at that venue and whether or not I want to incorporate their feedback into my sets.

You have a friendly avatar.

Toon Town Dave wrote:

Lawrence wrote: (The other problem stemmed from taking an anonymous complaint at face value, but that problem stemmed from having the rules, in the first place, upon which to base the anonymous complaint).

It sounds like this is the problem, not the guidelines/rules (unless they included take anonymous complaints at face value).

Someone here or on another forum pointed me to the Austin DJ guidelines a while back so I'm somewhat familiar with the text. Nothing really struck me as too far off the mark. A little rigid perhaps but not out to lunch.

From your description above, I don't think the rules themselves are the problem.

Few rules, themselves, are ever the problem, per se; the enforcement of the rules is. The failure of these rules to specify how "violations" are reported, enforced, or judged--and what the penalties are for different levels of transgressions--makes them open to interpretation. Might as well not have them. They create the misimpression that there are objective standards, when it actually turns the enterprise into just so much sophistry and lawyering.

The rules were drafted as guidelines, and as such are open-ended so as to invite misinterpretation and misapplication. They were aimed at attacking certain problem DJs who ignored the fact that they were clearing the floor repeatedly. The rules also left other problems completely open and unaddressed, while not contemplating how they can be overinterpreted and expanded to create a bigger problem than the original problem they were designed to avoid.

Finally, even if "everyone understands" what the rules mean contemporaneously to their being drafted, the next generation will certainly insert its own definitions and interpretations. The second or third generation re-interpreted them from "guidelines" to "rules." I got hit in the fourth generation by an anonymous (and false) complaint. The fifth generation took a pompous, hard-core, sometimes even tyrannical stance only against DJs that played music that they didn't like (coincidentally, it didn't affect me because I shared the same taste in music; but it was ugly to watch others go through it). We are now in the sixth generation of "enforcers" since the guidelines-turned-rules were drafted. They do not appear to be so gung-ho about substantively enforcing these rules, perhaps because the new "President" has Westie inclinations and doesn't mind if DJs play "non-swingish" danceable music more than twice per set. (The "no more than two non-swing songs per hour" rule.)

It is not a disaster, nor is it as bad as it could be because most people continue to ignore them, but they are an unnecessary distraction. The point is that it is not worth the time to try to formalize the art of DJing, especially because doing so makes it seem SO much more complicated than it is. Pick a good song, press play, measure the reaction, repeat. Everything else is fluff.

Lawrence wrote:The point is that it is not worth the time to try to formalize the art of DJing, especially because doing so makes it seem SO much more complicated than it is. Pick a good song, press play, measure the reaction, repeat.

For perhaps the first time, I near completely agree with Page.

russell wrote: - wave (see article), mood, contrast, tension
- balance of old and new (see Matt's article)

Hi, I'm new here. (Not new to Swing, though! Hehe!)

I'm curious where can I find this article?

Thanks,

--
:- Dabe@Gottaswing.com

Lawrence wrote: In a flippant act of defiance, I intentionally flaunted the "rules" for a few months thereafter to test the issue and show just how successful a set could be while blatantly flaunting the rules, until some friends convinced me to just continue to simply ignore the guidelines instead of intentionally trying to push the issue. Of course, they were right and the "rules" have faded back into obscurity where they belong. But they are still there to be abused, again.

I'm not trying to tweak you here, honest, but how do you reconcile this paragraph with 'give the DJ's employer what the employer wants', an attitude you have espoused in other threads?

This is a way-out-of-left-field suggestion, but I think it would be cool if a syllabus for swing DJs could include talking to swing musicians to hear their take on music and playing for dancers.

I've always felt that any musician, dancer, or even DJ should have a decent historical knowledge of the material that they are playing/dancing to/Djing. That's certainly not a problem with the people on this forum... thus maybe a syllabus might have some historical info?

This is getting kind of geeky though.

julius wrote:This is a way-out-of-left-field suggestion, but I think it would be cool if a syllabus for swing DJs could include talking to swing musicians to hear their take on music and playing for dancers.

You assume that jazz musicians have any more idea about playing for dancers than DJ's do. Most don't know the first thing about playing for dancers. Maybe they would have if it were 1939.... Not anymore.