How is your swing scene compared to a year ago?
Moderators: Mr Awesomer, JesseMiner, CafeSavoy
How is your swing scene compared to a year ago?
This isn't directly a swing DJ topic, perhaps, but the size of the swing scene in our cities obviously affects our DJing jobs. I posted a similar poll a while back, I thought it was worth revisiting again now.
-
Toon Town Dave
- Posts: 661
- Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 2:52 pm
- Location: Saskatoon, Canada
Our small scene has almost dissolved. Mostly for Economic and political reasons, we lost our regular venue. It was a night club that hosted our night on one of their slower evenings. When it changed ownership, at the beginning of the year, the new owners opted not to open on the slower evenings unless they were sure they could make a profit which didn't seem possible considering the dance floor capacity of the venue and amount we figured we could charge for a cover. We tried our own thing on a Friday night but just couldn't compete with other activities.
Hopefully we can find a venue that we can work out a good deal that has a reasonable dance space/seating space ratio that we can get going.
In the mean time, there is a local big band that usually plays a public event every couple months as well as the occasional band at a night club that we can Lindy bomb. There's also a ton of ballroom stuff happening although they tend to not play music that swings.
Hopefully we can find a venue that we can work out a good deal that has a reasonable dance space/seating space ratio that we can get going.
In the mean time, there is a local big band that usually plays a public event every couple months as well as the occasional band at a night club that we can Lindy bomb. There's also a ton of ballroom stuff happening although they tend to not play music that swings.
-
SirScratchAlot
- Posts: 213
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 12:54 am
- Location: in the LA hood....
- Contact:
-
Shanabanana
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 10:29 am
- Location: Boulder CO
- Contact:
Our scene has been growing steadily. Dancers have been moving here in droves, and we've reached the critical mass of teachers that allows beginner dancers to get good quickly. We've also got enough good DJs that the music always stays interesting.
I think a lot of scenes have trouble because some DJ decides that it's their way or the highway. They only play music from the 1940's, they only play rockabilly, they only play later jazz, they only play 1950's rock and roll. And if they're the only show in town, people get bored and find other hobbies. We've got enough variety that something is always changing and there is always something new.
We also have much less in-fighting than I see in the national scene. Disagreements, yes, disrespect, no. Even if people don't know what the fighting is about, they don't like to be around it.
Attribute it to whatever you like, but it's working.
I think a lot of scenes have trouble because some DJ decides that it's their way or the highway. They only play music from the 1940's, they only play rockabilly, they only play later jazz, they only play 1950's rock and roll. And if they're the only show in town, people get bored and find other hobbies. We've got enough variety that something is always changing and there is always something new.
We also have much less in-fighting than I see in the national scene. Disagreements, yes, disrespect, no. Even if people don't know what the fighting is about, they don't like to be around it.
Attribute it to whatever you like, but it's working.
Well, our scene here in San Diego is definitely smaller. The venues, both djed and live music, are all sparsely attended.
I don't know what to attribute the decline to, I'm sure the reasons are complex. We have plenty of excellent teachers and venues. There are a number of different djs playing different mixes of music. The scene isn't that unified, but I don't know how much that affects things. Basically, there aren't enough beginners, and enough beginners turning into addicts to make up for the regulars who get married or otherwise get other interests.
I would think that the biggest impacts on a swing scene in a city are:
o Teachers - This is key. They should be enthusiastic, good teachers who really make an effort to market and pull in new people.
o Venues - Ideally you want venues where new people can get exposed to swing music, not just rented halls.
o Music - Some people won't go unless there's live music, but you need a set of good djs as well.
o Population base - If only a small fraction of people are going to be interested, you need a decent-sized city to support a scene.
o National influences - Aren't unique to a particular city, but obviously, if a GAP commercial plays, more people get interested.
I'm sure there are other reasons, like other local music influences. Salsa draws some of the same people who might be into partner dancing, and if Salsa is up, maybe swing/Lindy is down.
On whether a "unified" scene is better, I'm not sure. So what if different people don't like each other? Even if they don't dance with each other, what difference does it make if they all go out dancing regularly?
I don't know what to attribute the decline to, I'm sure the reasons are complex. We have plenty of excellent teachers and venues. There are a number of different djs playing different mixes of music. The scene isn't that unified, but I don't know how much that affects things. Basically, there aren't enough beginners, and enough beginners turning into addicts to make up for the regulars who get married or otherwise get other interests.
I would think that the biggest impacts on a swing scene in a city are:
o Teachers - This is key. They should be enthusiastic, good teachers who really make an effort to market and pull in new people.
o Venues - Ideally you want venues where new people can get exposed to swing music, not just rented halls.
o Music - Some people won't go unless there's live music, but you need a set of good djs as well.
o Population base - If only a small fraction of people are going to be interested, you need a decent-sized city to support a scene.
o National influences - Aren't unique to a particular city, but obviously, if a GAP commercial plays, more people get interested.
I'm sure there are other reasons, like other local music influences. Salsa draws some of the same people who might be into partner dancing, and if Salsa is up, maybe swing/Lindy is down.
On whether a "unified" scene is better, I'm not sure. So what if different people don't like each other? Even if they don't dance with each other, what difference does it make if they all go out dancing regularly?
Aside from the occasional bickering, our scene is somewhat unified. Most dancers converge upon the same venue, every Thursday. This ensures that their will be critical mass of people any given week for new dancers to get a flavor of where they can go with the dance.Ron wrote: On whether a "unified" scene is better, I'm not sure. So what if different people don't like each other? Even if they don't dance with each other, what difference does it make if they all go out dancing regularly?
Additionally, we have two lindy teaching groups that work hard in recruiting dancers. They also offer venues after their classes.
If our scene was dependent on only dancing at live music venues and clubs, our scene may have died out 2 or 3 years ago.
I also agree that recruiting new dancers is essential. In general, most people are not going to stick with dancing, only a handful will. You have to constantly bring in new people to replace those who get bored, married, move away, etc ... If you were take a snapshot of they key people in our scene four years ago versus today, you would see 80% - 90% new faces (probably even higher). I think this dynamic is true of most activities.
It is funny when dancers who have been away for a few years come back to visit, they always remark about all the new faces, lack of certain older faces. They notice that, much more so than the survivors who have been dancing week and week out for years. We hardly notice the turnover unless we concentrate on it, since it is such a gradual process.
I really wish that were true, Nathan. But I get complaints all the time from others about how it is not.Nate Dogg wrote:Aside from the occasional bickering, our scene is somewhat unifiedRon wrote: On whether a "unified" scene is better, I'm not sure. So what if different people don't like each other? Even if they don't dance with each other, what difference does it make if they all go out dancing regularly?
A divided scene can actually be good because it can offer different things to different people, and even different methods of getting to the same point. It also is somewhat inevitable once a scene gets to a certain size.
But it can be bad if and when it gets contentious and the two groups start fighting for the same people by doing the exact same thing, which has happened most recently in Austin, and which I have seen happen in Chicago, Houston, and elsewhere.
Our scene is kind of holding right now but most of us feel it's at a breaking point. Either it's going to expand or just fizzle out. A bunch of us started around the same time and stuck around a while but now most of them don't come out that often and we don't really have a new generation to fill it. Most people will come out once or very rarely but not consistantly.
Our teachers are okay, but there's not many advanced dancers here and the few that are don't really teach on a regular basis.
We have a few venues that are not too bad.
I think one of our biggest faults is the music. We only have one really knowledgable dj and even he is not that in tune with more uptempo "classic" tunes so it feels a little lopsided. I am one of the better djs and I don't consider myself that knowledgable at all.
I don't really know what it's going to take to get things started again.
Our teachers are okay, but there's not many advanced dancers here and the few that are don't really teach on a regular basis.
We have a few venues that are not too bad.
I think one of our biggest faults is the music. We only have one really knowledgable dj and even he is not that in tune with more uptempo "classic" tunes so it feels a little lopsided. I am one of the better djs and I don't consider myself that knowledgable at all.
I don't really know what it's going to take to get things started again.
For Chicago with the closing of Rumors on Thursday there was serious decline in attendance in events throughout the week. From 10/02 until around 02/03 things were in critical state. Some events which normally had crowds in the 30-50 range would have 8 people show up. Willowbrook stopped booking live bands because there were not getting enough people to come. But things really started picking up again around March through the present day. And right now it's about the same as the past 3 years around this time of year.
Lawrence:Lawrence wrote:I really wish that were true, Nathan. But I get complaints all the time from others about how it is not.Nate Dogg wrote:Aside from the occasional bickering, our scene is somewhat unifiedRon wrote: On whether a "unified" scene is better, I'm not sure. So what if different people don't like each other? Even if they don't dance with each other, what difference does it make if they all go out dancing regularly?
A divided scene can actually be good because it can offer different things to different people, and even different methods of getting to the same point. It also is somewhat inevitable once a scene gets to a certain size.
But it can be bad if and when it gets contentious and the two groups start fighting for the same people by doing the exact same thing, which has happened most recently in Austin, and which I have seen happen in Chicago, Houston, and elsewhere.
I was referring more to the fact that most of the lindy style swing dancers in town see each other and show up at the Fed on Thursdays. That venue draws all the factions. Politcial battles and wars may be on-going, but most of the people involved are at the Fed on Thursday nights. A lot of scenes don't have a comparable venue, so they scene just gets more splintered over time.
I really think that the average dancer in town is unaware of the politics of the swing scene. I think it feels more pronounced to us, since we are knee deep in it.
By politics, I am not referring to personal grudges. I am referring to the natural conflicts that occurs when you have various groups each trying to balance their own ideas/needs with what is best for the scene overall.
Nathan
Last edited by Nate Dogg on Sun Jun 22, 2003 11:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I think I voted "a lot larger" for Austin.
I suspect that four (maybe five) factors plays into Austin's success. First, we have three organizations doing their own promotions, marketing, etc. to different segments of Austin's community. I doubt we steal each others business so much as we attract different segments of Austin's community, thereby increasing the opportunity for growth by about 150% (assuming about 25% of each organization's growth is from people who would have "found" one of the others, anyway). The scene is not growing by 150%, but that added growth potential helps off-set the natural attrition rate.
Second, both of the professional teaching groups are run by (dare I say it) "grown up" people with professional work experience who look at it as a business, not just a hobby. The ultimate goal is hobby-oriented (we want more better people to dance with us), and we are willing to sacrafice profits to achieve that goal, but we approach the operations of the business as a business, not a hobby. As a result, we both know we need to take risks in order to gain rewards, but we are responsible enough to not take outrageous, bankrupting risks. We also don't just passively wait for customers to come to us, but do things to actively promote and spread the gospel. I don't run Austin Lindy Hop as tight as I probably should, but it certainly is more business-like than groups in other scenes.
Third, we have a non-profit organization that not only takes some of the risk away, but also works as a partner with, not a competitor against, the for-profit groups. As a result, the non-profit only teaches one-time beginner lessons at its dances which steer potential students toward one of the two professional groups. In this sense, the non-profit is used to its fullest extent without watering down the skill-oriented functions of the scene with volunteers who do not know what they are doing or do not have the incentive to stick around for free. I have seen non-profits in other cities (mostly University Clubs) run the for-profit groups out of business by competing on unfair terms, then losing the volunteers who made the non-profit work well, leaving the scene with severely-diluted teaching and organizational talent.
Fourth, we are just lucky to have two amazing venues: most especially the Fed (Texas Women's Federation). The Fed is a nice sized ballroom with an amazing wooden floor, which is rare. Having that amount of room to dance and socialize is a luxury that other scenes do not have. We have at least three nights a week of events run by Lindy Hoppers for Lindy Hoppers.
A final, smaller one is perhaps the success of Austin's Exchanges. Many local fence-sitters end up diving into the scene after our Exchanges.
I suspect that four (maybe five) factors plays into Austin's success. First, we have three organizations doing their own promotions, marketing, etc. to different segments of Austin's community. I doubt we steal each others business so much as we attract different segments of Austin's community, thereby increasing the opportunity for growth by about 150% (assuming about 25% of each organization's growth is from people who would have "found" one of the others, anyway). The scene is not growing by 150%, but that added growth potential helps off-set the natural attrition rate.
Second, both of the professional teaching groups are run by (dare I say it) "grown up" people with professional work experience who look at it as a business, not just a hobby. The ultimate goal is hobby-oriented (we want more better people to dance with us), and we are willing to sacrafice profits to achieve that goal, but we approach the operations of the business as a business, not a hobby. As a result, we both know we need to take risks in order to gain rewards, but we are responsible enough to not take outrageous, bankrupting risks. We also don't just passively wait for customers to come to us, but do things to actively promote and spread the gospel. I don't run Austin Lindy Hop as tight as I probably should, but it certainly is more business-like than groups in other scenes.
Third, we have a non-profit organization that not only takes some of the risk away, but also works as a partner with, not a competitor against, the for-profit groups. As a result, the non-profit only teaches one-time beginner lessons at its dances which steer potential students toward one of the two professional groups. In this sense, the non-profit is used to its fullest extent without watering down the skill-oriented functions of the scene with volunteers who do not know what they are doing or do not have the incentive to stick around for free. I have seen non-profits in other cities (mostly University Clubs) run the for-profit groups out of business by competing on unfair terms, then losing the volunteers who made the non-profit work well, leaving the scene with severely-diluted teaching and organizational talent.
Fourth, we are just lucky to have two amazing venues: most especially the Fed (Texas Women's Federation). The Fed is a nice sized ballroom with an amazing wooden floor, which is rare. Having that amount of room to dance and socialize is a luxury that other scenes do not have. We have at least three nights a week of events run by Lindy Hoppers for Lindy Hoppers.
A final, smaller one is perhaps the success of Austin's Exchanges. Many local fence-sitters end up diving into the scene after our Exchanges.