SwingDJs

I'm curious about how old all of us are. I wonder how our age affects the sort of music and dancing we like, and furthermore, how our age affects our DJing. Or does it not affect it at all?

I don't think age correlates at all. At least no one in our swing generation.

I would say a stronger contibuter to DJ differences is how long a DJ has been dancing Lindy Hop, where they danced Lindy Hop, and if they dance Lindy Hop at all.

The only relevant corrolation might be in tempos (older people tend to relax into a groove, whereas kids want to jitterbug hyperactively), but even that corrolation crosses lines so as to make any stereotype unjustified.

Roy wrote:I would say a stronger contibuter to DJ differences is how long a DJ has been dancing Lindy Hop, where they dance Lindy Hop, and if they dance Lindy Hop at all.

I agree, completely (although perhaps not entirely with the implications of the third comment ) .

I grew tired of the same stuff after five years of dancing/DJing and branched out into mainstream jazz (post swing-era small group jazz with a swing rhythm: Ray Bryant's "Golden Earings" for example), Electric (non-Jump) Blues, as well as into the so-called "groove" genre to maintain my own interest.

I had a MUCH narrower definition of what was "Swing danceable" when I started dancing and DJing, until I realized how truly diverse the dance CAN be. I keep running across stuff I once COMPLETELY dismissed as "unLindyHoppable" (again, e.g., Ray Bryant's "Golden Earings") that I now consider fits right into what I prefer: especially regarding slower tempos (under 130 BPM, which I once thought was the rock-bottom tempo for Lindy Hop because of the sharp, stacato way in which I manifested the rhythm in my dancing). My perception of what is "LindyHoppable" has only expanded the longer I DJ and dance, which is what I find most interesting about this obsessive little hobby: it has something "new" in it for newbies as well as people who have done it for decades.

Lawrence wrote: I grew tired of the same stuff after five years of dancing/DJing and branched out into mainstream jazz (post swing-era small group jazz with a swing rhythm: Ray Bryant's "Golden Earings" for example), Electric (non-Jump) Blues, as well as into the so-called "groove" genre to maintain my own interest.

I had a MUCH narrower definition of what was "Swing danceable" when I started dancing and DJing, until I realized how truly diverse the dance CAN be. I keep running across stuff I once COMPLETELY dismissed as "unLindyHoppable" (again, e.g., Ray Bryant's "Golden Earings") that I now consider fits right into what I prefer: especially regarding slower tempos (under 130 BPM, which I once thought was the rock-bottom tempo for Lindy Hop because of the sharp, stacato way in which I manifested the rhythm in my dancing). My perception of what is "LindyHoppable" has only expanded the longer I DJ and dance, which is what I find most interesting about this obsessive little hobby: it has something "new" in it for newbies as well as people who have done it for decades.

It was sort of the same with me, except the opposite. After being bombarded for years by post-swing era jazz, I started going back to the roots. However, to this day, I keep finding music that I've had for years that I once considered "unLindyHoppable" as you put it. Some of my favorite songs have come from CD's that once dismissed as a waste of money.

There should have been an "age is not a major factor" option, that would have been my vote.

Some young DJs are good because they have a fresh approach, others suck because they are cocky and lack wisdom.

Some older DJs are good because of their experience and their wisdom, others suck because they get set in there ways and become less open minded as they age.

Lawrence wrote:I had a MUCH narrower definition of what was "Swing danceable" when I started dancing and DJing, until I realized how truly diverse the dance CAN be.

Yet Django is still "faily-undanceable?"

yedancer wrote:It was sort of same with me, except the opposite. After being bombarded for years by post-swing era jazz, I started going back to the roots. However, to this day, I keep finding music that I've had for years that I once considered "unLindyHoppable" as you put it. Some of my favorite songs have come from CD's that once dismissed as a waste of money.

Wow. Good point. It let's me understand your perspective much better. Seems our somewhat different tastes in Swing music come from the same place.

GuruReuben wrote:Yet Django is still "faily-undanceable?"

Yes, you understood me perfectly.

hmmmmmmmmm......smells like age discrimination. I think there is zero correlation between age and DJ skill.

I'd say there is a correlation between age and being a smart-ass on the forum (ha!). (just joking - some of you youngin's appear to be very nice).

At least I'm not the oldest one on the forum, and the two I know are older than me on here are kick-ass!

And Leigh from Seattle, who is all of 21, did his first set at the Century on Sunday and he was great!

I'd say it's more about ear, how long you've been dancing, how much interest you have in the music, and how in tune you are with your audience.

Lawrence wrote: Yes, you understood me perfectly.

I won't be able to do that till you start making some sense.

Incidentally, the thread name was sort of a joke. If you notice, the poll merely shows the age break-up on this board, and isn't intended to be discriminatory. Besides, we all know that the young DJs are better than all the crotchety old ones.

I agree.

Harrison

GuruReuben wrote:

Lawrence wrote: Yes, you understood me perfectly.

I won't be able to do that till you start making some sense.

Perhaps I should quote irrelevant Bible verses, then, or make obscure references that five out of a hundred people will accidentally understand....

Lawrence wrote:Perhaps I should quote irrelevant Bible verses, then, or make obscure references that five out of a hundred people will accidentally understand....

Ron wrote: Not to mention that in San Diego, the opinions of the people doing the most bitching and moaning weren't shared by the majority.

Reuben wrote: James 2:17 - Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. KJV

The relevance is the supposed majority of San Diego, ones of "faith," we're being overtaken by the bitchers and moaners, ones of both "faith" and "works." It just shows that if you want what you believe in, you must take some action to attain it. I also used the verse because I knew the one telling the story about San Diego could make the connection to it. I'm sorry you didn't understand the connection of this simple but true Bible verse, and I hope my further explanation of it helps you in your quest to better your life via the Internet. What else would you like explained?