Lindy exchanges local or national DJ's

Message

GirlieGirl · #31 Post by **GirlieGirl** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 1:26 pm

Oh, and as for Larry's set... I have a different memory of it. So, I'll just leave that one alone.

Swifty · #32 Post by **Swifty** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 1:29 pm

My take on exchanges is that they should be for showing the rest of the country how great your scene is, including DJs. If you don't have a scene worth sharing then you shouldn't be having an exchange in the first place.

If that outlook was taken by exchange organizers everywhere, the sheer quantity of exhanges would decrease, but I would go to a lot more than I do now.

I also hate the multi-room paradigm that's been adopted by many events these days. While it makes sense at a cross-style competition such as NADC & the like to have a room for West Coast Swing, Lindy Hop and Hustle, having different rooms for different styles at an event geared toward only one group of dancers (such as ALHC or an Lindy Exchange) only makes a night lack variety for me unless I walk from room to room. I also hate having to try to coordinate my taste at the moment with the people I want to dance with. Why not just have a good variety played in one room?

djstarr · #33 Post by **djstarr** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 1:29 pm

main_stem wrote:We've had this debate in Seattle and I'm going to leave it there. I will say this though there were defnitely people who were just interested in grinding on each other all night. I recomend that they just go play spin the bottle. They'll probably have more fun.

-Kevin

I agree with the grinding part, which answers one of my questions - folks are looking to hook up when they go to exchanges; even Camp Hollywood had a "blues" room this year.

And as long as the music is slow, sexy, and people can "dirty dance" then I don't think they care whether the music is blues, funk, soul, or just a slow standard......

So while we are getting the terminology correct maybe we should post on the lessons learned thread on lindyexchange.com "make sure to give people somewhere to slow dance otherwise they will whine".

main_stem · #34 Post by **main_stem** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 1:40 pm

Oh Lawrence, thank you for you fair and balanced (tm) take on Seattle Lindy Exchanges. I'm gald to see you don't let your own prefernce and bias towards a certain style of music cloud you fair and balanced (tm) assesment. I'm sure that with more of you fair and balanced(tm) insight, Seattle and the rest of the country will soon believe that anything before 1950, low fi and above 140 BPM is just not worth dancing to.

I'm so looking forward to meeting you again in Austin.

-Kevin

Nate Dogg · #35 Post by **Nate Dogg** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 1:40 pm

Swifty wrote:My take on exchanges is that they should be for showing the rest of the country how great your scene is, including DJs. If you don't have a scene worth sharing then you shouldn't be having an exchange in the first place.

If that outlook was taken by exchange organizers everywhere, the sheer quantity of exhanges would also decrease, but I would go to a lot more than I do now.

That is true for some Exchanges, especially the ones with larger, established scenes. I can also think of a case where that was not so.

I went to the Albany Exchange in 01'. The Albany scene itself was small. they had things to show off, but one of the benefits of the Exchange was to have the out of towners come in and inspire the local scene. They had a really strong line-up of DJs, most of whom were not from Albany.

Exchanges and the cities have more to show off than their DJs. If using out of town DJs can make the event stronger, more power to them. You can still show off the city, its people, etc...

djstarr · #36 Post by **djstarr** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 1:47 pm

Roy wrote:Funny thing about the Seattle exchange is I heard complaints about the late night music here in Chicago. If those DJ's cleared the dance floor then if they were any good they would have changed the tempo of what they were playing if the tempo was the only reason the dance floor was clear.

Well I think this is the crux of the matter - what criteria should be used to judge DJ's at an exchange?

Any DJ can fill the floor by playing popular songs that everyone knows.

The floor was not clear, it was semi-full of dancers who can dance fast; not every song was fast, but it certainly was an above-average bpm set. The DJs who came on after this set did a great job of slowing the tempo down while keeping a Seattle flavor.

And people got to hear some great music that probably doesn't get a lot of air play in other places.

Anyhow, I appreciate everyone's feedback; it's not my intention to rehash the thread on Seattle Delphi about the exchange, but I think the complaints at the exchange (on both sides) reflect the vintage vs. groove debate that has been prevalent on this forum.

Lawrence · #37 Post by **Lawrence** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 2:09 pm

GirlieGirl wrote:I think the point that you're missing, Lawrence, is that Seattle has very diverse taste in music. We don't dance to one tempo, or one era. All of it gets played here. Sure, it's not enough for any one camp to be completely happy, but we deal. My understanding of what an exchange is about is to show the best that the host city has; to get a taste of what it is like to dance in that city. For us to change the music that is played here just for the exchange does a disservice to our scene.

(Good job getting it back on the thread).

I'm not missing that point. It honestly seemed that the organizers had much more of a classic bent than the locals I knew there. Even they described it as the "new element" taking over the scene, not some sort of interest in "diversifying" tastes. I also do not mean to disrespect Seattle, in general, because I have good friends up there and consider Seattle to be the originator of the "come one, come all" Exchange (no offense to my Chicago homies' claims to the contrary). That was why I went to Seattle back then.

I also did expect something different from the people I knew from Seattle back then. That's why I am making no bones about the music people can expect in Austin: so as to avoid the problem of people getting the wrong idea of what to expect from this Exchange. (The emphasis will be "Groove" and mainstream swing with "classic" swing provided in alternative rooms.)

Roy · #38 Post by **Roy** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 2:14 pm

The only complaint I heard was the music was too fast for late nights. I didn't hear anything else or any other complaints. But that seems to jive with what everyone else has been saying.

I think that if there is going to be a fast set at late night and there are no other options (i.e. multiple rooms) in our current dance enviornment some dancers will get upset. The only exception I can see to this is cities known for faster tempos, LA & DC, people go there expecting fast music.

Lawrence · #39 Post by **Lawrence** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 2:22 pm

Swifty wrote:My take on exchanges is that they should be for showing the rest of the country how great your scene is, including DJs. If you don't have a scene worth sharing then you shouldn't be having an exchange in the first place.

I agree, but can't it also serve the purposes of encouraging the local scene to grow or of encouraging others to visit your home town so that you don't just dance wiyth the same old people in the same old venues. The original motivation behind Exchanges in the first place was the desire to dance with more and different people from other parts of the country, not the desire to showcase your scene to the world.

Swifty wrote: I also hate the multi-room paradigm that's been adopted by many events these days. While it makes sense at a cross-style competition such as NADC & the like to have a room for West Coast Swing, Lindy Hop and Hustle, having different rooms for different styles at an event geared toward only one group of dancers (such as ALHC or an Lindy Exchange) only makes a night lack variety for me unless I walk from room to room. I also hate having to try to coordinate my taste at the moment with the people I want to dance with. Why not just have a good variety played in one room?

I understand your point, but often the tastes are as divergent as hustle and swing. Consider after-hours. There are two major late-night/after hours camps out there: those who want fast music so they stay awake, and those who want softer, subtler music so they can relax and chill a bit after dancing hard during the day and evening dances. That doesn't even get into the classic/groove debate. Playing "variety" to please both groups will result in a choppy set where neither rhythm is established.

I consider it a sign of the maturity and diversity of the National scene that people actually notice the difference and that people on both sides feel adament about one or the other.

KevinSchaper · #40 Post by **KevinSchaper** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 2:37 pm

GirlieGirl wrote: As one of the organizers of the Seattle Exchange, I can tell you that we weren't consulted about setting the area up as a groove/blues room. What was used was designated a lounge area that was meant to be used to get away from the dancing, to have a snack, visit, etc. Those that took over the room missed out on great music in the main room. Really, they did. Lucy and Travis played awesome sets.

They missed out on *great* sets.. actually, the one thing that night that really really bothered me was the guy djing the blues room announcing that he was gonna kill the blues room because Iain was going on in the main space.. that seemed *really* disrespectful to Lucy & Travis.

On the otherhand, they did actually ask some of the organizers - I know cuz I got asked if I had any speakers or anything they could use for it.. the feeling was, "whatever, as long as they're having fun".. I didn't necessarily like that it took over the chillout room, but I dunno if I woulda told 'em no either..

KevinSchaper · #41 Post by **KevinSchaper** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 2:41 pm

Lawrence wrote: (The emphasis will be "Groove" and mainstream swing with "classic" swing provided in alternative rooms.)

That's really dissapointing - I totally disagree about it being impossible to mix swing in the first 20 years with swing of the last 50 years, and I can't imagine choosing a room or being pidgeonholed into one of them.

Lawrence · #42 Post by **Lawrence** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 2:46 pm

KevinSchaper wrote:
Lawrence wrote: (The emphasis will be "Groove" and mainstream swing with "classic" swing provided in alternative rooms.)
That's really dissapointing - I totally disagree about it being impossible to mix swing in the first 20 years with swing of the last 50 years, and I can't imagine choosing a room or being pidgeonholed into one of them.

Sorry, don't get me wrong... I wrote that the "emphasis" will be that way, not that early swing is absolutely banned from the main rooms.

To anticipate other, more personal attacks, it also is not just my decision, but the decision of the Planning Committee. It also is not the only guideline: we definitely don't want the all-"Wade In the Water" phenomenon happening, either. We also will be taking steps to reduce redundancy between sets.

GirlieGirl · #43 Post by **GirlieGirl** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 2:50 pm

KevinSchaper wrote:On the otherhand, they did actually ask some of the organizers

Interesting. None that I talked to knew about it. Oh well. Can't undo it now.

(Heh... hiya, Pretty Boy!)

julius · #44 Post by **julius** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 4:00 pm

Lawrence wrote:There are two major late-night/after hours camps out there: those who want fast music so they stay awake, and those who want softer, subtler music so they can relax and chill a bit after dancing hard during the day and evening dances.

I think this is a good example of an artificial dichotomy created for rhetorical purposes and not actual substantive discussion. (Not intentionally..by accident.)

It's how "savoy vs. hollywood", "fast vs. groove", "track pants vs. vintage" all get started. It's a statement that posits only two choices and forces people to fall into line with a previously nonexistent "camp" and does not admit the possibility of any sort of shade of gray.

Your position is that late night sets should be more or less consistent in tone so that they aren't choppy and don't break up the feel. I think that's bogus, personally. If variety is good during the early evening, it's good later in the evening too. How can the stroke of midnight suddenly change music quality? Does Count Basie (new or old testament, you choose) suddenly start sucking because of what time of day it is?

Re: the st. louis blues and lindy exchange label. blues is an all-encompassing term just like "jazz" or "swing" is. to some dnacers, it means "get your grind on" music. to some others, it means "music based on the blues song structure". this is why labeling, marketing, bla bla are all useless when it comes to trying to describe to people what kind of music you are going to play at an exchange. exchanges that are targeted for a national audience should play everything a national audience expects to hear, not just what a small, vocal, online cross-section wants to hear. (although, of course, i still do not support in any way shape or form playing neo-swing at an exchange.)

My feeling is that if you go to something billed as a lindy exchange, you, as a dancer, should be prepared to hear almost anything under the sun. You will probably have more fun that way. Open ears, open mind, maximal fun.

Lawrence · #45 Post by **Lawrence** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 4:51 pm

julius wrote:I think this is a good example of an artificial dichotomy created for rhetorical purposes and not actual substantive discussion. (Not intentionally..by accident.)
It's how "savoy vs. hollywood", "fast vs. groove", "track pants vs. vintage" all get started. It's a statement that posits only two choices and forces people to fall into line with a previously nonexistent "camp" and does not admit the possibility of any sort of shade of gray.
My feeling is that if you go to something billed as a lindy exchange, you, as a dancer, should be prepared to hear almost anything under the sun. You will probably have more fun that way. Open ears, open mind, maximal fun.

Well put, and I'm glad someone said it because the ultimate goal should be to be open to new things so as to not allow old ones from getting too stale. Notwithstanding any impressions I might have created to the contrary on this list and elsewhere, I also agree completely with keeping an open mind and (at least silently to oneself

) acknowledging that there might be something to what "the other side" says.

Although I do completely agree with the sentiment of your post, I don't agree that the labels or distinctions here are to blame. The problem is not in creating labels or distinctions that do have a foundation in reality, but in what we do with those labels. Although the rhetoric might induce a tendency to polarize these debates, especially online, the differences are there and can further legitimate discussion if we get over the ego battles. There IS a rhythmic difference between classic and "groove" swing and there IS a contrary preference for fast or slower music at late night that runs at odds with each other. Some people prefer one or the other and some people prefer both and play both, but the differences are there and it only adds to the confusion to deny that they are there.

I submit that the more fundamental problem stems from not only how people express their critical comments (me included), but also how defensive the responses are (me included). The rhetoric and distinctions used is almost irrelevant once the motivations behind the discussion become mired in personal debates. THAT was what was behind the old hollywood vs. savoy debates. The problems arose because of the ancillary and completely-unnecessary identity issues (namely, "if you attack hollywood style, then you attack me personally because my identity as a dancer IS hollywood style"), not because somebody noted and discussed the differences.

I do the same thing (get too touchy) in response to Falty and Reuben's attacks on some of the music I love, and as a result, people think I hate classic music, which I don't, and that I proudly only play "groove" music, which I definitely don't.