SwingDJs

Some of you may remember me coining the word 'micromusicality' a few years ago. This is when a dancer attempts to musically express many or all of the emphases, breaks, high notes, glissandos, and so forth in the music.

Do you think this happened because people dance to DJed music? In my opinion, if you dance to recorded music that you hear very often, it becomes inevitable. This is not a slam on DJs. I think it micromusicality is an unintended consequence of DJing, though DJing is not be the sole cause of that effect.

The flip side of the argument (which jesse and I are having in IM) is that some bands play by rote and are predictable as well. But given an amazing live band with good soloists, and an amazing DJ with a deep book, what happens if each one plays week in and week out at the same venue? Will dancing evolve the same way?

julius wrote:In my opinion, if you dance to recorded music that you hear very often, it becomes inevitable.

Here, when the music becomes TOO familiar, people lose interest, and they don't get into micromusicality at all. Overall, this is a pretty relaxed scene, and I think that even if the music isn't played into the ground, people here will do goofy things instead of developing micromusicality.

I think there are cases where dancers get so used to a specific recordings that they can get in the state that you described. It also happens with live music. You can't deny that.

Dancers are able to demonstate more musicality the more times the hear a recording or live band. Seems like a natural thing that has existed for ages and ages.

I guess there is some sort of live band vs DJ dig implied, but I don't get it.

There is also a discussion about a dancer being overly musical, hitting too many breaks and generally being to "noisy" with their dancing. But, that is a discussion for another forum.

No dig is implied, unless you think I think micromusicality is bad. It bugs me when it occurs all the time (usually when I'm dancing), but it's not BAD per se.

You could rephrase the question as "does dancing to live music all the time lead the dance to be overly simplistic?" if you want. It's kind of the flip side of the same question.

julius wrote: You could rephrase the question as "does dancing to live music all the time lead the dance to be overly simplistic?" if you want.

I'm going to say "no." Because I think the argument, as presented, assumes that musicality, especially "micromusicality," only happens when a dancer does something at the exact same time something happens in the music.

I believe one can move in a way that could be construed as "micromusicality" in response to something in the music without it taking place at the exact same moment in time. That is to say, the inspiration and the response do not have to happen simultaneously.

In truth, that probably is even moreso the case if we don't limit the conversation to "micromusicality." Dancing to the structure, the dynamics, and/or the feel of a song can and should take place whether it's live or memorex. So, unless you try to equate "micromusical" with "more complex" (which is an argument that seems to be at least *somewhat* implied in the question, but I won't take up here), I'll say "no."

julius wrote:Some of you may remember me coining the word 'micromusicality' a few years ago. This is when a dancer attempts to musically express many or all of the emphases, breaks, high notes, glissandos, and so forth in the music.

I don't remember that, but then, I did a lot of drinking back then.

Do you think this happened because people dance to DJed music? In my opinion, if you dance to recorded music that you hear very often, it becomes inevitable. This is not a slam on DJs. I think it micromusicality is an unintended consequence of DJing, though DJing is not be the sole cause of that effect.

Actually, I think it's a result of rockstarism in the dance world and lax rules at competitions. It's about some dancers being so full of themselves that they forgot or distorted the reasons they came out to dance in the first place. *bait* *bait* *bait*

The flip side of the argument (which jesse and I are having in IM) is that some bands play by rote and are predictable as well. But given an amazing live band with good soloists, and an amazing DJ with a deep book, what happens if each one plays week in and week out at the same venue? Will dancing evolve the same way?

Jesse IMs you? MAN.

I'd agree with Gary that the answer is no. I'll start with a question. Can you be micromusical to "jumping at the woodside?" I think micromusicality started because tempos got slower around the time dancers discovered musicality. And like with any new trend it got overdone [and badly]. If familiarity breeded micromusicality than all the old dancers that danced to house bands would have developed micromusicality.

also i agree with nathan that there are some implied digs in the question. and i think his comment about dancers being too busy in their musicality is the real problem with micromusicality. It's the same problem with move junkies who just run an endless series of moves.

CafeSavoy wrote: I think micromusicality started because tempos got slower around the time dancers discovered musicality.

or maybe that the music that was getting played wasnt only slower, but also lacked the strong rhythm of swing and therefore there was no focus on that, just a focus on the melody, vocals, soloists etc.

CafeSavoy wrote: If familiarity breeded micromusicality than all the old dancers that danced to house bands would have developed micromusicality.

that arguement holds no weight, if you talk to people who were at the savoy, like sugar, frankie, norma etc, they will tell you the house bands wouldnt play the same song the exact same way everytime they played. Moods, tempo, feeling, and even melodies varied from night to night. even with the house bands.

Not to mention that the dancers at the savoy's emphasis in Lindy Hop was always on the rhythm.

falty411 wrote:

CafeSavoy wrote: If familiarity breeded micromusicality than all the old dancers that danced to house bands would have developed micromusicality.

that arguement holds no weight, if you talk to people who were at the savoy, like sugar, frankie, norma etc, they will tell you the house bands wouldnt play the same song the exact same way everytime they played. Moods, tempo, feeling, and even melodies varied from night to night. even with the house bands.

Not to mention that the dancers at the savoy's emphasis in Lindy Hop was always on the rhythm.

Not entirely true. Frankie will also tell you that they would buy music as well and there are predictable results even in live performance. Especially if you see the band 4-5 nights a week for years on end.

Kalman

CafeSavoy wrote:I think micromusicality started because tempos got slower around the time dancers discovered musicality.

Since I was stuck in LA I missed out on this trend until I began traveling (in 2000). Are these two things just a random correlation or are they related? I watched some clips from Can't Top the Lindy Hop and while the dancing technique per se wasn't as sharp as modern dancing, there didn't seem to be much micromusicality going on. Basically I'm interested in what causes this phenomenon, and I will freely admit why.

I'VE BEGUN DOING IT AND I CAN'T STOP. HELP ME.

Rockstar and DJ-instructor (not DJs and instructors) driven, if you ask me.

Kalman

julius wrote:Basically I'm interested in what causes this phenomenon, and I will freely admit why.

I'VE BEGUN DOING IT AND I CAN'T STOP. HELP ME.

I'm not quite sure if I understand your definition of micromusicality, but that doesn't stop me from offering up an opinion

One thing my fellow follows have discussed is a tendency for leads to get overly complicated with their dance after they've reached a certain skill level. This is at the point where the lead has many moves in muscle memory and has good frame, so the lead doesn't need to concentrate on moves or leading that much; what happens next is the lead experiments with improvising --- this manifests as seeing how much footwork one can do without sacrificing the lead; seeing just how many free spins can be done in a row, etc. Most leads work through this phase and come out of it being a better dancer - i.e. being more creative, but not going over the top.

Not sure if this comment is applicable, but some good advice here is to only try to hit one musical idea per phrase, or try to give the follow more room to improvise (thus reducing the tendency to be too creative on the leads part).

And when we danced in LA Julius, I didn't notice you indulging in micromusicality, in fact I was impressed by how much you've improved in the past couple of years.

Perhaps as the collective lindy hop scene gets better, micromusicality is inevitable; even with a live band or a DJ with a deep book, swing music has a lot of repeated patterns - rhythmically and harmonically -- for example, you will probably be able to hit a lot of breaks with any version of C Jam Blues, be it live or memorex.

To summarize, I think micromusicality is a natural trend of the collective scene being more sophisticated, in both dance skill and music appreciation.

I believe certain instructors started talking about how to use the music, and how to use body isolations, and then dancers thought about those ideas, started playing with it without instruction, and took these ideas to a point far beyond what any major instructor meant in the 1st place.

But I do appreciate hitting some things in the music, I think what you are talking about is people trying to hit everything in the music at the same time. An arm moves to a melody, footwork going to the solo, butt shaking hitting a trupet section, etc, all at the same time.

** Edit, I wrote my post about the same time as Roy's, sorry if it is redundant to what he wrote above - Nathan

mousethief wrote:Rockstar and DJ-instructor (not DJs and instructors) driven, if you ask me.

Kalman

I doubt that Julius was referring to Steven Mitchell and other rock star teachers when he wrote about this. When they do something, it usually looks awesome. For Regular Joe dancers like me and many of you, a lot gets lost in the translation.

I guess if all the teachers are going to teach musicality, we ought to be ok with a lot of dancers getting a little off, either by being too musical or being off in some other way.

Also, is this Yehoodi? All this dance technique talk has me forgetting what Board I am on.

Nathan

Too close to make that call, ND.

Many of us got our first DJ books from selections we picked up in workshops. That formed our initial sets and often were what set us apart as DJs.

Julius' point is begging the question: How much of this are we, as DJs, responsible for?

Kalman