Early jazz at lindy dances

[Haydn]

In addition to driving swing songs like these -

One O'Clock Jump by Count Basie from the album The Complete Decca Recordings

What'cha Know Joe? by Tommy Dorsey from the album Jumpin' Jive

Flying Home by Will Bradley from the album Eight to the Bar: The Very Best of Will Bradley


- why isn't more early jazz like this played at lindy dances -

Algiers Stomp by the Mills Blue Rhythm Band from the album Harlem Heat

Swing, Brother, Swing by Willie "The Lion" Smith from the album The Lion Roars: His Greatest 1934-44

Diga Diga Doo by Duke Ellington from the album Duke's Men: The Small Groups, Vol. 1

Rigamarole by Ozzie and Harriet Nelson from the album The Nelson Touch: 25 Band Hits 1931-1941

Jungle Fever by Glen Gray & the Casa Loma Orchestra from the album Best of the Brunswick Years 1932-1934

[kitkat]

Because, generally, it either
1) sucks to lindy hop to (yet you can't find a partner on the floor who knows enough Charleston that they're comfortable doing a whole song to Charleston)
or
2) inspires you to lindy hop when you can hear certain frequencies but never actually is audible in those frequencies at a dance.

(note: I'm not talking about your songs in particular. That's just the general answer to your question and my impression of some of the bands you mentioned. If you think I'd change my mind, let me know and I'll listen to your songs soon--otherwise, I'll get to them after I finish cleaning my room. I'm on a short break!)


But don't worry--you're not the first to ask this question! And for many DJs, the answer was, "I don't know. Hey, let's try playing it as 40% of our sets or more!"

And listening to those DJs all night long was what made me come to conclusions 1 & 2.

[kitkat]

Okay, I delayed getting back to work and listened to your first song (Algiers Stomp).

That's perfectly lindyable as far as I can tell here in my room.

And it doesn't seem like it'd be too bad to play on many sound systems.

So, for that one, my answer is either #2 or a third option:

3) Songs like that are played a lot at dances--if you're in the right town and the sound systems are good enough.

[Toon Town Dave]

The question is the corollary to "why do scenes play rock 'n roll and neo-swing?"

I'd generally chalk it up to the maturity and tastes of the scene, where the teachers have the most influence. If the teachers don't appreciate earlier music (or in some cases swing music) and expose students to it, no one will dance to it. If no one dances to it, DJ's won't play it.

[trev]

As above, I think it depends on:

- Having a good sound system
- Having a crowd that has developed a taste for early jazz

You have to keep in mind that most people go out dancing to have a good time and socialise with other people. Very few are in it because they have a passion for jazz music or historical dance forms. For most newer dancers early jazz is way out of their comfort zone compared to what they are used to hearing on the radio: It can be hard work, and not everyone is there to do hard work - they just want to have a fun time.

Having said that, I would (and have) play(ed) those tracks you mentioned mixed in with more beginner-friendly fare.

[fredo]

- why isn't more early jazz like this played at lindy dances?

Algiers Stomp: great track, great band, loved by lindy hoppers and balboa dancers alike! I will play this from time to time, or for a contest.

Swing, Brother, Swing: that recording by the Lion is pretty tight with some nice sounds, but unless your scene has people that dig early jazz (as others have suggested also), this one will be tough to fill the floor with.

Diga Diga Doo: same as above-- sweet song, but unless you have some upbeat jungle music fiends in your scene this one will also not draw a huge crowd. It's a great track though.

The other two tracks I don't have, but the Willie Bryant Rigamorale is in similar taste to the tracks above. The energy is great, and its got lots of great rhythms, but the average lindy hopper might have trouble with it. A strong balboa scene helps with getting dancers out there for tunes like this.

I would play these in a smaller venue with a mix of dancers that I know can handle some early jazz. I might not play these in a large ballroom or at a dance with lots of beginners.

[KattenPejst]

I played that version of Swing, Brother, Swing last week for all the people in our scene that like to dance balboa.

[Lawrence]

Because we are playing to modern audiences who are accustomed to not needing to struggle to hear the basic rhythm, no less the subtle nuances.

Because listening to music is an audible, not just an intellectual, experience, and most dancers need to be able to hear the music easily in order to dance to it.

Because we can't just play to dancers of our caliber, assuming they are as obsessive about music and dancing as we are/were. Most dancers have enough trouble dancing, itself; they don't want to struggle with hearing the music, as well.


I love early jazz, and I listen to it all the time; but I don't play it much for dancing and don't enjoy dancing to it that much except for certain novelty nights. FAR FAR too many DJs try to force vintage music on dancers, which I should appreciate because it makes it FAR easier for me to please dancers by contrast simply because they can hear the music I play.


One other point that Matt Jones here in Austin has illuminated and that I overlooked until he pointed it out. There are many, many GREAT modern bands now that play GREAT early jazz; forcing vintage recordings on dancers ironically ensures that the music will die. [edit: yes, that is an overstatement; it only HELPS ensure the music will die; see below] These bands are forced into the bar and club circuit and struggle to exist because many of their target-market DJs (*US*) only play music from dead musicians; which, in turn, makes it difficult to find out about them.

To the extent you want to preserve the legacy of early jazz, we should support modern bands that play early jazz by buying and playing their music, not just playing the music from long-dead musicians who (despite our devoutest hopes) will STILL be dead the next time you play their music. Dean Mora, James Dapogny, Victrola, Hot Club, etc.

[Toon Town Dave]

Quick question for Haydn, is your question related to the style of music or the age of the recordings?

In the case of the age of recordings, I'd agree in part with Lawrence although I wouldn't go as far as make the same blanket generalization about audiences hearing the rhythm in newer vs older recordings.

In the case of style, I stand by my earlier suggestion that it has to do with the maturity of the scene. Scenes like Seattle would exemplify a more mature scene. There is lots of vintage music played, new dancers learn to dance to a lot of older jazz and there are lots of experienced folks around to demonstrate that you can dance Lindy Hop to that style of music.

[Haydn]

Quick question for Haydn, is your question related to the style of music or the age of the recordings?

It's related to both - I was referring to early recordings of early jazz, like those I mentioned.

[Haydn]

To the extent you want to preserve the legacy of early jazz, we should support modern bands that play early jazz by buying and playing their music, not just playing the music from long-dead musicians who (despite our devoutest hopes) will STILL be dead the next time you play their music. Dean Mora, James Dapogny, Victrola, Hot Club, etc.

Dead or not, the music sounds alive and kicking to me

[trev]

... forcing vintage recordings on dancers ironically ensures that the music will die. These bands are forced into the bar and club circuit and struggle to exist because many of their target-market DJs (*US*) only play music from dead musicians; which, in turn, makes it difficult to find out about them.

I disagree. To me, what the modern bands do best is provide the live experience. I believe that is their strength. When they record, they are putting themselves up for comparison with all the other recordings I have access to, and those tracks can be hard to beat. Some modern bands sound great and are a perfect fit for a set for dancing, but I find many others where their version of a track offers no worthwhile benefits over a superior original. (And when I say 'superior' I don't mean in the 'technical proficiency' manner - I mean the 'feel-it-in-your-soul, foot tapping' variety) I find it hard to include those modern tracks simply for the sake of supporting modern artists, when nearly all the dancers don't give a damn who it is on the recording anyway. They judge with their feet. To my mind you strengthen the early jazz legacy by incorporating excellent examples into a great night of dancing. While this sometimes means the modern bands get overlooked, I think I can have a more effective influence in promoting them by encouraging everyone to get out to their live gigs, and hiring them for our own big events.

[Lawrence]

... forcing vintage recordings on dancers ironically ensures that the music will die. These bands are forced into the bar and club circuit and struggle to exist because many of their target-market DJs (*US*) only play music from dead musicians; which, in turn, makes it difficult to find out about them.

I disagree. To me, what the modern bands do best is provide the live experience. I believe that is their strength. When they record, they are putting themselves up for comparison with all the other recordings I have access to, and those tracks can be hard to beat. Some modern bands sound great and are a perfect fit for a set for dancing, but I find many others where their version of a track offers no worthwhile benefits over a superior original. (And when I say 'superior' I don't mean in the 'technical proficiency' manner - I mean the 'feel-it-in-your-soul, foot tapping' variety) I find it hard to include those modern tracks simply for the sake of supporting modern artists, when nearly all the dancers don't give a damn who it is on the recording anyway. They judge with their feet. To my mind you strengthen the early jazz legacy by incorporating excellent examples into a great night of dancing. While this sometimes means the modern bands get overlooked, I think I can have a more effective influence in promoting them by encouraging everyone to get out to their live gigs, and hiring them for our own big events.

You didn't disagree; you made an unrelated retort to a different point than the one I made.

I guess I asked for generalities by speaking somewhat generally, but I did include a few names that do not produce just bad music that is recorded well. Yes, there are lots of modern "early-jazz style" bands recording bad, lifeless music in hi-fi, but those are not the bands I was talking about. I was talking about GREAT early jazz music from modern bands that is recorded well. Just like anything, you need to find it.

The problem is that many Swing DJs have such a HUGE predisposition to search obsessively through millions of vintage bins and then force the most crappy recordings onto mostly passive listeners at dances. But they don't consider anything that MIGHT POSSIBLY be just as good if not better from modern bands, plus it is recorded well so there is not an accessibility problem with the average dancer.

Now, yes, when DJing, I would compromise some "soulfulness" in return for actually being able to clearly hear the music: mostly because that is what the average dancer wants. But that is not what I was focusing attention upon, which was "SOULFUL," clearly-recorded early jazz.

[fredo]

There are many, many GREAT modern bands now that play GREAT early jazz; forcing vintage recordings on dancers ironically ensures that the music will die. These bands are forced into the bar and club circuit and struggle to exist because many of their target-market DJs (*US*) only play music from dead musicians; which, in turn, makes it difficult to find out about them.

I can understand not overplaying low-fi recordings during a set, but I think this argument about vintage recordings ensuring the death of early jazz is utter nonsense.

You're making a part to whole comparison, which doesn't work here. Just because some early jazz recordings aren't that clear doesn't mean they all aren't clear enough to dance to. Besides, over generalizing the word "vintage" is careless. Haydn gave examples, so we should be basing opinions on those examples, not the entirety of so called "vintage" recordings.

Also, I'm not sure why you're using the word "force" so much. DJs dont force music on dancers, they play it and dancers either dance or they dont. Shockingly, some dancers enjoy it! Besides, your claims of what an average dancer wants are founded on what?!

Finally, the conclusion that modern early jazz bands are "forced" into bar and club circuits because swing deejays dont play their music is fallacious. You're confusing association with causation. A deejay could play all modern bands all the time and not net any more gigs for that band as a result. Can deejays help modern bands get more dance gigs? Yes, but the reverse isn't necessarily true-- if I don't play their music at my dance they still have the same chance of getting a dance gig. Dancers respond to live gigs and word of mouth-- most dancers don't decide they like a band just based only on a recording they heard, they wait to hear them live-- why do i think that? because few actually come to the booth to ask about recordings, however after hearing a live modern band many people will be talking about their opinions about the band.

This is where I would agree with Trev-- I'll take an old recording that really moves me over a new recording that just has good sound quality but doesn't really inspire me--must be a preference difference between us. Are there "soulful" modern jazz bands with CDs to play from? Of COURSE! no one has argued for ONLY playing old recordings--Haydn simply asked why more early jazz recordings aren't played at dances.

[Mr Awesomer]

I appreciate the need to please the masses... but thankfully there are a few DJs who don't feel the need to dumb down their music selections to appease the mediocre... sorry... I mean "average."