Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidJames  It's like any other value-add - a better experience, ideally. More atmosphere, more fun, more enjoyment.
Eventually, possibly even an improved culture based around music, who knows...
Dancing to live music, if it's the right music, can be much better than dancing to a track. It can just feel better. |
I feel I'm being Mr Grumpy here, so maybe I should just shut up. But the above looks awfully unconvincing to me. It reminds me of people defending their £100/meter speaker cables, to be honest. Or more generously, it's talking about the advantages of some idealised band-nirvana, while ignoring the reality. I've been dancing about 10 years now, and
for dancing, I don't think I've ever felt a band rose above "
well, it's not as good as having a DJ, but it's perfectly acceptable". I grant you a band may be more atmospheric if you're sitting around instead of dancing though.
To not be completely negative, I can see that a good impro-jazz band playing at blues-like-speeds might work well. We were at a jazz club in the states where they were playing music like this, and I think it would have been great to dance to. So, of course, the venue owners said dancing wasn't allowed...
