Why are there so few bands / performances in MJ?

[David Bailey]

It's occurred to me a couple of times - when I've attended other music scenes, it's quite usual to have a live band playing, or to have some kind of performances.

For example, Cajun / Zydeco events seem to be very band-oriented.

Why is there no equivalent culture for MJ events?

[ducasi]

Because MJ is not a musical phenomena. It's a dance one.

Most other dance forms are closely linked to the music they are danced to. MJ can be danced to almost anything.

[under par]

I hate dancing to live bands.

I have been to Warmwell weekenders with live music and been various places where the Jive Aces have played and I just don't enjoy dancing to the live stuff.

Just an opinion.

Under Par

[David Franklin]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

It's occurred to me a couple of times - when I've attended other music scenes, it's quite usual to have a live band playing, or to have some kind of performances.

For example, Cajun / Zydeco events seem to be very band-oriented.

Why is there no equivalent culture for MJ events?

Because live bands are rubbish for dancing MJ to. They tend to play too fast, too loud, too fast, with a relentless "4 to the floor" rhythm (that's too fast), and just in case it wasn't fast enough, go off on extended 5 minute drumming solos at 180bpm. Oh, and did I mention they play too fast?

I don't understand why, but every band booked for MJ seems to be unable to actually play music you'd want to MJ to. It's not like it's impossible - there are bands who play music of a suitable style and tempo. But they don't seem to be the ones who actively market themselves as "dance bands".

[under par]

Originally Posted by David Franklin

Because live bands are rubbish for dancing MJ to. They tend to play too fast, too loud, too fast, with a relentless "4 to the floor" rhythm (that's too fast), and just in case it wasn't fast enough, go off on extended 5 minute drumming solos at 180bpm. Oh, and did I mention they play too fast?

I don't understand why, but every band booked for MJ seems to be unable to actually play music you'd want to MJ to. It's not like it's impossible - there are bands who play music of a suitable style and tempo. But they don't seem to be the ones who actively market themselves as "dance bands".

I AGREE! But you forgot to mention that they play music too fast

[Lynn]

I don't think its because they play too fast - that's about the choice of music they play or the type of bands that are booked.

I was at a ball on Sat night with a group of dancers and there was a live band. They just played a range of songs, everything from Mac the Knife to Mustang Sally. All perfectly dancable.

[David Franklin]

Originally Posted by Lynn

I don't think its because they play too fast - that's about the choice of music they play or the type of bands that are booked.

But the point is, those are the type of bands that are booked, at least in the South East. I can't tell you how many dance events I've been to where the live band has cleared the floor by playing track after track at 160+ bpm.

I was at a ball on Sat night with a group of dancers and there was a live band. They just played a range of songs, everything from Mac the Knife to Mustang Sally. All perfectly dancable.

Would I be right in thinking the band was booked "for the ball", and not specifically "for people to dance MJ to"? In my experience, a normal band will do a much better job of providing danceable music than one specifically picked for MJ. Crazy, but true.

[ducasi]

Originally Posted by David Franklin

I don't understand why, but every band booked for MJ seems to be unable to actually play music you'd want to MJ to. It's not like it's impossible - there are bands who play music of a suitable style and tempo. But they don't seem to be the ones who actively market themselves as "dance bands".

During the summer I heard this "Dance Orchestra" playing on an open-air bandstand. A lot of the music was quite chilled and would have been good to dance to. However, when you look at this page, you see what the problem is...

They switch to "upbeat" songs for people to dance to. This is probably fine for "muggle" dancing, and dance-styles suited for faster beats, but I'd probably prefer to dance to the music they think of as suitable for "background music".

I was at a function recently with a DJ who did the same thing – lots of lovely tunes I'd love to have danced to whilst we were eating, and then when the "dancing" started, the average tempo probably went up about 40-50 bpm! The worse thing was this was what the DJ thought we'd want to dance to.

[Lynn]

Originally Posted by David Franklin

But the point is, those are the type of bands that are booked, at least in the South East. I can't tell you how many dance events I've been to where the live band has cleared the floor by playing track after track at 160+ bpm.

Begs the question - why?

Originally Posted by David Franklin

Would I be right in thinking the band was booked "for the ball", and not specifically "for people to dance MJ to"? In my experience, a normal band will do a much better job of providing danceable music than one specifically picked for MJ. Crazy, but true.

Yep, just one table of MJers - the band was booked for 'muggle dancing' - and lots of people were up dancing. A few really predictable 'party songs' of course, but all good fun and quite danceable.

[David Franklin]

Originally Posted by Lynn

Begs the question - why?

I think the band often considers that it is the focus, and it's the dancers who need to adapt (or not). Quite recently, I was roped in to help teach MJ to people who'd never done it before. The pretext was that they had this band that played once a month, and they thought it would be nice to have a dance lesson. Well, we told them about 20 times what the sensible tempo would be, and we brought a CD for when we actually taught the class (@120bpm or so). And the band started, announced "this will be a bit quicker than you've been practising to", and proceeded to play at around 180bpm. It went about as well as you'd expect.

I also was at a MJ dancer's birthday party where they'd hired a band and DJ. The floor was packed while the DJ was playing, and the band completely cleared it. Now you'd think that under those circumstances, they'd look at what the DJ was playing, and choose stuff of a similar tempo. But no, they carried on at way over 180bpm to an empty floor. It was embarrassing, to be honest.

[David Bailey]

All these explain what the problem is.

None of them explain why. I mean, all we want is for them to play cover versions of tracks to a certain BPM - are bands genuinely too stupid or what?

The only band on the MJ circuit is the Jive Aces - and they're a good example of how bands can adapt. A few years back they were playing stuff which, frankly, was difficult to dance to. There were even comments on the forum about them...

However, they've adapted, they've modified, and they've expanded their repertoire, to an extent now where I'd be happy to go to an event they were at, possibly even enthusiastic. So it is possible. It's just very infrequent.

I take Ducasi's point - there's no "MJ music scene". But I don't see why it's not an avenue to explore - live bands at weekenders would seem an obvious choice for experimentation, for example.

So is the lack of live music an inherent weakness, or is that just the way things are?

[David Franklin]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

I mean, all we want is for them to play cover versions of tracks to a certain BPM - are bands genuinely too stupid or what?

Often, yes. Or at least, they have big egos, and they think "we're the musicians, we know what tempo to play". I think the most successful "live band at a MJ event" I've seen was at someone's birthday party where he knew the band really well. And basically, they played what he wanted them to. Sadly, that's pretty rare.

Of course, there's an argument that says if all you want is a band to play covers, then why bother having a band in the first place? That's the other side of the coin, and it's a trap I felt some of the live bands at Ashtons fell into a few years ago. All they did was play mainstream covers, and as live bands go, they were very good to dance to - right tempo, etc. But I was left thinking what's the point? I'd rather hear the original, to be honest.

Look at SCD, for heavens sake. I would assume the band they are using is one of the best in the business - they certainly seem a cut above anyone I've seen on the MJ circuit in terms of number of instruments, signers, etc. And yet every week there's at least one song (and usually several) that is left sounding like a pale imitation of the original recording.

So is the lack of live music an inherent weakness, or is that just the way things are?

I think there's an inherent problem making live music actually add anything to the event. From an organizers point of view, a band is only going to play for a small part of the evening, so you still have all your DJ costs. So a band is always going to cost extra. And they are going to have to be exceptionally good to seem better than music that was recorded under optimal circumstances.

Let me throw the question back. What do you see as the advantages of having a live band?

[Lynn]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

I mean, all we want is for them to play cover versions of tracks to a certain BPM - are bands genuinely too stupid or what?

That's exactly what the band did on Sat night.

Originally Posted by David Franklin

I think there's an inherent problem making live music actually add anything to the event. From an organizers point of view, a band is only going to play for a small part of the evening, so you still have all your DJ costs. So a band is always going to cost extra. And they are going to have to be exceptionally good to seem better than music that was recorded under optimal circumstances.

I think that is a big issue - they cost a lot more than a DJ and most of the time the dancers would be just as happy with a DJ.

But there are some advantages that I can see.

Usually in a smaller setting, there can be an interaction with the band and the dancers - the band can see the dancers enjoying their music and the two forms of expression sort of feed off each other. Only seen that a few times but it gives a real buzz to the evening - of course you can't automatically create that - it just happens.

A live band will play a slightly different version than you are used to, and that means you have to pay attention to the music and not just know when 'x' is going to happen.

Live music just sometimes adds something, and it makes a good night to take non dancing friends along to, they can enjoy the music and performance.

Disadvantages
All the stuff already said - too fast, 'they know best' (I've seen the same attitude from DJs though) etc.

Cost.

Plus - often too loud. I've given up even going along to anywhere with a salsa band anymore as in the past I've usually left within about 20 mins of the band coming on - the sound levels have been ridiculous!

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by David Franklin

Let me throw the question back. What do you see as the advantages of having a live band?

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.

[David Franklin]

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...

[Tiggerbabe]

Originally Posted by David Franklin

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...

One of the best live bands I've danced to was a Polish (I think ) Jazz Band when we were on the cruise, fantastic music and they seemed delighted to have people enjoying their music and wanting to dance to it.

On the same cruise, we danced to a classical trio, playing the most amazing music in the shopping mall clearly people weren't supposed to be dancing, but the music was too good not to