How Dance Effectiveness May Influence Music Preference Michael Strickland

Home , Collegiate shag, Frame (dance), Frankie Manning, Historical dance, Jazz dance, Partner dance

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2014 Swing Dancing: How Dance Effectiveness May Influence Music Preference Michael Strickland

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF MUSIC

SWING DANCING: HOW DANCE EFFECTIVENESS MAY

INFLUENCE MUSIC PREFERENCE

MICHAEL STRICKLAND

A Thesis submitted to the College of Music in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2014

Michael Strickland defended this thesis on November 10, 2014.

The members of the supervisory committee were:

Brian Gaber Professor Directing Thesis

John Geringer Committee Member

Kimberly VanWeelden Committee Member

Frank Gunderson Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that this thesis has been approved in accordance with university requirements.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks to my God for breath and life who gave me my wife, Rebecca Strickland who is my co- laborer in life and research and my joy and gift in this world. Thanks to my kids Elias and Lily for patiently waiting on dad and for traveling with mommy and daddy across the country to research this thesis.

Thanks to my editors, Dr. Gary Kelm and Sandra Bennage, for catching all my grammar goofs. Thanks to

Professor Gaber, my major professor for listening so long to my ideas, and guiding and keeping me on track. And finally thanks to my committee, Dr. VanWeelden, Dr. Geringer, and Dr. Gunderson, for bringing all their bountiful expertise and guidance to a subject I have loved so much.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ...... vi List of Figures ...... vii Abstract ...... viii CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Purpose of Thesis ...... 1 CHAPTER TWO - HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...... 3 The Historical Relationship of Jazz Music and Dance ...... 3 A Brief History of the Revival of Swing Dancing in America (1980-present) ...... 4 What is Swing? ...... 7 Relevant Attributes of Swing Music ...... 8 Cultural, Socioeconomic and other Potential Influences in the Modern Era ...... 10 The Case for Dance Effectiveness and Music Preference ...... 13 Summary ...... 14 CHAPTER THREE - DISCUSSION OF PRESENT DAY LINDY HOP EVENTS ...... 16 The Modern Ballroom versus the Historical Ballroom ...... 16 Modern Lindy Hop Terminology – Glossary (ordered by category) ...... 23 CHAPTER FOUR - STUDY 1 - QUALITATIVE STUDY OF TRADITIONAL JAZZ MUSICIANS ...... 28 The Case for the Study of Musician and Dancer Inter-Relationships ...... 28 Overview of Interview Questions ...... 29 Participants ...... 32 Textual Analysis and Discussion of Responses ...... 32 Qualitative Summary ...... 53 CHAPTER FIVE - STUDY 2 - PROCEDURE FOR QUANTITATIVE STUDY ...... 56 The Need for a Baseline ...... 56 Review of Purposes and Research Questions ...... 59 Method ...... 59 Limitations ...... 65 Analysis of Data ...... 66 CHAPTER SIX - QUANTITATIVE RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ...... 70 Part A - Demographic Survey Results and Analysis ...... 70 Part B – Individual Dance Ratings Results ...... 79 CHAPTER SEVEN - DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ...... 83 Describing the Lindy Hop Community ...... 83

Discussion of the Individual Dance Ratings ...... 86 The Effect of Demographics upon Individual Dance Ratings ...... 87 Implications of the Qualitative Study of Musicians ...... 88 Recommendations for Further Study ...... 91 Conclusion ...... 93 APPENDICES ...... 95 A - IRB APPROVAL AND CONSENT FORMS ...... 95 B - DANCE LOG BOOKLET ...... 100 C - DEMOGRAPHICS QUESTIONS ...... 101 D - MUSICIAN’S INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ...... 103 References ...... 104 Biographical Sketch ...... 107

LI ST OF TABLES

Table 1 – Variable Names and Likert Scale Ranges ...... 71

Table 2 – Demographic Characteristics by Event ...... 71

Table 3 – Counts for Rank in Terms of Importance to your Dancing ...... 75

Table 4 - Dance Log Distribution Counts ...... 79

Table 5 - Demographic Influences upon Dance Log Ratings ...... 88

LI ST OF FI GURES

Figure 1 - Starting Year ...... 72

Figure 2 - Level of Expertise ...... 73

Figure 3 - Rank in Terms of Importance to your Dancing ...... 76

Figure 4 - Starting Year by Ranking Categories ...... 77

Figure 5 - Level of Expertise by Ranking Category ...... 78

Figure 6 - Dance Log Distributions ...... 80

vii

ABSTRACT

The overall purpose of this study is to establish the baseline for a new line of research into the effective relationship between traditional jazz musicians and swing dancers in current social dancing environments. The study is a mixed-method study utilizing a qualitative study to understand and describe the values and performance practices of musicians who play for swing dancing plus a quantitative study to examine the preferences and behaviors of dancers. The study gathered data at four different Lindy

Hop swing dance events throughout the Eastern United States.

Part A of the quantitative section of the study gathered demographics data with an in-person survey form. Demographics data was analyzed with descriptive statistics and tested for significant interactions within the data. A total of 236 dancers participated with 1050 different dances being rated.

Participants were closely divided into “leads” (n = 122) and “follows” (n = 112). Results from the demographics study showed a median year of 2009 in which dancers started dancing the Lindy Hop.

They also had a median Level of Expertise of Intermediate/Advanced. Leads reported a higher Level of

Expertise than follows. Dancers attend dances a median twice a week, and travel from four to eight times a year to Lindy Hop events. The four dance events differed significantly by Starting Year (p = 0.006),

Level of Expertise (p < 0.001), Travel Frequency (p = 0.001).

Part B of the quantitative section gathered ratings of individual dances using a dance log in which each participant rated six different dances along five metrics: Dance Rating, Song Rating, Song

Familiarity, Partner Familiarity and Partner Skill level. The means and standard deviations for each of the booklets ratings are: Song Rating (M=3.94, SD=0.78), Dance Rating (M=4.01, SD=0.84), Song

Familiarity (M=3.09, SD=1.47), Partner Familiarity (M=3.04, SD=1.50), and Partner Skill (M=2.96,

SD=1.12). There was a moderate correlation (n=981) between Dance Rating and Song Rating of rs =

0.427. There was a moderate correlation of rs = 0.466 between Song Familiarity and Song Rating

(n=1023), and of rs = 0.336 between Dance Rating and Partner Skill (n=979). All other correlations are weak.

viii

The qualitative section utilized interviews of four musicians from the Lindy Hop community that were transcribed to identify markers of influence and descriptive terminology and categorized into five themes: Musician Descriptors, Dancer Descriptors, Environmental Descriptors, Performance Practice

Descriptors, and Community Descriptors. Musician Descriptors are variables based on the musician’s background and experience. Dancer Descriptors identified factors pertaining to general dancer expectations. Environmental Descriptors center on factors involving the ballroom setting, such as size and audience proximity. Performance Practice Descriptors, the most extensive group describes the specific methods and variables involved in performing for dancers. Community Descriptors lists the ideological values, relationship types and phrases used to describe the swing dance community.

In the discussion, each of these three sections are combined to present an overview summary of the demographics, patterns and practices of the Lindy Hop community with the purpose of creating a baseline upon which to base future research.

CHAPTER ONE

I NTRODUCTI ON

Purpose of Thesis

The purpose of this study is to establish the baseline for a new line of research into the effective relationship between traditional jazz musicians and swing dancers in current social dancing environments.

In order to provide a balanced overview, both from the perspective of the musician as well as the perspective of the dancer, the thesis is a combination of two separate studies. The first is a qualitative study to understand and describe musician’s values and performance practices of musicians. The second is a quantitative study meant to determine the demographic characteristics of swing dancers and their behavioral preferences and practices when dancing. This study’s focus population is the present day

Lindy Hop dance community.

Study One - Qualitative Study of Musicians

This qualitative study’s purpose is to document and identify the language and concepts utilized by musicians who play for swing dancing within the Lindy Hop community and establish a set of potential markers of influence within their practice and a set of common language descriptors. This study will focus on the interactions musicians have with dancers and the performance practices relevant to the relationship. This analysis of the musicians will provide a context in which to discuss the results of the

Study Two.

Research Questions

1. What are the demographic differences between musicians interviewed?

2. How do swing dance musicians describe their performance practice and processes for playing music for dancers?

Study Two - Quantitative Study of Dancers

The study is intended to examine the dancer from two contextual views. Part A is an overview of the dance related demographics of the population and deals with factors that are primarily static, such as

when a dancer first starting dancing the Lindy Hop. Part B examines the dancer’s perception of individual dances (a total of six per participant in this study). It examines the relationship of enjoyment, familiarity and partner skill.

Part A – Demographics Survey

The purpose of Part A is to establish a descriptive overview of the Lindy Hop community utilizing a demographics survey of Lindy Hop dancers present at Lindy Hop events, to determine their basic dance oriented demographics and their ideological approach to the dance.

Research Questions

1. What are the dance oriented demographics of the dancers surveyed?

2. Does the demographic data vary by Dance Role or between various Dance Events?

3. What aspects of the dance are most important to each participant?

Part B – I ndividual Dance Ratings

The purpose of Part B is to determine whether corollary relationships exist between the dancers enjoyment of the dance and song (Dance Rating and Song Rating), familiarity with the song and dance partner (Song Familiarity and Partner Familiarity), and the perceived skill level of his/her’s partner

(Partner Skill).

Research Questions

4. Do correlations exist within the characteristics rated by the participants for individual dances?

5. Do any of the dance environment and demographic characteristics have a significant effect on ratings given for individual dances?

CHAPTER TWO

HI STORI CAL CONTEXT AND REVI EW OF LI TERATURE

The Historical Relationship of Jazz Music and Dance

“What type of music makes people want to dance?” This is a common question with regard to a ballroom or dance floor setting. For the dancer, this question is potentially influenced by numerous factors: music preference, arousal level, embodied cognition, cultural influence, dance partner relationships, and many others. The question is particularly difficult to quantify when applied to social dances such as the Lindy Hop, which incorporate improvisational elements in both the music and the dance. The Lindy Hop is a combination of European partner dancing and African posture and rhythms; a unique melding which dominated American culture for over two decades from the late 1920’s to the

1940’s (Stearns & Stearns, 1968). After declining from prominence in the 1950’s, this treasured American folk dance re-entered popular society beginning in the mid 1980’s, peaked in popularity in the late 1990’s and continues to persist presently in a vibrant and active international dance scene (McMains & Robison,

2002).

In the 1920’s to 1940’s when social dances such as the Lindy Hop were in their prime, it was the ballroom that was the measure of success for a band (Malone, 1996). The ballroom had one of the most discriminating, yet rewarding of audiences, which voted both with their presence and their feet (Spring,

1997). The country’s best jazz musicians sought to play in venues such as the Savoy Ballroom, to determine if they truly could be called a “dance band” (Stearns & Stearns, 1968). Musicians of the time, such as Lester Young considered the practice relational, stating “I wish jazz was played more often for dancing. The rhythm of the dancers comes back to you when you are playing” (Stearns & Stearns, 1968, p. 325). Musicologist Fred Maus, writing about musical unity, argued that musical experience is more than a validation for the success of a work. It is “the main subject-matter, of musical analysis and criticism” (Maus, 1999). In the same way, with dance music, in could be said that the dance experience is the main subject-matter of the dance/music analysis and criticism. Considering the historically co-

dependent development of swing music with swing dance, it is difficult to conceive how to examine one accurately without the other.

A Brief History of the Revival of Swing Dancing in America (1980-present)

There are relatively few articles within academia that document the revival of Lindy Hop in

America from the time period of the 1980’s to the present. McMains and Robison in their article Swingin

Out provide a summary of its history, but this does not account for the last 12 years of development

(McMains & Robison, 2002). Other published studies focused on the influence of the late 1990’s swing dance craze, which while significant as part of the history of the revival, does not accurately represent the community as it currently exists (Renshaw, 2006). Most information regarding the recent history is now actually found online in the form of blogs, web forums, event information, and in the personal records of event organizers. Interviews of established teachers and performers are common at swing dance events, such that a developing oral and social history now exists within the community (Workshop and LED Schedule ILHC, 2014). This thriving international dance community puts on weekend events, week-long camps, and competitions throughout the year. There is no central organizational body for these events. Instead they are organized by various regional organizations and individuals.

In the 1980’s, the Lindy Hop was essentially an extinct dance. What people referred to as “Lindy” or more generically “Jitterbug” was no longer the recognizable original dance, but instead condensed into either a simplified six-count version of the dance, Rock ‘n’ Roll dancing, or ballroom swing (Giordano,

2007, p. 300). Yet, small groups of dancers, mostly from the ballroom dance community, began at this time to took a deeper interest in the Lindy Hop and its origins These dance aficionados found inspiration from a variety of sources. Some gathered the stories of older generations, some found the Life magazine article on Lindy Hop from 1943, or obtained a glimpse of Lindy Hop in old movies such as “Day at the

Races” or “Hellzapoppin”. Inspired and excited by what they saw and heard, these dancers wanted to preserve and perhaps even revive something which they considered an important part of American cultural history.

These dancers took various routes to learn the Lindy Hop. Some used the old movies, which featured dance troupes like Whitey’s Lindy Hoppers and learned by imitation (Westerlund, 2011). Some went a step further and sought out the original dancers, identifying them from credits in the movies, or the Life magazine article and a number of other clues (Dance Perspectives Foundation, Inc., 2004, p.

254). Many of these dancers were still available, some still dancing, having simply waned from the public eye. In 1982, dancers like Frankie Manning, Norma Miller, George Lloyd, Al Minns, and Willa Mae Ricker were gathering again at old Small’s Paradise which had reopened in Harlem (Giordano, 2007, p. 300). On the west coast, Lindy Hopper Dean Collins of “Buck Pirates (1943)” and other Hollywood movies was still active. Several of the present day master instructors in the Lindy Hop community first received instruction by seeking out these historical Lindy Hop dancers (Sykes, 2014).

Between learning from the old dancers and imitation from video, there grew enough of an interest that small gatherings of new Lindy Hop dancers began to form. Regional dance groups such as the New York Swing Dance Society (founded in 1984) formed. Outside of New York, groups in California and Washington, D.C., and even a group of dancers from Sweden that would eventually form the Rhythm

Hot Shots, all began to teach and perform Lindy Hop (Westerlund, 2011). In time, this increasing energy and excitement would lead to some of the first national gatherings. One of the first was the Herrang

Dance Camp in Herrang, Sweden (formed in 1982), who in 1985 invited Frankie Manning, originally of

Whitey’s Lindy Hoppers, to teach there (Westerlund, 2011). However, at an earlier date in May of 1984,

Frankie Manning’s 80th birthday would mark one of the first national gatherings of Lindy Hoppers in

America. Called “Can’t Top the Lindy Hop”, its effect was to energize the growing communities with the knowledge that there were now many others enjoying this incredible dance. Lindy Hop “scenes” began to pop up all over the country (Giordano, 2007, p. 306). Weekend workshops were taught as new and old teachers alike began teaching and travelling from scene to scene. In addition to the Herrang Dance Camp in Sweden, week-long dances camps such as “Wild Week” in Seattle, Washington and “Catalina” on

Catalina Island, California that were devoted to teaching the Lindy Hop were initiated.

As these fledgling “scenes” progressed into the 1990’s, interest in the Lindy Hop and swing dance was further supported by a simultaneous rising interest in swing music. Rockabilly and Punk Rock, both counter-culture movements themselves, birthed a new counter-culture music movement, Neo-Swing. The national rise to popularity of bands like Big Bad Voodoo Daddy, the Brian Setzer Orchestra, Squirrel Nut

Zippers, Cherry Poppin Daddies, and Royal Crown Revue saw many of their songs ride the charts to become Billboard Top 40 hits during this period (Brian Setzer - Chart history Billboard, 2014), (Squirrel

Nut Zippers - Chart history Billboard, 2014). This rising interest in “swing” music created a parallel rise of interest in the corresponding dance type. Night clubs across the country began offering “Swing Dance” nights, with DJ’s playing the new music. The emerging Lindy Hop community utilized this interest as a way to establish new recruits for the dance and the dance classes they offered. Many dancers and historians now mark the “Khakis Swing” television commercial for The Gap clothing store in the summer of 1998 as the peak of popularity (Giordano, 2007). As the national interest in the music waned, an established set of regional dance “scenes” remained, which were supported by a developing network of

Lindy Hop “events” to which interested dancers could travel. The Neo-Swing music was replaced with an increasing interest in the original swing era music of the 1920-40’s as well as that of other eras.

DJ’s within the Lindy Hop community began growing their knowledge of the music supported by the rise of the internet and the creation of online resources to support this work (Yehoodi - Yehoodi.com,

1999-2014), (www.swingdjs.com View forum - Swinging Music, 2002-2014). Live music for Lindy Hop events at this time was initially regional in scope, but the increase in the number and scope of the swing dance events permitted more live bands to be hired for the bigger events. Several of today’s most influential bands in Lindy Hop first began playing for dancers between 1998 and 2000 (Anonymous

Interviews, 2014). However, DJ’s and recorded media was the dominant method of providing music for dances.

From this overview, there are two specific attributes that standout about the Lindy Hop Revival’s development. The first is that the community, boosted in popularity by the rise of Neo-Swing music, has sustained and developed itself beyond that period based around an educational model. The teaching of

classes has become essential to developing and maintaining interest in the dance and for at least the first ten years was the most important draw for people to attend and be part of the larger national gatherings.

The second attribute is that the music provided for these events and especially local and regional dances has by in large been from recorded media, particularly during the first two decades of the revival period.

In other words, the music and the expectations of the dancers have been established as part of a DJ based culture. These attributes will be examines further in Chapter 3.

What is Swing?

To begin an inquiry into the relationship between swing music and dance, the term “swing” must first be defined. This seemingly subjective term has been continually defined and re-defined since its inception.

Citing musicians and dancers, some historians define “swing” subjectively within the ballroom experience.

They describe it as music that generates a “flowing, lifting momentum”, whose effect on dancers is “to increase the energy and speed of execution” (Malone, 1996, p. 103). Most music research studies, however, define “swing” within the confines of the musician’s performance practice and perspective., rather than the listener or dancer’s perspective. Collier examined the phrasing and timing of solos performed by established artists such as Louis Armstrong (Collier & Collier, Spring 2002). Lindsay and

Nordquist, proposed specific rhythmic descriptions of “swing rhythm” and utilized quantitative analysis to examine these rhythms within established recordings (Lindsay & Nordquist, 2007). Another line of research stems from Charles Keil’s 1966 description of swing as a result of the asynchronicity between the instruments of the rhythm section, particularly the bass and drums, which he termed “Participatory

Discrepancies” (Keil, 1966). Although this theory has received a certain amount of support, Butterfield’s

2010 study calls into question the perception of such timing differences to the average listener

(Butterfield, Participatory discrepancies and the perception of beats in jazz, 2010). He further refined the theory and suggested that “the central value in jazz timekeeping is not a beat that ‘breathes’, but simultaneity between bass and drums in their maintenance of a rigorously steady pulse without perceptible deviations from isochrony. It is only against this precision, I believe, that PDs can be

activated for expressive purposes.” The Butterfield study does broaden the definition of swing to consider the listener’s perspective, within the performative or pedagogical context.

Only a few studies investigate the question from the dancer’s experience. One such study is

Madison’s phenomenological study on “groove” and “swing” which demonstrates that people do consistently recognize certain songs as “swinging”, by consistently using the terms “swing” when defining music that invoked dance movement (Madison, 2006). However, this recognition has no specifically associated musical descriptor. This leaves the query with a validation that while “swing” is a recognizable attribute, its exact musical attributes remain ambiguous. In other words, while recognizing a song as

“swing” is trivial; defining what makes that song “swing” is difficult. This raises the question as to why there appears to be little interest in research on “swing” as part of the dancer’s experience? One possible answer is that there has yet to be enough time elapsed to warrant such interest. However, it has been over 25 years since the revival began. The movement reached its peak in popularity around the 1998-

2000 national swing fad, but since then has steadily grown in a more foundational sense outside the national eye, and therefore outside the academic eye. As previously discussed, most of the research to date in swing dancing both the historical era (1920’s -40’s) and the modern era (1980-present) has been qualitative and historical research, even when the topic as focused specifically on musician and dancer interactions (Spring, 1997). Despite this acknowledgement by historians that swing music and dance have a co-dependent background, new music research into the question of the definition of “swing” continues to ignore this conclusion. With the modern swing dance community in a matured form, and in the eyes of some (Anonymous Interviews, 2014), even at a level equal to that of the historical era, it is an opportune time for such an inquiry. While such an initial inquiry is unlikely to answer the “What is swing?” question definitely, this new line of research could be the path to a better understanding of this almost century old question.

Relevant Attributes of Swing Music

The preliminary step in an investigation of the relationship of swing music with dancing must be to identify prominent musical attributes relevant to the dance context. The two more obvious attributes

are tempo and length; a dancer can only physically exert for finite periods of time and at finite tempi.

Tempo and length should naturally correlate to level of experience as more experienced dancers tend to dance more efficiently.1 These limitations imply a set of boundaries for tempo and length that are generally accepted. Another critical attribute is musical timing, which is the basis of several theories describing “swing”. There are numerous studies on musical timing. These examine issues such as: tactus

(Martens, 2011), timing among musicians (Goebl & Palmer, 2009), timing of musicians versus nonmusicians (Rammsayer, Buttkus, & Altenmüller, 2012), and spatiotemporal relationships (Luck & Sloboda,

2009), (Hove & Keller, 2010). Two studies also examine timing in relation with dance: one for scaling issues with and without music (Stevens, Emery, Wang, Kroos, & Halovic, 2009) and the other utilizing gesture analysis to examine the spatiotemporal relationship (Naveda & Leman, 2010). However, neither of these studies investigated swing dancing specifically.

These lines of research led this researcher to perform a pilot study in 2012 to examine visual beat perception within Lindy Hop. The purpose of the study was to ascertain with what precision viewers could reliably recognize the musical beat in partner dancing. The study used a model found in lip-sync research and observed a reliable recognition of the beat by participants for deviations as short as 270 ms.

Furthermore, beat perception appeared contextualized to the specified musical example, and the resulting choreography. Strong musical accents in conjunction with clear phrasing resulted in improvised dance that was more recognizable and reliable for the purpose of visual beat perception. This study again affirmed that the improvisatory nature of both jazz music and dance presents a situation in which the co- dependent nature of the relationship becomes a key descriptor in any examination of the subject.

Subsequently, a second exploratory study was conducted with the intent to examine the influence of movement on the dancer’s musical preferences. As cited in earlier studies, music preference, while an excellent measurement for a dance/music study, contains numerous potential influences such as personality, social issues, culture, physiological arousal (Sedimerier, Weigelt, & Waither, 2011) and musical training (Ginocchio, 2009). Swing music specifically offers additional challenges, such as racial

1 This point itself begs for a study.

and sociological influences which must be accounted for as well (Morrison, 1998). This study was a controlled study using a number of song excerpts and multiple partnerships. This study demonstrated little to no significance for the case of movement on music preference, further emphasizing the difficulty of control for outside influences. Also observed in the study was a consistency in music preference despite the presence of movement.

Cultural, Socioeconomic and other Potential I nfluences in the Modern Era

Racial and socioeconomic demographics are relevant in understanding dancer and musician behaviors, and like the other attributes examined in this study, they affect in an undetermined way the music and dance inter-relationship. However, since such demographics are representative of the community as it exists, they will be considered as a controlled variable for the purpose of this study. The establishment of a detailed demographic description of the population is a suggested topic for future research. Nevertheless, this segment will attempt to provide an overview from author’s observations of how the current Lindy Hop scene understands and addresses these issues, in light of the historical impact these issues had on the original Lindy Hop era, and provide contextualization towards a more indebt understanding of the study’s findings.

The Lindy Hop is historically categorized as an African-American social dance (Dance Perspectives

Foundation, Inc., 2004, p. 201). However, racial demographics of most present swing dance events belie this categorization. The scenes’ racial makeup is still diverse, but the participation of African-Americans has diminished. Racial diversity within Lindy Hop has an historic basis. The Savoy Ballroom in Harlem, NY in the 1920’s-40 was, and is today, perhaps the most celebrated ballroom of the original Lindy Hop era, and unlike its contemporaries in New York City, the Roseland Ballroom and the Alahambra, the Savoy was an integrated ballroom. This designation is a significant marker as it was decades before the civil rights movement. Similarly, within the modern Lindy Hop community racial diversity is also highly valued, even if not always visible demographically. For instance, the Frankie Manning Foundation offers a scholarship program called the Ambassador program (Foundation, 2014). The criterion for the program specifies that:

Specifically, recipients will come from one of the following two groups:

 Predominantly African-American communities throughout the USA

 New geographical areas outside the USA where Lindy Hop is in a very early stage of

adoption and development.

Scholarships include round-trip transportation, basic room and board, full classroom and

activity participation in the dance camp.

These criteria value two factors: racial diversity and geographical diversity. This demonstrates that the managers of this scholarship appear to realize that the African-American demographic is not adequately represented. This is a disappointing reality for modern Lindy Hoppers given that so many of the celebrated figures of the historical era were African-American. In light of Morrison’s study, which demonstrated that racial influences have a significant effect on music preferences, the exact racial demographic makeup of the modern Lindy Hop community is a topic of interest for further research

(Morrison, 1998). However, since the reality of the current scene is a marked lack of racial diversity, racial influences may not be a significant factor influencing current music and dance preferences. It is a variable when making comparisons with the historical Lindy Hop era. Diversity, however, is not the only major difference between the historical community and the present one.

The presence of a scholarship such as the Frankie Manning’s Ambassador Program also demonstrates another defining attribute. The Lindy Hop community of the modern era is built and propagated on an educational model. (This topic is discussed further in Chapter 3). Also, participation is this education model can be financially demanding, at least if one is participating on the national level.

Regular participation in the national Lindy Hop scene, where the best dancers and the best musicians congregate, implies a certain socio-economic status due to travel, time, and event expenditure.

It is a common assumption within the Lindy Hop community that one must travel to become a better dancer. It is important to travel in order to dance with different and better partners and to learn from the top instructors. This is particularly true for those from the smaller scenes. For instance, the top instructors (outside of their own scene) are now seen primarily at the large “national” level events, as

their presence at the smaller regional weekend events have become less common. Whether perceived as necessary or not, such participation comes at a significant economic cost. An overview of national events shows a range of approximately $150 to $500 (depending on “pass” type purchased) for events ranging from four to seven days in length. The mean cost is approximately $300. Furthermore, food and lodging is typically included only at the more extensive “camp” events, which average between $400-500 in cost.

The Lindy Hop community, like many in the United States is largely market driven. This is not an inherently negative valuation, yet it does affect the socio-economic makeup of the group. The modern

Lindy Hop community has traditionally acknowledged this and several social strategies are often utilized to help create community support for the most people possible. One tradition is that of providing

“hosting” at events. More common at regional events, this is the practice of local dancers opening their houses to travelers coming into town and “hosting” the “out-of-towners” at no cost. What makes this unique is that many times the “hosts” and “out-of-towners” do not even know each other. It is a testament to the trust and comradery found within the community. Second to this are room sharing arrangements at the national events. These events, which are hosted in hotels, summer camps and college campuses, draw participants beyond what “hosting” can accommodate. Rather, the events reserve blocks of rooms that can be rented and provide a process to help pair roommates. The sharing is at times a formal process and other times informal, but the goal is much the same as hosting – be friendly and try and share the cost.

Without new data, it cannot presently be stated definitively what the current socio-economic makeup of the community is, however, a simple walk around most of these events suggest a makeup of mostly college students, young professionals, and Lindy Hop professionals (who make their living teaching and working at these events). As stated earlier regarding racial diversity, these observations do not imply that socio-economic diversity is not valued in the community. Returning to the Frankie Manning

Ambassador Program scholarship, later in a section on desired characteristics it states:

Candidates should possess many of the characteristics that Frankie Manning himself embodied:

 Dedication: to the preservation and perpetuation of the lindy hop

 Passion: demonstrate an intense desire to learn and grow

 Humility: like Frankie, persons who exhibit altruism and focus on the perpetuation of the

dance

 Inclusivity: respect for Lindy Hoppers of all diverse backgrounds: geographic, ethnic, socio-

economic, age, ability, etc.

 Leadership: the ability to inspire others

Anyone who has spent time on the dance floor at Lindy Hop events, knows that it is an incredibly supportive place to be in which many of the attributes listed above are common. Practices, such as hosting and room sharing are good examples of how the scene supports itself.

The Case for Dance Effectiveness and Music Preference

The primary purpose of this study is to examine the inter-relationship of dancers to the music, both recorded music and live performance music. Without baseline metrics and markers for this inter- relationship a controlled experimental study would be subject to a great number of unknown variables.

Therefore this study is designed as a descriptive, baseline study focused on establishing relevant attributes through correlative analysis and statistical effect of the demographic characteristics. The characteristics are established by way of a series of demographic survey questions. The questions chosen for this study are drawn from the observations by the researcher of the Lindy Hop community, and are specifically focused on the topics of mechanics and valuations regarding the dancer and musician interrelationship. A more exhaustive examination of the reasoning for each of the demographic questions can be found in Chapter Five.

At the beginning of this chapter, the question, “What makes a person want to dance?” was asked. A direct answer might be, “Because they enjoy dancing,” and in response to the music, “Because they enjoy the song.” Consider the following illustration. If one asks a person, “Did you like your dance partner?” one would most likely receive a response that might draw from a judgment of personality, or physical appearance, or character. However, if the person is asked, “Did you like the dance?” the answer is more directly relevant. Although a number of factors may by postulated to influence the overall

enjoyment of the dance, the following study focuses upon whether a dance is enjoyed and the extent of the enjoyment. Subsequent research may be directed at elucidating underlying factors. This leads to two initial variables of interest, the enjoyment of the dance (Dance Rating) and the enjoyment of the song

(Song Rating). A correlation between these two factors can help ascertain whether the dancer’s enjoyment and therefore “preference” for a particular song influences their enjoyment of the dance, or in other words the “effectiveness” of the dance.

Since song familiarity has previously been established as a correlate to song enjoyment (Hedden,

1981), it is also necessary to account for it in this study as well. If a correlation between Song Familiarity and Song Rating does exist is this environment, then a follow-up correlation between Song Familiarity and Dance Rating may also exist, establishing Song Familiarity as an additional influencer of dance effectiveness. Lastly, since swing dancing is a partnered dance, there are two additional variables of interest. First, as song familiarity correlates to song enjoyment, it is likely that a parallel correlation exists with partner familiarity within the dancing context. Similarly related is the perceived skill level of one’s dance partner. Therefore, Partner Familiarity and Partner Skill Level are both related variables that also may influence overall dance effectiveness.

As stated, there are numerous potentials influences on what constitutes a successful dance.

Some of these are likely environmental, such as the type and nature of the dance event, and the format of the music (either DJ or live music). Therefore, both of these variables should be accounted for as well, by a comparison of the distributions of ratings data between events and between music formats types.

Summary

History shows the importance and swing music and dance as a part of the cultural history of the

United States of America. At times called “America’s original folk dance,” this dance style grew and thrived throughout the 1920’s – 40’s on a developmental relationship that was built between the dance floor’s rhythmic energy and the musician’s creative expression. Beginning in the 1980’s this dance returned and made a lasting impact in a thriving and incredible community. That development relationship still exists today and is a subject worthy of study. The relevant attributes of swing music,

tempo, song length, beat perception, cultural and socioeconomic influence have each been explored essentially independently. The starting point for this line of research begins with two basic, but interrelated questions: “Did you enjoy the dance?”, and “Did you enjoy the song?” Aspects of the enjoyment of swing music may influence both the desire to dance and the subsequent enjoyment thereof. It is the goal of this study to explore this relationship.

The next chapters of this thesis will endeavor to provide an overview and insight into two specific issues within the modern Lindy Hop community relevant to this study. The first contrasts the modern teaching culture with the historical ballroom culture. The second discusses the effects of modern sound reinforcement technology has had on the ballroom environment. Following this is a glossary of definitions to help readers not familiar with the Lindy Hop community understand some of the language common to the population, a necessary step, as Chapter Four in which the qualitative research into the musician’s side of this endeavor utilizes many of these terms.

CHAPTER THREE

DI SCUSSI ON OF PRESENT DAY LI NDY HOP EVENTS

The Modern Ballroom versus the Historical Ballroom

The last thirty year history of the revival of swing dancing and the development of what now is an international dance community is one worthy of an entire thesis or book of its own. As referenced earlier, some articles cover part of this period, but there are many missing gaps. Many of the swing dance events throughout the country presently have panels that focus upon, and celebrate the history as well as the stories of the instructors and “old timers.” However, these panels are typically undocumented and have not received significant academic attention despite their valuable cultural and historical relevance. Events such as the International Lindy Hop Championships and LindyFest regularly have panels, called LED talks, which often focus on interviewing teachers and performers about their personal history as dancers (Workshop and LED Schedule ILHC, 2014). The Frankie 95 and Frankie 100 events in

NY in 2009 and 2014 which celebrated the life and influence of Frankie Manning are particularly significant. Since Frankie’s life was a significant part of the modern revival history as well as the original swing era history, these events marked a celebration of both the modern era and original era histories.

These examples serve as direct evidence of the value that the Lindy Hop community places on its history.

However, rather than attempt to fill in all these historical gaps, this chapter will instead focus upon two topics of interest that developed as part of the revival period as a way of providing necessary background to understand this studies context and procedural focus. Both topics will contrast differences between the modern swing dancing ballroom experience and the historical ballroom experience. The first topic contrasts the modern dance teaching culture with the historical ballroom as a gathering and entertainment venue for the public. The second topic examines the environment in which the dances took places by contrasting the effect of modern sound reinforcement and the use of recorded music by DJ’s with the historical acoustic performances with live music. The final section of this chapter will provide a

glossary of definitions intended to help readers not familiar with Lindy Hop community understand language common to the practice of the dance and music.

Modern Teaching Culture versus Historical Ballroom Culture

Chapter Two’s overview of the revival of Swing Dancing in America from (1980 – present) noted that the primary mode of propagation for the dance has been through the teaching of dance workshops.

There is a simple and purposeful reason why the modern dance era has grown and is based on a teaching culture. Present day Americans have almost all forgotten how to partner dance (Giordano, 2007, p. 307). By the end of the 1970’s the disco had begun to wane and the ballroom as a gathering place for fun and entertainment had further diminished (Giordano, 2007, pp. 273-275). The ballroom as a communal place of gathering, especially one that was friendly to multiple age demographics, had become of thing of the past.

In “Social Dancing in America” Giordano cites two primary cultural influences that led to this reality. The first was the increase in the average hours worked per week. A Harris Poll in 1987 showed an increase from 40.6 in 1973 to 48.4 hours per week. The second influence was the increase in TV viewing which rose to over 7 hours a day according to Neilson studies. In addition, shopping malls, mall arcades, and video games all vied for the attention of the young and old. (Giordano, 2007, p. 274) Hence, the revival of the Lindy Hop with its intensive partner interaction and emphasis on the historical past in the

1980’s was in contraposition to these societal trends and could even be considered as a counter-cultural movement. However, modern technology also brought new tools for resurgence with the availability of television and personal recording equipment such as the VCR. Personal recording of old movies containing swing dance performances permitted efficient, repeated, and close study of dance choreography. Such recordings also allowed dancers to share these terpsichorean gems with each other.

Although these technologies helped contribute to the decline in interest and participation in dance, they were also a tool for propagation and improvement of the dance. Nonetheless, the diminished role of dance in society and the increased number of competing personal entertainment options made the task of attracting patrons difficult.

Assuming one could successfully attract a crowd to come to a dance, the modern dance community has a still more challenging problem and perhaps significant task to conquer: “What do you do with the people once they get there?” It is the answer to this question upon which the historic and modern ballrooms diverge. Before the 1900’s, dance venues and styles were a function of economic and social classes (Aldrich, 1991, p. xvii). As late as the 1910’s instruction in classical and contemporary dance was an assumed constituent of upper-class education as evidenced in numerous advertisements by

Dancing Masters located within the social pages of newspapers. This time period is characterized as the

Progressive Era (1890-1920) due to emerging political, economic, and social trends, during which dances from the “lower” social classes began circulating into the upper classes through the younger generation.

Dances such as the Cakewalk, in 1890, the Turkey Trot and other related rag-dances in the 1910’s and many others increased in national influence. Furthermore, these dances are the foundational pieces of

African-American social dance, characterized by individual improvisations and simple pedestrian movement. This essentially eliminated the need for formal instruction in dance technique and greatly reduced the necessity and influence of the Dance Masters.

Freed from need for formal dance instruction and its implied socio-economic restrictions

American social dance was allowed to truly become the “Dance of the People”. This identity continued through the 1920’s-40’s as other dances with African-American roots such as the Charleston, the Black

Bottom, and eventually the Lindy Hop, became national phenomena. Even complex, high-flying acrobatics dances such as the Lindy Hop were propagated and popularized not through formal education but through the competitive spirit via imitation on the dance floor (Stearns & Stearns, 1968).

Such imitative propagation, however, presupposes a generalized knowledge of partner dancing by the people, a knowledge that had receded from popular consciousness by the 1980’s. New generations of dancers had little to no knowledge of the mechanics of partner dancing (Giordano, 2007, p. 307). Therefore, the Lindy Hop revival events had to incorporate instructional features in order to draw new participants as well as to enhance the skill of the early adaptors. Addressing this lack in generalized knowledge is the topic “Lead and Follow”. This concept is perhaps the most basic component of partner

dancing within traditional role based partner dancing. The “lead” (most commonly the man) initiates movement (the choreography) using his weight distribution changes and body movement. The movement thus initiated is subsequently followed by the “follow” (traditionally the woman). Debates of the importance and nature of the lead and follow technique has been a topic of much discussion in the Lindy

Hop community as observed by the author since at least the earlier 2000’s.

As the scene progressed through the 1990’s, local dances classes grew into weekend workshops, and these workshops grew into dance camps and beyond. However, the one constant throughout this growth has been the inclusion of dance classes at events which has enhanced the need, role, and value of good teacher’s. Lindy Hop instructors are able to earn a living through by teaching in multiple events across the country. They also judge competitions for beginner to advanced levels and act as Master of

Ceremonies and other roles as needed. Lastly, they compete in the Masters or Invitational level competitions, to gain enhanced name recognition so as to create opportunities for subsequent teaching engagements.

In the period from 2000 to present another important paradigm shift has occurred. As the community has grown, it has changed from a preservation culture in which there were deep concerns about authenticity and providing proper instructional opportunities, to one in which there are sufficient participants to permit enjoyment of the dance for its own sake. During this time period the dance transitioned from being a “dead” dance, or “museum” dance, to a “living” dance. One significant mark of this transition is the start of what has been become known as a “Lindy Exchange”. These events are hosted in a single city and usually highlight the “dance style”, venues, and music of the region, but significantly, do not include lessons. It is a complete weekend (or longer) of nothing but dancing.

There has also been an increased interest in live music during this time period (2000 to the present), especially in the last five years. Events such as Lindy Focus in Asheville, NC which began with a focus on teaching dance, have more recently emphasized the music. For example, in this event the use of live bands now includes the late night dances (~ 12 am through 3 am) in addition to main evening

dances (~ 8 pm through 12 am). A music “track” was added in 2013 which provides lessons in playing swing music from nationally prominent professional musicians (The Camp | Lindy Focus, 2014).

Modern Sound Reinforcement versus Historical Acoustic Performance

Modern Sound Reinforcement technology (aka PA systems) and techniques have had a major effect on the spread and environmental nature of the modern swing dance ballroom experience. A principle factor is the ability of modern sound systems to playback recorded music in a manner that creates an acceptable dance environment without the need for live musicians. This attribute has been critical to the successful revival of Lindy Hop because not only was there initially insufficient numbers of willing and competent jazz musicians, but recorded music also provided a much more economical means of creating new dance events. The discos of the 1970’s had established recorded music as a primary means of creating an energetic dance environment, making it an acceptable medium for the first Lindy

Hop events in the 1990’s and beyond. Many of the DJ’s at swing dance events during the early part of the revival were essentially collectors of old jazz records and who would later move to CD’s. The increasing commercial availability of jazz and swing music helped them develop their collections even further. Almost all DJ’s in the present era perform from laptop computers utilizing extensive MP3 libraries.

These developments support an argument that the Lindy Hop revival has been built on a DJ culture.

Modern sound reinforcement technology also affects live music performance. In historic ballrooms, the acoustical design of the room directly affected the ability of a band to be heard by the dancers. Microphones were typically only used for the announcer or singer. Acoustical projection was assisted by an acoustic shell behind the band. Further, historical ballrooms were designed specifically as a purpose built space for live music and dance. In contrast, most modern swing dance events are hosted in hotels, or other multi-purpose venues in rooms not typically designed for live acoustical performance or for dancing. At the biggest Lindy Hop events, large sound reinforcement systems totally thousands of watts of power are setup, most often in these large multi-purpose rooms in hotels with a temporarily installed wood dance floor. The ceilings are often much higher (30-40 feet plus) than, for example, the historic Savoy Ballroom who’s much lower ceiling would have kept the sound of the band closer to the

dancers. The Savoy Ballroom had over 10,000 square feet of dance floor, accommodating as many as

2000 people at a time (Giordano, 2007). This can be compared with an event like Lindy Focus in

Asheville, NC which on New Year’s Eve has hosted as many as 1600 people on 6,000 square feet of temporarily installed dance floor in a total space of about 15,000 square feet (The Crowne Plaza Resort,

2014). The following observations are the result of the author’s experience in managing sound mixing during the past seven years at the Lindy Focus – Asheville and at many other swing dance events in the last three years as a member of the Lindy Hop community.

The first observation is that sound levels at modern swing dance events are a combination of three primary contributors: crowd noise, the acoustic performance of the performing band, and the projection characteristics of the sound reinforcement system. Crowd noise alone (no music playing) in a full room at many events can commonly reach 83-85 dB (slow response, A-Weighted). This is similar to the sound level achieved by the bands unamplified performance during rehearsals in the same, but empty room. Therefore, a general rule of practice is to utilize the sound equipment to increase the overall levels by about 4-6dB, considerably less than those associated with rock bands (approximately 95-100dB).

Levels of 95-100db could cause significant ear fatigue and even hearing damage during the longer Lindy

Hop dances (as long as eight straight hours) adversely affecting the overall experience of the dancers.

The interactions of these three primary contributors, (crowd noise, band performance and sound reinforcement), can be illustrated from a recent experience. Two years ago at a large swing dance event a live band was playing for about 800-1000 dancers who was producing the typical crowd noise of about

85 dB, with the overall levels at 87-91dB. During the main dance that night, right in the middle of an upbeat song, a power outage affecting only the sound projection equipment (not room lighting) occurred.

Skillfully, the band did not miss a beat, continued to play, and the dancers continued dancing. After the song ended, the crowd cheered wildly for the fact that both the band and dancers had persisted. The band leader subsequently hushed the crowd with his hands and then began shouting his compliments to the dancers across the room and saying they were just going to play on. The crowd noise during the band leader’s comments had reduced to about 70-75db.

Interestingly, immediately prior to the power outage, the band leader was unable to obtain the attention of the crowd during a break between songs even with sound enhancement. Efforts to increase his volume via the sound system resulted in greater crowd noise. This should not be interpreted as an indication that the dancers were not enjoying the music, or did not respect the band. It is, rather, a demonstration of an attribute of the behavioral habits of the dancers which had been shaped by the DJ culture most of them had experienced within the modern swing dance scene. There are usually no significant breaks between songs in a DJ modulated swing dance event during which the DJ attempts to address the dancers. Hence, the dancers tend to converse among themselves during the brief inter-song intervals, producing the typical level of crowd noise noted above. Therefore, this episode exemplifies the tendency of the dancers to extrapolate behavior exhibited in DJ mediated events into the live music sets.

Whether this is a desirable phenomenon is one of interest to organizers of the dances and perhaps also to the musicians. The suddenness of the power outage most likely accounts for some of the crowd’s willingness to “hush” during the band leader’s comments, but may not be the entire reason.

Thus, a question of interest might be “What would the dancer’s behavior look like if the entire nights events had been performed acoustically, without sound reinforcement?”

This episode emphasizes an important combination of social aspect and consumer effects within the dance environment. Most people appear to prefer to hear themselves speak, and do not appear to be willing to break their conversation. The conflict with sound reinforcement is that as the volume increases for the band, so does the crowd noise as dancers compensate by increasing conversational volume.

As indicated in the picture of the Savoy, many older environments included seating around the floor. Without sound reinforcement the best place to hear the music would have been in proximity to the band. Those desiring to converse and relax would congregate at the edge of the room at a table. The dilemma with modern sound reinforcement is that the intent to provide even sound coverage can create a dancing crowd that is more disconnected from the band than without sound reinforcement. The paradox can be summarized as, “Should the dancers attend to the band more closely and hear less broadly, or should the band be more broadly heard with less attention? “

A very interesting topic for further research would be to do a more exhaustive comparative analysis of notable historical ballrooms with the modern day equivalents. This would be useful in the process of helping to further identify how architecture and technology affects the modern dance experience. It would also help provide guidance towards creating better dance experiences. This suggestion is not meant to imply that historical dance experiences were inherently superior, only that the case comparison might provide indications for improvement.

Providing effective live sound engineering in large dance environments in these spaces can be a challenge. It would be naïve to believe that these environments do not have an effect on the dancers’ experiences, preferences, and their ability to listen to the music, and perhaps most importantly respond to the band.

Modern Lindy Hop Terminology – Glossary (ordered by category)

Dance Terminology

Swing-Out – Often considered the “basic” step (or move) in Lindy Hop, the swing-out is the most iconic movement in the dance. It involves the partner (follow) starting in “open” position, in which the lead is holding his partner’s right hand in his left. He then moves backwards as she comes forward, catches her momentum in closed position, and “swings” it around to return her back to the direction from whence she started. This can be done with varying amounts of exertion with the phrase “swingin’ out hard” implying dancing with considerable energy.

Lindy Hop – The most iconic of the swing dances. It ruled the dance floors of America from the late

1920’s to the 1940’s. It is the dance primarily associated with the modern Swing Dance Revival period.

Dancers in the modern community often refer to themselves as Lindy Hoppers.

Balboa – A regional dance most often associated with Southern California. Its specific origins and time- frame are uncertain. It is known to have been performed in the 1930’s, but did not grow outside of the region. However, it was has been taught along-side Lindy Hop as part of the Swing Dance Revival. It can be considered a sub-genre and sub-cultural part of the Lindy Hop community. Many events have Balboa

classes and even Balboa specific dance tracks. There are also a number of Balboa only events throughout the country. This dance is known for fast footwork and the ability to perform it at faster tempos. Average tempos are between 150-250 beats per minute.

Blues – Blues is a dance style that is as broad in forms as the musical genre itself. Much like the Balboa, lessons, workshops and dance tracks specifically in blues are common features of Lindy Hop events.

There are also a number of “Blues” only events throughout the country. Average tempos are between 60-

120 beats per minute.

Charleston – A nationally popular dance in the 1920’s, this dance became a major developmental contributor to the Lindy Hop. The dance is now divided into two types. The first is the original 1920’s era

Charleston. The second is what Lindy Hoppers in the present era call 30’s Charleston. The latter is often mixed directly into the choreography of the Lindy Hop. It is easier to dance at faster tempos than Lindy

Hop and is incorporated as a way to vary the potential options when dancing fast.

Lead and Follow - Traditional partner dancing is roles based. The lead (most commonly the man) initiates movement (the choreography), using his own weight changes and body movement and this is

“followed” by the follow (traditionally the woman). Debates of the importance and nature of the lead and follow technique has been a topic of much discussion in the Lindy Hop community since the late 1990’s, if not earlier.

Historical Terminology

Savoy Ballroom – Opening in 1926 the Savoy is perhaps the most iconic of the famous ballrooms in

Harlem in the 1930’s-40. The Savoy was the home to Whitey’s Lindy Hoppers, the famous dance troupe of film, stage and competitions. Some historians credit the Savoy as the most substantial developmental contributor to the Lindy Hop. It hosted every major dance band of the era, and guest bands such as the

Count Basie Orchestra would musically battle with house bands such as Chick Webb’s band (Stearns &

Stearns, 1968).

Dean Collins – Dean began dancing in New Jersey when he was 14, and danced at the Savoy Ballroom in Harlem in the 1930’s. Dean eventually moved to California where he danced with Jewel McGowan in a

number of Hollywood films. Dean’s effect on the swing dance revival is not as long as Frankie Manning’s, as he passed away in 1984, however, his style of dancing had a significant effect on several California based dancers who contrasted his style of dancing with that of the “Savoy” dancers, (though he also danced in the Savoy). That style of dance became known by many as “Hollywood Style” or “Smooth

Style”, in the late 1990’s (Giordano, 2007, p. 96).

Frankie Manning – As a member and choreographer for the incredible Whitey’s Lindy Hoppers in the

1930-40’s, Frankie is consider once of the foundational contributors to the development of the dance.

Dancing in Hollywood films and on stage, is influence has problem been felt most strongly as part of the revival of Lindy Hop. No single figure has been more iconic for Lindy Hoppers than Frankie in the last two decades. Teaching internationally and inspiring multitudes of new dancers, Frankie who often attributed his dancing to his longevity passed away in April 2009, just shortly before his 95th birthday celebration event named after him Frankie 95. He left a legacy in dance that spanned over 70 years (Dance

Perspectives Foundation, Inc., 2004, p. 254).

Event Terminology

Scene – A scene most often refers to a dance community within a single geographical region, most often a city. Therefore someone might say, “I’m from the Tallahassee scene.” Occasionally it may be applied on a state or even national basis, i.e., “What is the scene like in Florida?”

Main Dance / Late Night Dance – For people new to the Lindy Hop scene, one of the most striking features of many events is the sheer number of hours devoted to dancing. Many weekend events and especially large national events include two different dances each night. The first is the Main Dance and occurs typically between the hours of 8 pm – 12am, while the Late Night dance occurs from 12am to 3 or

4 am. Some events even add a second room, most often during the late night, focused on a specific type of music/dance (i.e. Blues dancing, Balboa dancing, Modern Music, or Soul Music). This is in addition to whatever classes are offered during the daytime hours.

Competition Weekend – A Lindy Hop event that is primarily focused on competitions. The event may or may not include classes.

Workshop Weekend – A Lindy Hop Event that is primarily focused on classes. The term weekend is used for events that are mostly Friday through Sunday, though many might also be Thursday through

Sunday.

Dance Camp - A Lindy Hop Event that is primarily focused on classes. Classes are often “tracked”, meaning they focus on a particular theme or level. Lengths vary between four and seven days.

Track – Tracks are common at large class oriented events where it is appropriate to organize the classes by skill level or interest. Level or skill based tracks often require an audition to participate in the higher tracks. Theme based tracks, such as a Balboa or Blues track often do not require an audition unless the event is specifically focused on those dances.

Lindy Exchange - These events are hosted in a single city. They usually highlight the “dance style” and venues and music of the region, and do not include lessons. It is a complete weekend (or longer) devoted to dancing. The first Lindy Exchange (at least in the described format) is usually cited as the

Ithaca Exchange in 2000.

Competition Terminology

Jam Circle – When a group of dancers form a circle or a half-circle close to the bandstand in which dancers enter in and out of the center of the circle for short performances. Sometimes slightly choreographed, but most times improvised, the Jam Circle provides a structure that permits the best dancers in the room to show-off and demonstrate their skills. It also provides a singular moment for the dancers to interact individually or as a couple with the musician’s directly. Most Jam Circles happen on their own in response to a fast energetic song that the crowd enjoys and by mob decision starts clapping and forms the circle.

Spotlight Format – The spotlight format is somewhat similar to a jam circle within a competition format. On the spotlight song, each couple in the competition goes out one at a time. The typical length is one chorus, known as eight-eights (dancer typically count in 8’s instead of 4’s). This is 32 bars in a typically 32 bar song form. Depending on the number of contestants, the length may be shortened to a

half-chorus. Bands that play live music for this type of competition have to plan carefully the form and number of times through the song to accommodate all the competitors.

Jack and Jill – A Jack and Jill is a type of competition in which each person enters individually, either as a lead (a Jack) or as a follow (a Jill). Each contestant is randomly paired with typically three different partners during the prelims. Contestants are again randomly paired in the finals, but compete as a couple for the duration of the finals. Due to the nature of the partnerships, this competition emphasizes partnering, (or lead and follow). Music is chosen by the DJ or band and is not known to the competitors prior to them competing. The competition highlights one specific dance type: for example a Strictly Lindy competition or a Strictly Balboa competition.

Strictly Competition – Competitors enter as a couple for this competition. The music is not known prior to the competition. This can be done with either DJ music or a live band. The competition highlights one specific dance type: for example a Strictly Lindy competition or a Strictly Balboa competition.

Showcase Competition – Competitors enter as a couple. The music is chosen by the competitors and the routines are choreographed. Some types of showcases are Lindy Hop only, but others allow for any type of dance form.

Team Competition – Team competitions typically require three or more couples. The music is picked by the competitors and the routines are choreographed. Some types of showcases are Lindy Hop only, but others allow for any type of dance form.

CHAPTER FOUR

STUDY 1 - QUALI TATI VE STUDY OF TRADI TI ONAL JAZZ MUSI CI ANS

The Case for the Study of Musician and Dancer I nter-Relationships

This chapter begins the new investigative part of this thesis, with a reflexive based qualitative analysis of the musician’s role in the music and dance inter-relationship. Since this is reflexive in nature, it begins with the background of the author. I have been part of the Lindy Hop community for over fourteen years, having first started dancing in 2000. I have been involved in the organization and implementation of regional events since 2001, and have been the advisor for a university swing dance club for the last ten years. I have danced to live swing music for years, as well as had the pleasure of being a live sound engineer for several of the larger events over the last seven years. During this time I have had an increasing fascination with observing the interactions of those on the dance floor with the live musicians. This has been strengthened by my historical studies of swing music and dance. When I first read a quote from Lester Young stating, “I wish jazz was played more often for dancing. The rhythm of the dancers comes back to you when you are playing,” the first thing I thought of was New Year’s Eve in Asheville, NC and a killer live band playing to a jam circle, surrounded by 1200 dancers clapping and cheering (Stearns & Stearns, 1968). Similarly, after reading Leon James stating, “And he (Dizzy Gillespie) dug us and blew even crazier stuff to see if we could dance to it, a kind of game, with the musicians and dancers challenging each other,” I immediately thought of specific competitions I had seen in which the dancers and the soloist appeared to play a sort of improvised call and response game, which resulted in the crowd going crazy over it (Stearns & Stearns, 1968). These phenomena, which by the referenced accounts appeared a reality in the past, are in my opinion a reality in the present Lindy Hop community. I also believe that the phenomenon has been growing in strength.

From these experiences I have gained a deep conviction that there is not only something of importance happening here, it is, for the dancer and the musician, an example of the craft at its highest level. It therefore, has become of great importance for me to investigate how this phenomenon works. As

previously mentioned, I attempted two different pilot studies in an attempt to identity significant attributes of dance and music practice that affect each other. It proved very difficult to create a reliable controlled study design. This has led to this first part of the study which examines the musician’s experience using a qualitative methodology, while the second part focuses on the dancer’s experience utilizing a quantitative approach. A qualitative approach is necessary as dancers greatly outnumber musicians in this environment. Obtaining sufficient numbers of musicians to conduct quantitative analysis is both impractical and inappropriate. Hence, a qualitative approach was adopted. The purpose of this qualitative analysis is to understand and describe the type of interactive relational practices that are of value to musicians involved in the playing of swing music for swing dancers.

In order for this section of the study to match with the quantitative research of the dancers, the musicians were recruited from the bands that regularly play for national level Lindy Hop events. My role as a live sound engineer at many of these events made the recruitment of these individuals much easier as I already had prior comfortable friendships with them. These interviews were conducted as open interviews with guiding questions, and an audio recording was made for transcription purposes. See

Appendix III for a complete list of the guiding questions.

Overview of I nterview Questions

The guiding questions utilized are intended to lead each musician through a series of topics. The first area focuses on the interviewee’s background as a musician playing for dancers. Diversity along several factors was used in the selection of the musicians: instrumentation, geographical origin and multiple musical styles. This helped assure the sample population is broadly representative. The first group of questions (one through three) relates to research question one and leads each musician through his story of origin as a performer for swing dancers, and inquires generally about the personal philosophy upon which each bases his craft. The second group of questions (four through nine) relate to research question two and examines each musician’s performance practices and experiences and convictions about the dancer/musician inter-relationship. These questions approach this topic from a macro oriented standpoint (attributes of the full dance floor) and moves to a micro standpoint (attributes focused on

individual couples). The interview ends with an open-ended question allowing the musician to add to the conversation as he/she desires. The interviewer was allowed flexibility in follow-up and several times added questions to clarify specifics about the given accounts and concepts.

I nterview Questions 1 through 3 – Musician’s Background

1. What first got you into playing for swing dancing?

2. How often do play for swing dancers? How often for non-dancing audiences?

3. Who or what has most influenced your perspective on how to best play for swing dancers?

These questions inquire about the musician’s first experiences as part of the dance community, as well as probe for relevant information regarding the musician’s general background. The first is a question of origin, inquiring of the time-frame and context in which the musician began performing for swing dancing. The second focuses on performance frequency and audience type. Musicians who only play for the Lindy Hop community are bound to have different experiences from those who regularly play for a variety of audience types. The third question prompts the musician to consider their most prominent influences, with potential responses ranging from dance experiences to music experiences. The question is purposely ambiguous with regard to time and allows for both historical and contemporary influences.

I nterview Questions 4 through 9 – Performance Practice and Philosophy

4. Are your performances influenced by what you see the dancers do?

o If so, can you describe a specific situation where this occurred?

5. During the 1920’s – 1940’s jazz music was often played for dancing. Many historians cite dance as the important influence in development of the music, some even describing it as an interdependent relationship. Do you believe this sort of relationship still occurs today?

o If so, in what venues and circumstances have you found this relationship most strongly displayed?

6. Do you consider the musician and dancer inter-relationship both on and off the dance floor to be a significant one for the continued development and practice of both the music and the dance? Is so, why?

7. Do you ever change the set-list, extend a performance of a song, or otherwise vary in a macro fashion the material to be performed based on what dancers are doing?

o Can you give a specific example?

8. When performing an improvisatory solo, in what ways is your performance influenced by what you see specific dancers do?

o Can you recall a specific instance?

9. In general, what attributes of dance performance have been the most influential on the creation and performance of your music?

Questions 4 through 9 are intended to lead each musician through a progressive analysis of their performance practices and ideological convictions regarding the development of their craft. Following each question, the musician is asked to cite specific examples in order to document concrete illustrations of the stated convictions.

Question 4 starts the progression by asking an open-ended question about how what the subject

“sees the dancers do” influences their performance. This question is intentionally vague and inquires only from the perspective of the perception of the musician in whatever context they first think. Questions 5 -

9, reiterate a similar inquiry, but each query centers on a unique potential influencer. The questions start with broad concepts and become more specific as the interview proceeds. Therefore the latter questions are intentional leading questions. In question 5, the concept of an interdependent music and dance relationship is introduced. While this is a description some historians have regarding the jazz era, stated here emphatically it is intended to solicit a reaction of rejection or affirmation. It draws the musician into a thought process that encourages a comparison of the past to the present. If the musician concurs with the statement the sub-question which asks for a specific example should solicit a more substantial answer than if he disagreed with the statement. Question 6 then asks about the same inter-relationship, but focuses on the significance of both on and off-the floor relationships, such as friendships. Questions 7 and 8 inquire directly about specific performance practices. Question 7 focuses on the macro changes, such as song form, and set-list choices, and question 8 on the micro level changes that may or may not occur during improvisational solos. The contrast between macro and micro is of particular interest, because it has been my observation while doing live sound that musicians make definitive adjustments, both macro and micro, but the inspiration and intent of these adjustments is uncertain. The inquiry helps

to identify whether the changes are in fact intentional, and what specific visual cues solicit such responses. For instance, how difficult is it for a top level musician to actually make adjustments in response to specific visual cues in the dance? Does this differ depending on instrument? Therefore, question 9 addresses auditory and visual cues and prompts the musician to describe these directly.

Question 10 – Open-ended Response Question

10. Are there any additional stories or comments you would like to share that are relevant to our topic?

The final question of the interview gives each musician an opportunity to state any relevant concepts that have not been addressed as part of the questioning. It may also suit as a moment for the musician to re-emphasize any ideas they feel strongly about.

Participants

A total of four musicians were interviewed for this study. The interviews ranged from 24 to 38 minutes in length. Each interview was transcribed in its entirety for word frequency and concept analysis.

Personal details regarding specific venues, names, and geographical locations have been removed in this analysis to protect the identity of the individuals. The musicians consisted of varying instrumentation: drums, guitar, piano, multi-reeds, and trumpet. The experience of each musician playing for dancers is 8,

12, 14, and 15 years. This does not reflect their total experience as jazz musicians. The decision to recruit these specific individuals was based on a desire to represent musicians from: 1) Various regions - West

Coast, Southeast and Northeast regions of the U.S., and 2) varying styles, traditional New Orleans jazz,

40-50’s jazz, and some later stylistic examples. Each of these musicians works both as a band leader and as an individual player. Combined, they have experience leading small group ensembles as well as big band ensembles.

Textual Analysis and Discussion of Responses

The purpose of this qualitative examination is to understand and describe the type of interactive relational practices that are of value to musicians involved in the playing of swing music for swing dancers. This narrative is not intended as a biographical sketch of the participants in order to protect

their anonymity. Therefore, throughout this paper the participants will be referred to as musician one

(M1), musician two (M2), musician three (M3), and musician four (M4). Following a full transcription of each interview, the text was coded with two categories of codes, which at the end of this analysis will then be examined and sorted into related themes. The first code category is “markers” and are potential variables within the phenomenon that might engage the outcome. The second code category is

“descriptors” and are the common words and phrases utilized by the participants as they describe their processes. At the end of each inquiry, the markers and descriptors will be summarized for that question.

Research Question One – Musician’s Background

What are the demographics differences between musicians, such as their years of experience, the situation in which they first played for dancers, and specific influences in the practice thereof?

I nterview Questions 1 through 3

1. What first got you into playing for swing dancing?

The musicians are divided evenly in their accounts of their origins. M1 and M2 both began as dancers in their respective scenes before performing as dance musicians. M3 and M4 both performed traditional jazz or swing jazz prior to their exposure to the swing dance community. This is an important distinction because it influences their philosophy regarding how and why each plays for dancers. A dancer who becomes a swing musician has personal experience to guide from whereas the reverse would need to rely exclusively on the shared experiences of others. M2 states that the reason he started playing for dancers was because there was no good live music to dance to at the time, and he was tired of dancing to overly long songs and excessive tempos.

Marker: First Experience (swing dancer first or swing musician first)

2. How often do you play for swing dancers? How often for non-dancing audiences?

M1, M3, and M4 all indicated that they play for a mixture of audience types. M1 performs for dancers about twice a week, with non-dancing gigs about 100-160 times a year with a non-swing band.

M3 stated performances were about six nights a week for an audience of both dance and non-dancers, in

addition to performing at about six to eight “big swing dance festivals” a year. M4 performs about half swing dance and half corporate events, jazz festivals and weddings. M2 is the exception indicating that he plays almost exclusively for dancers, along with the occasional swing dancer’s wedding where some patrons are non-dancers. They are “solely a swing dance band” and therefore that role is both the identity and the purpose of his bands. Utilizing the subject of song length and tempo he describes the qualities he values the most in a successful swing dance band. Most of these valuations are centered on the “needs” of the dancers, and he talks of the need to create a “journey” for the dancers. Later in the interviews, during the questions on performance practice, all the musicians mark tempo and song length as important considerations when playing for dancers. It appears purposeful however that these descriptors enter the discussion so early for M2, because for him these factors are not just matters of performance practice, they are matters of identity.

Marker: Audience Type (dancer only or mixed audience)

3. Who or what influences your perspective on how to best play for swing dancers?

Question 3 is the first open ended inquiry. Influences given are either historical musicians, present day dancers, or personal experience. M1 specified an early swing era musician performer that played his instrument. M3, who is not a dancer himself, indicates a specific dancer and organizer, with whom he has a friendship, as the primary influencer. M4, who is also not a dancer, emphasizes personal friendships with dancers as a primary influence, focusing on their “enjoyment” and describing his performance as a “vehicle” for their art. He also references historical jazz greats but only generically. M2 gave the most distinct answer, declaring his personal experience as a dancer as the “primary thing.” He describes being the person “dancing to the 15 minute song”, and explains what he had learned from that.

Beyond personal dance experience, he also draws lessons from his work as a swing DJ. Using the job of

DJ as a parallel to the job of the musician, he talks of the need to “read between the lines” of the rooms reactions. He lists several specific attributes that he observes from the room. He uses terms such as:

“tastes”, “mood”, “tolerances” (meaning physical endurance), “temperature” (physical temperature). His

DJ experience has actively affected how he plays as a musician because as a DJ he has more choices

stylistically and instrumentally. He praises instrumentalists that play two or more instruments, for it give him more flexibility. The flexibility is “easy” for the DJ, something that a finite group of musicians simply cannot do.

This question codes two background markers. The first is the marker of personal influences, either historic or contemporary. Two of the musicians and one of these only as an afterthought, mention historical influences which are all musicians. No contemporary musician influences are mentioned, except that of personal experience as experts in the field. The second is the marker of community relationships:

(personal friendship and community participation). For two musicians these personal friendships led directly to the convictions about the nature of the dancers “needs”, what they “enjoy”. For M2, though personal friendships as not specifically mentioned in this question (later he does emphasize them), the relationships are implied as it part of his participation as a part of the community as a DJ.

Markers: Personal influences (historical and/or contemporary); Community (friendships and/or personal participation)

Descriptors: dancer (needs, tastes, mood, tolerances), temperature, enjoyment, vehicle for the art

Research Question Two – Performance Practice and Philosophy

How do swing dance musicians describe their performance practice and decision making processes when playing for dancers?

I nterview Questions 4 through 9

4. Are your performances influenced by what you see the dancers do?

o If so, can you describe a specific situation where this occurred?

Introduction

“Yea!” “Definitely!” “Sure.” “Absolutely.” The answers came immediately for everyone, emphasized with conviction. This reaction is not a surprise, and from the researcher’s perspective, the question was asked with an open tone in the hopes that it might solicit such reactions. At the center of the practice of playing for swing dancing appears to be a conviction that the dancers play an important role in the

process. Each musician uses this question as a way to describe their process, and each follows with a specific example.

Musician One

M1 gives the shortest response, and pauses to find the right words. He states that “I’m always looking” but then clarifies that he is not “necessarily” playing to “mimic” the dancers, but is “inspired” and observes how they “enhance the energy”. His specific example comes from experiences at two different

Lindy Hop dance camps, one on the East Coast and the other on the West Coast. At both events, during their performances, jam circles spontaneously formed. He explains that it is during these jam circle moments that he “feels it the most” and is the situation where the influence of the dancer on his performance is strongest.

Musician Two

As previously described, M2 is a dancer himself, a swing music DJ, and plays almost exclusively for dancers. In his experience, it is the “visceral reaction” of the dancers, the “joy”, and “energy” that

“spurns you.” Sounding very similar to Lester Young in Stearns (Stearns & Stearns, 1968), he remarks that the “general vibe of the crowd comes back to you.” M2 approaches his craft both as a bandleader and as an improviser and talks specifically from both perspectives. As a bandleader, he uses the crowd to evaluate whether what they are doing is “working.” As an improviser, he watches for dancers to “catch” specific “rhythms” and “repetitions”. When dancers “catch” these rhythms the experience is “really magical”. He notes however, that these moments are often by chance. When functioning as a bandleader and arranger such interactions take a different form. He cites several examples of songs where the band repeatedly accents specific beats (1 & 2, or 2 & 3, etc). These simple “rhythmic patterns” are easily caught by the dancers, and the real fun comes for him when (as an arranger) he changes the pattern at the end of the song, soliciting a “communal groan.”

Musician Three

“Absolutely, all the time,” he says, as he begins his account. Then he remarks that it is situational. When he is acting as the bandleader, his attention is often divided and watching the floor is

more difficult. Yet when he is not leading and functioning only as a performer, he can “relax” and watches the “motion of the dance” and molds his playing on the “visual cue of the beat”. This leads him at times to “hone in on a specific dancer”. He describes the experience as a two-way interaction with the dancer where he gives them “something to do” and they give him “something to do”. In order for this interaction to be successful, like M2, he also uses “repetition” and “riff based” improvisation.2

Musician Four

M4 begins his response with a new potential marker: scene expectations. Each scene has different expectations. Some like fast music, some prefer more “laid back” music, and it is the job of the musician and bandleader to have a repertoire that can fit each situation. Therefore he makes his song choices based on the room. However, he states, there is one situation that allows for more micro interactions with specific dancers: competitions. He recounts with excitement a competition where one of the “international” instructors was competing, who is “one of the most musical dancers.” In that competition he and the dancer engaged in a rhythmic call and response, which was so in “sync” that it seemed like prepared choreography. Declaring with excitement, he states, that having such things happen within the band is exciting, but when “you add a dancer too! That’s pretty cool.”

Markers: Musician’s Roles (soloist, bandleader, arranger); Song Expectations (tempos, style); Situational

Type (Social dance, competition, jam circle)

Descriptors: visceral reaction, magical, inspire, enhance, visual cue, joy, energy, rhythmic patterns, repetitions, riff based, dancers “catch” or “grab” the rhythm

o If so, in what venues and circumstances have you found this relationship most strongly displayed?

2 M3 was not asked for a specific example and gave none on question 4.

Introduction

As described previously, this question is an intentionally leading question, meant to solicit a response of agreement or disagreement. Each musician responds to this with agreement, but also quickly qualifies their answers with specific situations in which the relationship could occur.

Musician One

There is a little bit of hesitation as he begins his answer, perhaps coming from his experiences as a musician for non-dancers. He resets and states that there a not many places you can hear a really good swing band for a seated audience. “Ghost bands” and “rehearsal bands” try to do it, but without the dancer “relationship” it isn’t the same. Furthermore, it is live music that makes it possible as well, implying a missing quality when using recorded music. He then gives an example of a venue he has played for six years, where he has experienced that inter-relationship regularly. The venue has a mix of dancers of varying skill levels, who are all there simply because of the live music. There the “relationship” is a “huge aspect of it”.

Musician Two

M2 begins his response with a similar convictions to M1, asserting that for there to be an inter- relationship with the dancer, there has to be commitment on the part of the musicians towards serving the dancers. The band must have its “eyes open for the dancers.” With admiration he describes watching one of his sax players solo and respond back and forth seamlessly with one of the international level Lindy Hop instructors. “It is definitely an interdependent music,” he says. Of interest is the fact that the dancer he references is the same dancer that M4 referenced in question four. This leads to an interesting observation regarding the inter-dependent relationship. It appears that the relationship is not something intrinsic to the practice, but rather a skill that is nurtured and developed on its own.

Furthermore, it is something that is recognizable as attested by the fact that M2 and M4 identify the same dancer independently.

With a new line of argument M2 makes as he continues his answer, drawing his examples this time from jazz history. Swing music from the 1920–40’s he notes was “dance music for a commercial

purpose.” During this period, this “commercial purpose” streamlined and developed the music around specific roles, particularly the rhythm section, (citing the work of Eddie Lang, Freddie Green, and George

Van Epps). It was the creation of an art form that today is not being “recreated” but “honored.”

Admitting that he tends to be an analytical person, it is clear that in regards to the music there is a point for him where it can be too analytical, and at that point the relationship weakens. By the time the swing era reached 1944–45 the music had become “so codified and coalesced that it was self-parody.” The expectations had become bigger than the relationships.

Relating this to the modern era, M2 notes that many of the expectations that have arisen as part of the revival period have come from the fact that “Lindy Hop now is a DJ based culture.” Since DJ’s are able to “cherry pick the best recordings ever,” dancers have much higher (more limited) expectations about what is considered danceable. “There are no ballads, there are no waltzes.” This is in contrast to the 1920-40’s Lindy Hop era, where a diversity of dance styles was more common.

When asked for a specific example M2 laughs a little and then answers with the name of one of the big national dance camps. It is obvious that this is a place he values for the environment it sets, as the event is known for investing in and celebrating live music. Interestingly, he then emphasizes not the music, but the friendships, “the level of interaction with the dancers and the band, by name, by face, by speaking and having conversations.” For him inter-relationship appears to go beyond what happens on the dance floor, and is built first on the relationship and community that surrounds the dance floor. The concept of “community” is a strong theme that repeats itself over and over in these accounts, continuing throughout the narrative of these interviews.

Musician Three

“Yes, definitely,” he begins. The dancing makes the music “feel different.” It is different from modern jazz, with more of a “steady driving dance beat.” The relationship exists, but it “struggles to have the dance world and the music worlds know enough about each other.” Again the theme of community begins to arise. Yet in this example it isn’t just friendship, it is a knowledge of each other’s craft that is important. Dancers are “beginning to become more engaged in the concept of live music.” The reason for

their initial lack of knowledge is, he believes, a product of the “resurgence” developing out a “DJ culture.”

“At the beginning,” there simply wasn’t a lot of live music. Therefore the relationship has been “a little distant.” But there is hope of development for the relationship as more dancers start to “play music” and

“study music.” A specific example he cites happened at one of the nation level Lindy Hop events, which was “filled with swing dancers engaged in what was happening musically.” However, there are plenty of events where you don’t have that feeling, he remarks. At some events he’ll feel “connected to like 10 or

15 couples in the front,” while the rest of the room treats their performance like it was background music. In contrast, at one venue he plays frequently, the dance floors are often so tiny, it “forces the band and dancers to get to know each other out of sheer proximity.” He remarks that large events do have a special energy and height, but it is clear that for him, when striving for those interdependent relationships, smaller is better.

Musician Four

“It’s sort of happening, more and more,” he begins. The interdependent relationship of music and dance is a phenomenon he believes that is still in development. Speculating on where this development track originated, he recalls the early dancing of the “swing dance revival,” and notes that dancers of that period danced mostly to “recorded music.” That fact developed certain habits in the dancers. They knew

“where all the breaks and …hits” were and “played off of that.” But now that live music was more common, that simply doesn’t work. The dancers “have to react to it” and they “have to really be listening.” This in turn has forced the dancers to “focus more on how the music is made.” “The music and dancer are intertwined,” he states. “You can’t dance without music.”

Asked to cite an example, M4 explains that playing for competitions is a circumstance where the interdependent relationship is strongest, “because the level of the dancer is higher.” But even in competitions some couples are “just dancing steps” some are “dancing to the music.” He also speaks of social situations generically, and how as a bandleader he would direct the band to soften and the whole room would “hunker down.”

Summary

It is clear that for each of the musicians, the inter-dependent relationship is something that is still growing in the community. It is situational, requires skilled dancers and skilled musicians, is affected by the size of the event, and must meet the expectations of each party to exist, and perhaps most importantly is built on community, personal friendships and general interest in the craft of the music and the dance.

Markers: Relationship Types (friendships, mutual interest, one-sided interest); Proximity (close or far);

Venue Size (large or small); Song Expectations (danceable or non-danceable)

Descriptors: DJ Culture, true dance band, ghost band

Introduction

This question is intended to extend the inquiry into the realm of relationship “off the dance floor.”

M2 and M3 had already cited personal friendships as a critical influence, so this question served as an opportunity to expound on the concept. This question was unfortunately skipped for the interview of M1.

Musician Two

In the question preceding this one, M2 gave examples of personal friendships that had an impact on his performances. He begins this answer with the same conviction, stating that, “when you know somebody’s name, they are valued to you…” He continues by describing several other examples of friendships off the dance floor. These friendships with dancers are of great importance to M2, not just because it informs his performance practice, but because it makes it more meaningful. For him, these friendship are also “on the dance floor,” because he dances himself with many of the same people that value his musical performance. He gives two specific examples of dancers on the scene who “glow in praise” for the band and are “cheerleaders” for them. These are dancers who he personally really enjoys

dancing with. Talking about the importance of getting to know one another, he explains, “Sheer familiarity will eventually win people over.” “Eyes are open… Hearts are open.”

Musician Three

Having already emphasized the influences of small venues, proximity and personal friendship, M3 reiterates his belief in the need for off the floor relationships by simply stating, “It’s a big factor.” He notes how much of the scene’s growth has been from “word of mouth.” “Intimate friendships” lead to

“open conversations” to “free flowing ideas.” Many of the greatest art movements, he notes, were built on close friendships. The more dancers and musicians can “hang out,” the more the relationship can strengthen.

Musician Four

M4 speaks a little differently than his peers, his attention centered more on performance practice.

His approach to the purpose of the personal relationships appears related to helping him understand the dancer’s needs. “When I started playing for dancers, I wanted to know what they wanted from me.” This has now come full circle, and “dancers are getting more interested in live music”. When dancers “know the basic song forms,” it allows musicians more freedom to interact with them. It allows for “un- arranged-type situations” where musicians create the music on the spot, a “head type of chart.” These charts are based on blues forms or 32 bar standards, so knowledge of these forms helps dancers anticipate what is coming even when what is coming is brand new. M4 then brings up a question many dancers first ask of the music, “How do I know when it’s over?” With a chuckle he explains that he often

“play(s) certain licks that are classic ending licks” and “99 times out of 100, that’s the end.”

M4 is then asked a follow-up question, “When you are more familiar with the dancers personally, how much does that affect your ability” (to connect and perform)? His response demonstrates how much he values his friendships with dancers. Sometimes he will play a song he knows a certain individual loves.

If they recognize it, and “you make eye contact,” and often results in both musician and dancer responding together and you both “swing all the more.” It creates a real “human experience,” and the art form is raised “to a more personal level.”

Summary

Community is an evident and strong theme in each of the answers given. Sometimes these friendships have practical value for the musician, by teaching them more about the expectations of the dancers, and teaching the dancers more about the expectations of the musicians. However, there is also value in the friendship for the sake of the friendship, for the “human experience” it creates. The “intimate friendships” that bond musician and dancer strengthen the whole, as both parties act as “cheerleaders” for one another.

Markers: Community (Friendships, Mutual Interest)

Descriptors: Head chart, song form, classic ending licks, human experience, sheer familiarity

7. Do you ever change the set-list, extend a performance of a song, or otherwise vary in a macro fashion the material to be performed based on what dancers are doing?

o Can you give a specific example?

Introduction

This question focuses on the macro elements of performance practice. The difference between questions seven and eight are of specific interest. The first represents the macro engagements of the music and dance practices, while the second represents the possible micro engagements. The question is followed by a request for a specific example.

Musician One

When M1 is the bandleader, he does often have a set-list prepared, but they are little more than a “rough idea, something scribbled out,” but makes changes based on the “energy of the room,” and the

“level of dancer.” It affects “tempos” and “song length” in particular. When jam circles occur, automatically a song either “double” or “triples in length.” As the “level of dancer” increases, then he is able to be “slightly more progressive.” He also mentions that over time, as other bands were formed and the preferences of the scene changes, then he has changed the focus of his band’s music. This indicates that influences can come from both the dancers as well as other bandleaders.

For his specific example, M1 describes watching an old roommate and friend dance. They are to him, “amazing dancers,” who could “dance to anything.” They are good, because they listen. He then comments that a lot of beginner and intermediate dancers fail to do this. They simply have not developed the “facility to listen” because they are completely “focused on the task” of dancing. He enjoys “pushing the dancers” a bit when possible, but the truth is the musician still has to play to the people.

Musician Two

For M2, every gig is a new set-list. The method by which he goes about choosing songs and making changes, he first learned from being a swing DJ. You have to “read the floor” and “read the crowd.” One difference, for the musician, is that there is more, “human error,” for instance on tempo. If the band plays a song too fast, then the next song on the list might need to change, especially if the next song is already of a faster tempo. Another situation in which he makes changes, is when there is a jam circle. His band has a rule, “Never kill a jam circle.” What this means is that the song needs to be extended in length to match the energy of the jam circle. If it is still hot, don’t “kill it.” He remembers watching what he calls “show bands” struggle over how to lengthen a song to fit a jam circle, and watch them just kill them, over and over again. Recalling another situation, he recounts a time when his band was asked to play for over four hours straight. This fatigued both the dancers and musicians beyond their typical capability. By the end of that evening, what he calls, “the natural arc of the evening” had long since passed. Over the entire course of each dance event, there is a journey to be experienced, a

“vehicle” the musician’s drive that carries along the dancer’s art form.

Musician Three

M3 as an artist that plays six nights a week, doesn’t usually make a set-list ahead of time. He usually has a pool of “forty or fifty” tunes in his head, and sometimes make a “rough tune list,” but doesn’t “have an order.” His choices are improvisational, “more of an intuitive thing.” He considers tempos, but also “emotive qualities” of the tune when deciding what to play next. His process begins with the tempo of the song they are currently playing. He then surveys room’s demeanor and decides whether the next song should be faster or whether the band should just “chill out.” He then narrows his choices

by selecting songs in the desired tempo range, and narrows further based on what he feels the desired mood should be. He also has flexibility within each song, because his band has fewer written

“arrangements” than other bands. Most songs, in fact, are arranged on the spot, based on a number of factors: song length, “number of choruses,” and the “kinds of textures.” This process differs when the band performs at a jazz club without dancers. For dance events, he usually has shorter drum solos, “less bass solos,” and more “horn blowing, more riffing.” All of this is in the service of the dancers, to create creative ways, “to make it dance music as opposed to jazz music.”

Musician Four

“Yes, yes, yes and yes,” he begins. Like M3, he doesn’t create set-lists ahead of time. Also, like the others, he considers tempo and the crowd’s “fatigue level” as critical metrics when picking songs. He notes one great feature of “playing jazz head arrangements” is that you can easily change length, or add a chorus, add solos, or “extend” solos. All of this could be done by “looking at the floor” and deciding the

“right thing to do” in that moment.

Summary

From these responses, two new markers arise. The first is preparation type. The musicians describe two different methods of set-list preparation. The first is adaptive, in which the set-list is prepared beforehand, but is subject to alterations throughout the performance. The second type is improvised, in which there is no set-list preparation, and rather songs are selected from a “pool” of options. The second marker is situation type. There are three options: social dance, jam circle, and competitions. Each of these creates different rules of engagement with the dancers based on the expectations of the situation.

Markers: Preparation Type (Adaptive or Improvised), Situation Type (Social Dance, Jam Circle,

Competition)

Descriptors: Intuition, tempo, song length, Arc of the night.

8. When performing an improvisatory solo, in what ways is your performance influenced by what you see specific dancers do?

o Can you recall a specific instance?

Introduction

As indicated, the contrast of question seven and eight are of interest. The first represents generalized “macro” interactions typical of song arrangements, set-lists, and band leading. This question highlights the one-to-one relationship of improvisational solos to the movement of specific dancers. As such, the responses for this question vary more than earlier questions. They are also situation specific to each musician’s instrument and role in the band. Therefore, the responses for question eight are organized relevant instrument (in score order) rather than each respondent’s identifier. This is done to preserve the identities of the musicians.

Drums

Earlier in these interviews, two of the musicians identified the drums as an instrument capable of responding directly to individual dance movement, but indicated such responses are very situational. The drummer’s reinforces this concept, but clarifies that his responses are rarely a direct rhythmic imitation.

He explains that he cannot simply see someone do a step, and think, “Hey I’m going to play that on the drums.” His first responsibility is to “stay in tune” with the music and “put out” whatever he “hears in his head.”

Responding to a follow-up question about aerials and jam circles specifically, he acknowledges that these are situations where he does respond. Explaining, he states that if the dancers do something very “rhythmic” like “kicks, stops, aerials or jumps,” then he is able to respond because those are things that can be seen far away. For instance, in the case of an aerial he might “hit a bass drum or compliment in some way,” whenever the dancer lands on the ground. These are things that can be seen and anticipated.

Guitar

Acknowledging how much this is not an every moment phenomena, the guitarist responses by saying, “So, that is far harder…” He explains that the guitarist and piano’s role is to be the “break before the hot thing.” Each song has its own “dynamic arc,” and the solo’s position in the song informs the solo’s

content. When he is the “cool solo,” then what he plays tends to be harder to “catch.” However, when he is the “hot soloist” then what he uses more “syncopated, trumpet-y rhythms” to allow the solo to be more “catchable”. As the “hot solo” he draws much of his performance from his knowledge of how Big

Band “shout choruses”. ”Shout choruses” offer many particular examples upon which to draw. For example, he finds little benefit in listening to Coleman Hawkins’s “Body and Soul,” instead, he prefers is to gain inspiration from songs such as Benny Goodman’s “Roll ‘em,” Count Basie’s “Swingin’ the Blues” or

Artie Shaw’s “Man from Mars.” These songs and others illustrate the “rhythms” and “syncopations” that are most catchable.

While it is clear that it is very special when such interactions occur, he also admits this is a difficult task, and the level of “instrumental mastery” and the “jazz improve ability” it requires is very high. The easiest way for him to react when a dancer “responds to something I do” is to simply “play the same thing or something similar” again. “Having a musical conversation is a real challenge,” he concludes.

Clarinet/Saxophone

Like the other musicians, the clarinetist is hesitant in his answer. Not “necessarily specific dancers,” he says. What he does know, that when playing for “higher level dancers,” he is able to “take more chances” and do things that would not be possible with lower level dancers. What he “sees specific dancers do” effects his playing in a general sense, rather than a specific one: the higher the skill level of the dancers the more sophisticated the solo.

Trumpet

Of the four musicians, the trumpet player appears the most comfortable with the concept of creating micro interactions with dancers and begins his answer not with hesitation but with the method by which he approaches the task. He explains that he tends to think “rhythmically”. Jazz music, he says, has a “melodic sense and a rhythmic sense”. These two happen simultaneously, however, one may take primacy. Dance, he states, has a “visual rhythm”. As a result he plays more “staccato, rhythmic, and more hard hitting,” utilizing “repetitive licks” and “riff based soloing.” This is combined with the “rhythmic

texture” of the dancers. However, dancers like “pre-recordings songs”, because they know “exactly what’s going to happen.” They “construct the dance” to lead to specific moments and phrases. Predicting the behavior of live music is more difficult. Therefore, when he improvises he tries to create a “sense of predictability” that gives the dancers something “to go off of”. In a sense, it gives both the dancer and musician a common destination.

Summary

In previous questions each musician emphasized the themes of music/dance inter-dependence, community and personal relationships. Interactions with “specific dancers” is something that they celebrate. For instance, two different musicians recount separate stories referencing the same lindy hop

“instructor” whom they praise for creating “magical moments” by responding specifically to their music.

However, the current question makes clarifies that while celebrated such specific “interactions” are the exception and not the rule. Interactions with individual dancers appears to require a high level of skill on the part of both the dancer and the musician. Therefore, while the goal of creating such moments is perhaps not the primary function of how they approach their solos, it is an incredible experience in the rare moments when it is realized.

Markers: Instrument Type (rhythm section or horns); Solo placement (hot solo or cold solo)

Descriptors: rhythmic, kicks, stops, aerials. Syncopations, instrumental mastery, improve ability

9. In general, what attributes of dance performance have been the most influential on the creation and performance of your music?

Introduction

Previous questions and responses brought forward several potential influencers of both relational and performance practices amongst the musicians. This question leads each musician to consider what aspects of the “dance performance” are most influential. During the interview process, this question at times required a little clarification. The intent of the question focuses on visual or auditory elements of the dance itself that affect performance practice.

Musician One

Several of the musicians have already identified dancer skill level as an indicator of potential success in creating dancer and musician interactions. M1 repeats this principle, noting that higher skilled dancers are “more in tune with the music.” What he enjoys most is seeing dancers, “dance the music.”

But it is not about doing it with “flair” as much as a certain “air of style.” There are times when a dancer is not just “hitting whatever you are hitting,” but rather are “hitting what you are doing” and then

“adding to it.” This describes what appears to be a reciprocal or conversational process. The effect on the musician goes beyond being affected by the visual and auditory rhythms of the dancer. The “air of style” can also create a physical change in posture or demeanor rather than a response of musical expression.

M1 gives an example where a dancer was “laying back in his swing-out,” that is to say that the dancer’s posture and style was more relaxed, a recalled this caused him to similarly “lay back” in his own posture.

This more relaxed posture might not “affect the sound” of what is played, but it does “affect me physically.”

Musician Two

Each scene has stylistic differences and preferences, and M2 believes this to be the most influential element. He uses his knowledge and experience as both a musician and a dancer to help his band plan and identify these preferences and respond appropriately. For example, Balboa is a dance with steps that fall only on the quarter notes. This fact changes the feel of the music and its tempo ranges.

Being conscious of this is critical. “Lindy Hop thrives at certain tempos” and at “certain ranges”. If a scene performs a more “Charleston-y Lindy Hop” then they usually prefer faster tempos. Some scenes

“cruise at 180-190” while others average at much slower tempos. There are also limits on the length.

Being stuck with the same dancer for “five minute” songs can be awkward if the connection is not working out. What is clear is that M2 makes great use of his knowledge and experience as a dancer and musician to help himself understand what is “natural” for the Lindy Hopper.

Musician Three

M3 asks for clarification on the question and then answers emphasizing several visual characteristics. He looks first at the, “movement of the feet”, but also how the dancer’s “use their space”.

Are they “dancing close” or “swinging out”, contained or “all over the floor”? Are they “hamming it up”? If they are “watching the band”, then he can usually pick almost “any element of their dancing” and use it to respond. Do they “move furiously” or dance “small and sweet?” He concludes with, “It’s kind of abstract. It’s hard to describe what dancers do to my music.”

Musician Four

Using the same focus as M2, M4 also emphasizes knowledge of the “different types of dances” as the most important influence. The first time his band was asked to play a Balboa event, he had to admit,

“I don’t know what that is.” Knowing the difference between “Balboa, Lindy Hop” “Collegiate Shag”,

“Charleston” helps you know if you are “playing for and tailoring it properly”. The musician has to be

“cognizant” and “know your audience”. The musicians must match the “energy level” of the dancers, no matter the dance type. This is especially true he says, when “playing for a competition”.

Summary

This questions shows again that observations can be made from a broad attribute, such as dance type, as well as more specific attributes such as “feet” and “rhythms”. There are also clear differences between dancers of varying skill levels. Lastly, these musicians have made themselves experts in the knowledge of the swing dance scenes’ expectations and practices. Each knows well the different dances and how to play for them. This appears to be a critical skill found in top swing dance musicians. It also is something that likely takes a good amount of time to learn and develop. This provides a cautionary warning to jazz musicians new to playing for swing dancers who discount this fact and think of playing for dancers as trivial and easy.

Markers: Dance Response Type (hitting it, hitting it and adding to it, watching the band); Familiarity

(familiar, not familiar); Dance Type (Lindy Hop, Balboa, Charleston, Collegiate Shag)

Descriptors: air of style, Charleston-y Lindy Hop, tempos that “thrive”, energy level

10. Are there any additional stories or comments you would like to share that are relevant to our topic?

Introduction

The final question of each interview gives each musician a final opportunity to add to the interview any topics or stories they feel should be added or emphasized in the conversation. Most of their answers centers on the future of swing dance and swing music within the Lindy Hop community.

Musician One

Taking a moment, M1, reminisces on how the trends and “standards” for swing music have changed over the years. People saying, “Big Band music is where it’s at,” or “small group stuff” or “trad jazz”. These trends do keep the music in the scene “fresh and cool”. But sometimes these trends results in dancers who only prefer swing music from a certain time period or of a certain ensemble “type”. He reflects that when he was in high school he didn’t know what to make of modern jazz, because as a dancer he did not know how to dance to it. Over time he “blossomed as a music appreciator.” The hope is that this is also the attitude of dancer. For success, it is important that bands and musicians have “a respect of the dance,” yet at the same time dancers “needs to respect the musician too.” The responsibility for the future of the dancers and musicians lies not in one party or the other, but in both.

He states, “They have to hold hands going into it.” Overall, the progression of the “swing scene is amazing,” especially amongst the “upper echelon of dancers”. “It is hard to compare”, he says, but he believes that the best dancers of today “technically…are probably better” than the great dancers of the past. In the modern era, you can take classes, and there is “an actual process to make you a better dancer.” The scene is “incredible”. Once a dancer breaks through the “technicalities of it”, then they can grow and start “really dancing”. M1 obviously enjoys watching this progression. This is where the music

“progression needs to be,” he concludes, “where the dance needs to be”.

Musician Two

Speaking in a reflective tone, M2 states, “all I try to do is make music for dance.” Though he often comes at it all with an “intellectual approach”, he feels more like an “editor and observer of things.”

His commitment to the dancers and the music is very apparent. He works to be the band that will “honor

the jam circle” and that plays the music that makes people dance. It clearly is a process for him, but a process he loves. “Watching the dance evolve has been really beautiful,” and it “evolves my understanding of the dance along with it.”

Musician Three

“This whole thing is a weird anomaly,” he says, speaking about the interest in a music form that

“was popular 90, 80, 70 year ago. Sometimes people have seen it from the point of nostalgia. His desire is that everyone would, “get to know the real history and the reality” of what it is all about. As he continues, he issues a bit of a challenge to the dance world - a warning not to let the “scene exist too much in a vacuum”. What the scene has “is a rare and beautiful thing,” but it is also time “to have this whole thing understood on a higher level.” This is the same theme as the other musicians. There is an almost universal desire in the musicians for dancers to know more about the music and its creation, for there to be enough context to recognize the good from the bad. M3 recalls times he has played in bad bands and other times in unbelievably good bands. What is interesting is that many dancers don’t know the difference. Responding to a follow-up question, M3 speaks of the current trend of dancers becoming musicians. He states that while it is early on in development, and the outcome still uncertain, it does has some promising elements. Swing music is “timeless music” and most of the people “playing it well and dancing to it well” believe also that it is timeless.

Musician Four

M4 first began playing swing for dancers it was 1999. Thinking back to that time he remarks, “When it all started, it was like, ‘isn’t this cool’.” There were “Zoot suits” and “Cherry Poppin’ Daddies.’ Later it became about the “old records” as people looked for the original music. Now it has come “full circle” where “dancers are really interested in getting the real experience of dancing to live music.” Like “Frankie

Manning” dancing to “Chick Webb.” It was the type of music that was always changing. “Dance” as

“improvisational art” with “jazz” as “improvisational art”. He remarks how much the scene has grown in its use of live music in the last few years. There are “live bands for late night”, bands for “competitions”,

“different styles”: “Django”, “Big Band”, “small combos”. There are “different styles of dance”. It is “not a

static art form.” It is a “living breathing art form.” It is a “diverse art form.” There are so many ways to

“do it, and do it well.”

Summary

There is a clear and unified theme in the responses to this final question. Each musician sees the music progressing. It is a “living breathing art form” and each of them have invested it in immensely and immensely enjoy seeing it develop. The background of the scene is known to them. Each of them goes back to the history of the modern era in their final answers. The education and DJ based cultures has helped create better dancers, but at the same moment, filled the community with expectations, both good and bad. How each musician works with those expectations differs, but they all celebrate the scenes continuing progress. Each musician also keyed in on the same idea for the next step in development. It is time for the scene to take art beyond the dance class and begin to experience it more where the musicians and dancers exist together. With the dancers and the musicians, “holding hands going into it” the scene needs to grow in its desire and knowledge for both the music and the dance.

Then as it learns from each other, the art form and the community will continue to develop to new heights.

Descriptors: Community, technical dancers, education culture, DJ culture. Living art form.

Qualitative Summary

There is a progressive history told in these interviews. It is a tale of a community first built on a historic and celebrated art form, which regained energy in the neo-swing craze, spread through the teaching of classes, and the presence of a DJ culture, and finally to the present day, where dancer and musician alike are in pursuit of a relationship to better understand and develop the inter-relationship of swing music and dance together. The author has observed a similar narrative, and these interviews demonstrate that there is much in common in sum of these experiences. Yet there are also many twists and turns, and the valuations of the musicians in this process paints a picture of a phenomena that is truly a “living art form”.

Through these accounts 18 different potential markers, (or variables of influence) were identified.

Along with this are 44 key descriptive terms or “descriptors”. Each of these has been categorized into five different themes: Musician Descriptors, Dancer Descriptors, Environmental Descriptors, Performance

Practice Descriptors, and Community Descriptors.

Each of these themes represents the major subject matters that the musicians have identified, valued or described as part of their process. Since the majority of questions inquired about performance practices, it is of no surprise that it includes the most variables. It also appears that these variables are related in either a macro view, pertaining to the song as a whole or the band as a whole, or a micro view, pertaining to specifics in the performance of individual dancers or musicians. The potential variables for each of these themes are potential points of differentiation in the practice and may represent a branch in the decision processes of musicians or possibly a marker of independent groups. Each of these are possible subject matters for future research.

Musician Descriptors

Potential Variables  First Experience - Swing Dancer first or swing musician first  Personal Influences o Historical figures and/or contemporary figures and/or personal experience  Dance Experience - (Yes or No)  Band Type - (true dance band or ghost band)

Dancer Descriptors

Potential Variables  Song Expectations o Tempo Preferences o Style Preferences o Danceable (yes or no)

Key Terminology - needs, tastes, mood, tolerances, enjoyment, DJ culture, education culture

Environmental Descriptors

Potential Variables  Audience Type – dancer only or mixed audience  Proximity – Near or far  Venue Size – Large or small

Key Terminology – temperature, size

Performance Practice

Potential Macro Variables  Musician’s Role – arranger and/or bandleader and/or soloist  Set-List Type – adaptive or improvised  Dance Type –Lindy Hop or Balboa or Charleston or Collegiate Shag  Situation Type – social dance or competition or jam circle

Key Macro Terminology  Dance Descriptors - Visual cue, visceral reaction, magical, inspiring, enhance, joy, energy, air of style, Charleston-y Lindy Hop, technical dancers  Music Descriptors - head chart, song form, classic ending licks, arc of the night, song length, tempo, intuition

Potential Micro Variables  Instrument Type – rhythm section or horns  Solo Placement – hot solo or cool solo  Specific Dancers – familiar or not familiar  Dance Response Type – “hitting it” or “hitting it and adding to it”

Key Micro Terminology  Dance Descriptors - rhythm, kicks, stops, aerials  Music Descriptors - Rhythmic patterns, "catchable" rhythms, riff based, repetitions, instrumental mastery, improvisational ability

Community

Potential Variables  Relational Types – one-sided interest or mutual interest or personal friendships  Familiarity – Very familiar or familiar or not familiar Key Terminology - Living art form, community, friendships, human experience, sheer familiarity.

CHAPTER FI VE

STUDY 2 - PROCEDURE FOR QUANTI TATI VE STUDY

The Need for a Baseline

Considering the historical significance that swing music and the central effect of the ballroom had on the development of jazz and it acceptance by the country, the existence of a current thriving international swing dance community is notable. In the period that the swing dance revival occurred

(from the 1980’s to the present), Schools of Music across the country were simultaneously establishing

Jazz Studies programs within higher education. In 1977, the National Association of Schools of Music

(NASM) recognized Jazz Studies and accepted new standards for a baccalaureate degree in Jazz Studies

(Barrows, 1999). The fact that these periods of recognition occurred in parallel is hardly a coincidence.

Furthermore, academic study of jazz has now branched out beyond the specific Jazz Studies programs and also garnered it’s shared of attention in the musicological field. This demonstrates the import of jazz to music studies in general as its academic legitimacy increases. However, academic studies of jazz have not often incorporated quantitative studies of jazz music. The existing quantitative studies usually center on issues of timing, jazz as a part of music preference research, and several theories on the “definition of swing”. The author is not aware any prior quantitative research examining swing music in the context of dancing and within a dance community.

The present day Lindy Hop community is one that is well-positioned for a new line of research examining the relationship of jazz music to partner dancing in a communal environment. The present thriving international community presents an opportunity to examine how this relationship exists within the modern swing dance environment. Likewise, such research may also help to provide insights into the relationship as it existed historically in the Golden Age of Jazz. It is the purpose of this thesis to begin this line of research. Part A of this study examines the demographic characteristics of the Lindy Hop population. Part B examines the characteristics of individual dances and determines how these characteristics correlatively interact.

The Case for Making Observations in the Field

In preparation for this study, two separate unpublished pilot studies were performed to assist in the development of appropriate methodology for this field of research. The first study focused on beat perception and sought to measure to what extent a viewer could ascertain a single Lindy Hop dance couple’s synchronicity with the music. The second study examined the extent to which dance movement in the context of Lindy Hop might influence music preferences. In the course of these two efforts, two challenges to unambiguous data acquisition were identified.

The first challenge is the construction of a representative song set. In the first study, a single song was chosen for the test, and it was this specific song’s form and dynamic accents that proved to be an overriding influence on the viewer’s ability to consistently report on what he or she was observing within the dance. This proved a weakness in the study, and demonstrated a need to utilize a randomized song selection along representative lines when searching for significant observational attributes.

The challenge of finding representative music is significant and a necessary step in the design of a controlled study on the subject. One option would be to do a preliminary study within the Lindy Hop community to establish a database of representative music. Yet, to utilize these songs in a music preference studies as a neutral control - such as seen in other music preference research - would take numerous independent studies to first establish such a database (Ginocchio, 2009). Efforts to this effect would be neither practical nor appropriate. Representative music implies a set database of songs as well as a consistent performance of each song. Recorded music could conceivably meet these criteria, but a single representative recorded performance of each song would have to be selected (probably somewhat arbitrarily). However, whereas much of the music in Lindy Hop is recorded and played by DJ’s, it cannot be overlooked that live music appears to carry a greater valuation than the former. Since live performances of a given song are by nature unique, song selection alone becomes much too vague and variable a descriptor in the case of live jazz music. It is the equivalent of stating that Louis Armstrong’s version of “Stompin’ at the Savoy” is the same as that of Ahmad Jamal’s. Improvisational music and improvisation dance both need to be present for this to be truly representative of the craft.

The second variable of concern is that of dance partnerships. In the first of the pilot studies, a single couple was utilized. In the second pilot study, 33 different people danced with only two people.

Both of these methods proved insufficient. In both pilot studies, the preferences of individual dancers appeared to exert a sufficiently large influence over the total dance experience to preclude measurement of other parameters. . There appears to be too many overriding personal preferences when using smaller numbers and partnerships to permit elucidation of other parameters that potentially affect the overall enjoyment of the dance. The latter include:

 Liking/preference for the song;

 Liking of the partner (certainly subjective and probably influenced by other parameters in this

listing as well as those not listed);

 Familiarity with the partner;

 Skill and experience level of the partner;

 Recorded/DJ or live music;

 The demographics and preference of the dancers participating in a given dance event.

Consideration of these two challenges and inherent questions resulted in a conclusion that the most effective way to do research on swing music and dance is to do that research in the field.

Therefore, the procedure for this thesis addresses these two challenges directly by taking participants from a larger pool of multiple events in multiple regions. The music at these events consisted of both live and recorded/DJ music. The research included over a thousand different dances incorporating more than a thousand different dance partnership combinations, and different dance partner and song combinations.

Review of Purposes and Research Questions

Part A – Demographics Survey

Research Questions

1. What are the dance oriented demographics of the dancers surveyed?

2. Does the demographic data vary by Dance Role or between various Dance Events?

3. What aspects of the dance are most important to each participant?

Part B – I ndividual Dance Ratings

The purpose of Part B is to determine whether corollary relationships exist between the dancer’s enjoyment of the dance and song (Dance Rating and Song Rating), familiarity with the song and dance partner (Song Familiarity and Partner Familiarity), and the perceived skill level of his/her’s partner

(Partner Skill).

Research Questions

4. Do correlations exist within the characteristics rated by the participants for individual dances?

5. Do any of the dance environment and demographic characteristics have a significant effect on ratings given for individual dances?

Method

Perhaps, the most important choice when conducting “in the field” research is determination of participants and location (i.e, which swing dance events to utilize). Four events in the calendar year 2014 were chosen. These events were all in the eastern United States and consisted of two regional events and two national level events. For the purposes of this study, a regional event is defined as one that draws people from an approximately 500 mile radius. Most of these events attract about 100-200 attendees who typically drive to the event. A national event is one in which attendees come from across

the U.S. and in many cases from around the world. (There are established swing dance scenes throughout Europe, Japan, and South Korea). These events typically have approximately 500-1000 attendees.

The study consists of participants who were attendees at two regional and two national level

Lindy Hop events in the Eastern United States. In this study these events are labeled Regional Event One

(RE1), Regional Event Two (RE2), National Event One (NE1), and National Event Two (NE2). The participants comprised and proportionate number of men and women, with the primary attribute of interest not being gender, but primary dance role (lead or follow). Event organizers were requested to sign a consent form for the collection of data, and for approval of the method of recruitment. At each event, the participants were recruited by way of an information desk setup outside, or in the back of the ballroom. See Appendix A for consent forms. Posters were used to advertise and participants were asked if they were interested in participating as they walked by. At three of the events announcements were made from the stage on behalf of the researcher encouraging participation.

After signing the proper consent form, subjects were asked to fill out a short survey about their dance preferences and background, which throughout this study will be known as the demographics survey (See Appendix IV). Following this, each subject was given a pocket sized booklet in which they were asked to randomly pick a total of six of their dances throughout the course of the evening and rate them in the booklet. Pens were provided. A box at the information desk was provided so that the booklets could be returned throughout the evening. Each participant was therefore at liberty to choose their dances in the same way they normally would. Each booklet contained enough pages for a total of six dances. The participants were instructed to fill each page out immediately after each dance. The music was representative of the event and not controlled as a variable. The national events showcase the more established DJ’s and featured bands, whereas the regional events are likely to show more diversity.

The participants were at liberty to choose their dances based upon their typical decision factors to avoid forcing them to dance to a non-preferred song which would not have been normally selected for dancing.

The method has two primary priorities. The first is to obtain all observations in the native environment, and the second priority is accomplishing this with as little interference as possible. As indicated in the two exploratory studies mentioned previously, the number of influences affecting a dancer’s music preference appear to be both multiple and variable from one dance to another. To compensate for this, each participant was provided the liberty to choose dances in his/her normal manner. This minimized the introduction of external influences which could affect results.

Demographics Survey Overview

The demographic questions in the survey were designed to provide information regarding the swing dancing experience of the participants and the extent and nature of their participation within the swing dance community and were based upon the experience of the author within the latter as well as issues identified in the preliminary research discuss previously. This information was used to explore potential effects of these variables upon the individual dance ratings (Part B of the study). The demographic questions are discussed below along with the underlying rationale for each.

1. Do you dance primarily as a lead or as a follow? (Variable Name: Dance Role)

In most partner dancing there are two traditional roles. The role of lead is typically given to the male and the role of follow is typically given to the female. However, in Lindy Hop it is also common for dancers of both genders to learn both roles. This is particularly true of more advanced dancers. Therefore it is important to ascertain the primary role the participant dances. This attribute is even more important than gender for a dancer, although it should be noted that the vast majority of dancers do hold to the traditional gender assignments. The topic of lead and follow is a complex one and a central part of the teaching regimen of most instructors in the community. A basic definition is provided in the glossary in

Chapter 3.

2. What year did you start dancing the Lindy Hop? (Variable Name: Starting Year)

This data point may be interpreted as the “age” of the dancer, which helps establish two important factors. The first is to ascertain the point in which the individual first was introduced to the Lindy Hop community. This is significant because teaching philosophies, music and dance trends have varied over

the 20 years or so of the revival period. This metric, if found to have strong behavioral correlations, may be a lead to understanding the propagation and generational differences in the dance community.

Secondarily, this metric paired with questions like level of expertise and tracked classes, longitudinally might help establish an average rate of development for dancers in the community.

3. Compared to other Lindy Hop dancers nationally, please rate your level of expertise in Lindy Hop? (Variable Name: Level of Expertise)

Pick one: Beginner; Intermediate; Intermediate/Advanced; Advanced; Masters/Professional

Questions three through six are all questions intended to help ascertain a dancer’s true skill level. The given options for question three are therefore based on a commonly utilized breakdown of skill level found within the community. Most dancers who are part of the events in this study would easily recognize the descriptors, because dance classes are commonly labeled with these levels, especially in the larger dance camp events. However, other rating systems such as a basic number system, and color system are occasionally used, with most approximating a five level distribution (Class Levels - Swing Out

New Hampshire Lindy Hop Dance Camp, 2014), (Lindyfest 2015 Workshop Levels, 2014). This rating is self-reported, rather than provided by an independent observer and the emphasis on a “national” comparison is to help assure that the participant does not report his/her level as he/she perceives themselves in his/her local scene.

4. According to our records, you are at ______. If you are taking tracked classes at this event can you please indicate what track you were place in? (Variable Name: Auditioned Track)

This question only applies to dance events where tracked or leveled classes are offered. Many larger workshops and particularly the multi-day dance “camps” offer multiple tracks for which participants can audition. Customarily, the Beginner and Beginner/Intermediate tracks do not require auditions, but all others will do so. When compared with question number three, this question will help establish the validity of the self-reported levels.

5. How often do you go out swing dancing? (Variable Name: Dance Frequency)

Pick one: Less than once a month; Once or twice a month; Once a week; Twice or more a week

Dance attendance and frequency is hypothesized to be a direct corollary of increased skill level and an indication of skill development. Participants that dance more and for a longer period should have a higher mean skill level than those that with a lower skill and more recent starting year.

6. How often do you travel to Lindy Hop events? (Variable Name: Travel Frequency)

Pick one: Once a year; Once or twice every three months; Once a month; Twice or more per month

Unless one lives directly in a scene with very high level dancers, the chances of progressing one’s skill level as a dancer without traveling frequently is increasingly difficult. Coupled with questions three through five, this question should help confirm/refute the validity of this assumption. However, since these questions are not longitudinal in nature, the initial results should be considered as baseline only and instead serve as an indicator for potential future studies.

7. Please rank the following in terms of importance in relation to your dancing: The Music; Your Dancing; Your Partner (Variable Name: Rank with Importance to Your Dancing)

This question may prove to be one of the more revealing and one of the more controversial of the survey questions. It attempts to ascertain the valuation the dancers place on different components of their dancing: attention to the music, attention to their own dancing, and attention to their partner.

Although all three of these factors play an important role in every dancer’s practice of the dance, it is hypothesized that this question, when grouped and compared with a dancer’s level of expertise or years of experience, may permit detection of significant factorial effects on the phenomenon, and would potentially indicate real generational differences among this population.

8. Which of these historical dancers most relates to your dance style? (Variable Name: Historical Dance Association)

Pick one: Dean Collins; Frankie Manning; I don’t know these dancers

Dean Collins and Frankie Manning are central figures in the history of the Lindy Hop, both historically and as part of the swing dance revival. It should be clarified that for dancers that first started in the early 2000’s the pairing of these names may bring to memory the clash for authenticity and

popularity between the two styles that many considered these two men to represent, namely, “Hollywood

Style” (aka Smooth Style) and Savoy Style. This differentiation has since dissipated in the teaching of most and the terms are rarely utilized in present day classes and are considered cliché’. Therefore, the question has value along two lines. The first is as a very basic test of a dancer’s knowledge of swing dance history. The second value is to ascertain how prevalent the influences of the two great masters of this dance have had in comparison to each other. It is hypothesized that Frankie Manning will have a much greater influence for the simple reason that he was part of the revival period for much of the last two decades, teaching for years after the death of Dean Collins.

9. Please indicate your current favorite instructor or partners.

This question is as a simple question based on name frequency. The data from this question may be

utilized in a variety of ways including comparison of responses of groups of dancers categorized by

favorite instructor, and demonstration of “favorite” instructors at each event or across all events

surveyed. Since this question does require a mental recall of the participant, this should be

considered a potential limiter but also a may provide a stronger indicator of familiarity than would

simple visual recognition. This question will not be reported in the results as it includes individual’s

names. Instead the data will be used by the researcher to inform research methods for future

studies.

Dance Log Overview

The booklet given to the participants was pocket sized and a pen was provided if needed. These booklets could be on the person or in a bag. Each booklet contained an introductory page with the following information:

Participant and Event Description  Participants Name  Event Name  Band Name or DJ  Date  Time Period (i.e. 9pm – 12a)  Study Code # (provided by researcher)

Not all participants knew the name of the DJ or the band, so this was provided as needed by the researcher. Following the first page were six pages, one for each dance to be rated. See Appendix II for a detailed example. Each page asked the participant to rate the following:

Dance Log (For each dance)  Live Music or DJ Music  Rate the Song (5 point Likert)  Rate the Dance (5 point Likert)  Song Familiarity (5 point Likert)  Dance Partner familiarity (5 point Likert)  Dance Partner skill level compared to participants (5 point Likert)

The rating scale for the Song and Dance Ratings Scale is as follows:  Dislike Extremely  Dislike Very Much  Neither Like or Dislike  Like Very Much  Like Extremely

The rating scale for Song and Dance Partner Familiarity Scale is as follows:  Not at all Familiar  Slightly Familiar  Somewhat Familiar  Moderately Familiar  Very Familiar

The rating scale for Dance Partner Skill Level is as follows:  Much Lower  Slightly Lower  About the Same  Higher  Much Higher

Limitations

One limitation of this study is isolating influences with regards to music preference. In this context, there are no pre-established balanced songs lists which apply to this unique community to draw from such as those used in other music research studies. A preliminary survey study of DJ’s and bands across the country could establish a baseline set list. However, this could not be considered neutral to factors such as geographical influence, training background, dance style preferences, and a number of other factors. These limitations therefore make it difficult to rely on any kind of controlled experimental study. As such, this study attempts to randomize these influences by performing survey research in the

field at both regional and national attended events. The expectation is that these events will provide a randomized, yet representative sample of songs, venues, partners, time of day, and music format (live music vs. DJ) as well as sufficient individual dancers to control for stylistic and background training influences. Therefore, music preference as defined in this study is simply the song the participant chose of their own account to dance to. The true limitation, like many survey studies, may be establishing that the participants are in fact a true random sample of the population. The same could be said of the bands

(or DJs) and events themselves. These four events are a finite sample of the total number of events in the country and themselves vary in content and popularity from year to year. However, these events and the bands are believed to sufficiently established and well known to suffice for a baseline descriptive study such as this for the mainline Lindy Hop community.

Analysis of Data

Part A - Demographic Survey

Research Question One – What is the dance oriented demographic characteristics of the

dancers surveyed?

Answers from each question within the survey were entered into a statistical software program for analysis. All data including incomplete forms were entered. Appropriate descriptive statistics (means, medians, standard deviation) was calculated dependent on data type for each question in the survey.

Additional the following related question were tested with Spearman correlations. First, Level of Expertise and Auditioned Track were compared. A strong correlation between these two would add confidence in the self-reported value of Level of Expertise since the comparison is against a third-party expert evaluation. Secondly, Starting Year was compared to Level of Expertise to see if dance experience relates to the persons reported skill level.

Research Question Two - Does the demographic data vary by Dance Role or between

various dance Events?

For this test a Mann-Whitney U was used to compare Dance Role (leads and follows) against the results of several of the demographic characteristics. For the four different dance events a Kruskal–Wallis

one-way analysis of variance for non-parametric ordinal data was utilized against the same demographic characteristics. Significant differences between groups were at level of α = 0.05. When a significant differences among Events (more than two sample groups) was identified, a Pairwise Multiple Comparison was performed as a follow-up to determine which of the pairs of groups were significantly different.

The following test were used to check for differences across the following demographics characteristics:

Dance Role

 Sample Groups – Lead or Follow

 Demographic Characteristics – (Tested using a Mann-Whitney U) Q2 -Starting Year, Q3 - Level of

Expertise, Q5 -Dance Frequency, and Q6 – Travel Frequency

By Event

 Sample Groups – National Event One (NE1), National Event Two (NE2), Regional Event One

(RE1) and Regional Event Two (RE2)

 Demographic Characteristics – (Tested using a Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance) Q2 -

Starting Year, Q3 - Level of Expertise, Q5 -Dance Frequency, and Q6 – Travel Frequency

Research Question Three - What aspects of the dance are most important to each

participant?

Questions 7 asked the dancer to rate what was most important to their dancing: either their own dancing, their partner, or the music. This data like the other questions was analyzed for count distribution, means and standard deviations. For further analysis the response were divided into separate sample groups based on each of the six different potential order combinations. These groups were then examined for significant differences across several of the demographic characteristics. Significant differences between groups were at level of α = 0.05. For data that showed significant differences among groups (more than two sample groups), a Pairwise Multiple Comparison was performed as a follow-up to determine which of the pairs of groups were significantly different.

Rank with Importance to Your Dancing

 Sample Groups defined by Ranking Order (1, 2, 3) – (Did Not Answer); (Music, Self, Partner);

(Self, Music, Partner); (Self, Partner, Music); (Partner, Music, Self);

 Since the data for Question 9 (Ranking) consists of a one, two, three ranking in terms of

importance of The Music (Music), Your Partner (Partner), and Your Own Dancing (Self), each

potential order combination is a separate sample group, plus a sample group for dancers that

“Did Not Answer.”

 Demographic Characteristics – (Using Independent-Samples Median Test) Q2 -Starting Year, Q3 -

Level of Expertise, Q5 -Dance Frequency, and Q6 – Travel Frequency

Part B –I ndividual Dance Ratings Analysis

Descriptive Statistics

Raw data was entered into a statistical software program and total counts and distributions for each of the five ratings variables were compiled. In order to analyze the booklet data on a per dance basis, each row represent a single dance as opposed to a single rater (participant). The purpose for this is that each row represents a unique partnership pairing. Next the return rate for the booklets was calculated as a percentage of total participants filling out the demographics survey. Then fields from the demographics survey based on the study code ID number were compiled together with the booklet data to allow for cross-comparisons. Counts were then calculated for Music Format (live musicians or DJ),

Dance Role (lead or follow), and total counts for each of the five rating questions in the dance log. Lastly, means and standard deviations for each of the five rating question in the dance log was calculated.

Research Question Four - Do correlations exist within the characteristics rated by the

participants for individual dances?

A Spearman Correlation (rs) intended for ordinal data was used to compare the following:

 Dance Rating and Song Rating

 Song Familiarity and Dance Rating

 Song Familiarity and Song Rating

 Dance Rating and Partner Familiarity

 Dance Rating and Partner Skill

Research Question Five - Do any of the dance environment and demographic

characteristics have a significant effect on ratings given for individual dances?

The question was analyzed utilizing a Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance for non- parametric ordinal data or Mann-Whitney U. Significant differences between groups were at a level of α =

0.05. Sample groups were determined by the following variables:

 Dance Role (Lead versus Follow)

 Music Format (live musicians versus DJ/recorded music)

 Event (compared across all four events)

 Level of Expertise (a five point ordinal scale)

Each of these variables was tested for significant difference among (or between) the groups across the distributions of data from each of the five questions in the dance log (Dance Rating, Song Rating, Song

Familiarity, Partner Familiarity, and Partner Skill Level ). For data that showed significant differences among groups (more than two sample groups), a Pairwise Multiple Comparison was performed as a follow-up to determine which of the pairs of groups were significantly different.

CHAPTER SI X

QUANTI TATI VE RESULTS AND ANALYSI S

Part A - Demographic Survey Results and Analysis

The results in this chapter follow the same order as the preceding section. It is organized in the order of the research question. Within the questions the results of each survey question is presented in sequential order. Question One reports the demographics data. Question Two examines variations in the data between Events and the two Dance Roles. Question Three focuses on the aspects of the dance important to each participant.

Research Question One – What is the dance oriented demographic characteristics of the dancers surveyed?

Participants and Events

Raw data for the demographic survey consisted answers on nine survey questions from participants (N = 236) who were attendees at two regional and two national level Lindy Hop events in the eastern United States. These four events will be referred to as national event one (NE1), national event two (NE2), regional event one (RE1) and regional event two (RE2). Participant counts at the four events were as follows: NE1 (n=102), NE2 (n=46), RE1 (n=50), and RE2 (n=38).

Survey Question 1 - Dance Role

Of these participants 122 were male and reported dancing primarily the “lead” role and 112 were female and reported dancing primarily the “follow” role.

Survey Question 2 - Starting Year

Participants (n=229) first began dancing the Lindy Hop (range = 1987 to 2014; median = 2009;

M = 2007.39; SD=5.07). Starting Year (see Figure 1) is skewed right with over 50% of the participants starting after 2009. A strong correlation exists between Starting Year and Level of Expertise (rs=0.701).

Table 1 – Variable Names and Likert Scale Ranges

Variable Name Range Value Level of Expertise Beginner 1 Intermediate 2 Intermediate/Advanced 3 Advanced 4 Masters/Professional 5 Dance Frequency Less than once a month 1 Once or twice a month 2 Once a week 3 Twice or more a week 4 Travel Frequency Once a year 1 Once or twice every three months 2 Once a month 3 Twice or more per month 4

Table 2 – Demographic Characteristics by Event

NE1 NE2 RE1 RE2 (n = 102) (n = 46) (n = 50) (n = 38) Starting Year Median 2007 2006 2009 2011 Mean 2005.86 2007.19 2008.24 2008.62 Level of Expertise Median Int/Advanced Advanced Int/Advanced Intermediate Mean 3.76 3.16 3.02 2.47 Dance Frequency Twice or more a Twice or more a Twice or more a Median Once a week week week week Mean 3.36 3.22 3.38 3.08 Travel Frequency Once or twice Once or twice Once or twice Once or twice Median every three every three every three every three months months months months

Mean 2.16 2.19 2.67 1.76

Figure 1 - Starting Year

Survey Questions 3 and 4 - Level of Expertise and Auditioned Track

The median reported (n=233) Level of Expertise was “Intermediate/Advanced” (SD=1.198), or 3 on the 5 point Likert scale. The distribution of the Level of Expertise is shown in Figure 2 and approximates a normal distribution. A strong correlation between Level of Expertise and Auditioned

Tracks (rs=0.861) was observed at event NE1 (n=88), which was the only event in the sample using auditioned tracks. Comparing Level of Expertise to Dance Frequency and Travel Frequency, correlations are considerably weaker (rs=0.249) and (rs=0.329), respectively.

Survey Questions 5 and 6 - Dance Frequency and Travel Frequency

Dance Frequency (n=234) had a median of “Once a week” (3 out of 4) and a mode of “Twice a week” (4 out of 4). Travel Frequency (n=229) had a median and mode of “Once or Twice every three months” (2 out of 4). There is only a weak correlation between Dance Frequency and Travel Frequency.

Figure 2 - Level of Expertise

Research Question Two - Does the demographic data vary by Dance Role or between various dance Events?

Dance Role

A Mann-Whitney U statistical test demonstrates a significant difference between “leads” and

“follows” along two factors, Level of Expertise (p=0.02) and Dance Frequency (p=0.02). Leads had a median level “Advanced” (rank 4 out of 5, with 5 as the highest). Follows had a median level of

“Intermediate/Advanced” (rank 3 out of 5). Leads reported dancing more frequently on a weekly basis than did the follows. Also, the Starting Year (p=0.10) of leads tends to be earlier than that of follows.

By Event

A Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance demonstrated significant differences among the four events on three of the four values tested: Starting Year (p = 0.006), Level of Expertise (p < 0.001),

Travel Frequency (p = 0.001). The median Starting Year for each event is: NE1 (2007), NE2 (2006), RE1

(2009), and RE2 (2011). A follow-up pair-wise comparison of events on Starting Year shows significant differences between NE2 and RE1 (p = 0.024) and NE2 and RE2 (p = 0.011). The median Level of

Expertise for each event is NE1=Intermediate/Advanced, NE2= Advanced, RE1=Intermediate/Advanced, and RE2=Intermediate. A pair-wise comparison between events for Level of Expertise shows all comparisons are significant (p < 0.025) with the exception of the NE1 to RE1 and RE1 to NE1. The median of Travel Frequency was the same for each event (once or twice every three months). The Travel

Frequency pair-wise comparisons showed significant differences between RE1 and NE1 (p=0.045) and

RE2 (p<0.001).

Research Question Three - What aspects of the dance are most important to each participant?

Survey Question 7 - Rank with I mportance to Your Dancing

This question asked participants to rank “The Music”, “My Dancing”, and “My Partner” in order of importance with regards to their dancing. The participants (n = 219) ranked “The Music” (Music) with a mean of 1.77, followed by “My Partner” (Partner) at 1.93 and last “My Dancing” (Self) at 2.25. Table 3 shows the count distribution of each category. In order to further understand the responses the data from this question was separated into the six categories based on the six possible rank order combinations. Also, 10.2% of participants either chose not to answer the question or answered in a way that made the data unusable, such as ranking all three as rank number 1. Figure 3 shows the distribution of the different combination responses. Using an Independent Samples Median these independent sample groups were tested for significant differences among the categories distributions of the data from Starting

Year (p=0.003) and Level of Expertise (p = 0.014). Figure 4 shows the results of the Independent

Table 3 – Counts for Rank in Terms of I mportance to your Dancing

Rank Music My Dancing My Partner  %  %   1 104 47.5 47 21.9 71 33.2 2 61 27.9 67 31.2 86 40.2 3 54 24.7 101 47.0 57 26.6 Total 219 215 214 M 1.77 2.25 1.93 SD 0.820 0.793 0.772

Samples Median Test for Starting Year. Figure 5 shows the results of the Independent Samples Median

Test for Level of Expertise. A close look at the results for Starting Year suggests a breakdown of the ranking categories into three different generations based on the median Starting Year.

 Generation One (median Starting Year = 2007) – (42% of respondents)

o Did Not Answer

o Music, Partner, Self

o Self, Music, Partner

 Generation Two (median Starting Year = 2009) – (35% of respondents)

o Music, Self, Partner

o Self, Partner, Music

 Generation Three (median Starting Year = 2011)

o Partner, Music, Self

o Partner, Self, Music

Within Generation One, there is a division along “Level of Expertise”. “Music, Partner, Self” has a median of 4 (Advanced), and “Self, Music, Partner” a median of 2.5 (between Intermediate and

Intermediate/Advanced). This division however is not statistically significant (p=0.146).

Figure 3 - Rank in Terms of I mportance to your Dancing

Generation Two comprise thirty-five percent of respondents, with a median Starting Year of 2009 and median Level of Expertise of 3 (Intermediate/Advanced). This group represents the categories of

“Music, Self, Partner” and “Self, Partner, Music”. What is of interest here is that both of these categories rate Self over Partner. This is in contrast to the older generations (24%) which rate “Music, Partner, Self” and the generation three which values Partner first (22.8%).

Figure 4 - Starting Year by Ranking Categories

Generation Three (median = 2011) is represented by participants who most often marked Partner as rank number one. Pairwise comparisons of all six categories using Level of Expertise only show a significant difference (p=0.012) between two of the categories “Music, Partner, Self” (median = 4) and

“Partner, Music, Self” (median = 2). There is the difference between Generation One and Generation Three.

There is also a significant difference between these two groups for Starting Year (p=0.005).

Figure 5 - Level of Expertise by Ranking Category

Historical Dance Association

The survey concludes with Question 9, which inquires about the dancer’s knowledge and association with one of two historical dancers. Of the participants 77% (n=171) marked “Frankie

Manning” as relating most to their dancing style, while 11% (n=25) marked “Dean Collins”, and 12%

(n=27) marked that “I don’t know these dancers”. Using each response as an independent sample group a pair-wise comparison reveals significant differences between “I don’t know” and “Dean Collins”, and “I don’t know” and “Frankie Manning”, using the fields Starting Year and Level of Expertise (both tests at p<0.001). This is seen in the median of each group, as Starting Year for the “I don’t know” group was

2013 versus 2008 for both “Dean Collins” and “Frankie Manning”. The median Level of Expertise for the

“I don’t know” group was Intermediate (2) versus Intermediate/Advanced (3) for both “Dean Collins” and

“Frankie Manning”.

Part B – I ndividual Dance Ratings Results

Descriptive Statistics

All participants received a dance log booklet after filling out a consent form and taking the demographics survey. Out of the total number of participants (N=236), a count of n=175 returned the dance log booklets at the end of the night for a total return rate of 74%. The participants (n = 175) rated a total of 1032 dances. This equates to 1032 unique partnership combinations. Of these dances 522 are from event NE1, 156 from NE2, 210 from the RE1 and 204 from RE2. There were 522 dances rated by dancers dancing primarily the lead role and 510 dances rated by dancers dancing primarily the follow role. A total of 737 were danced to live music and 239 were danced to DJ music. Since some ratings were left blank, the total n for each rating was as follows: Song Rating (n = 1026), Dance Rating (n = 981),

Song Familiarity (n = 1023), Partner Familiarity (n = 1000), and Partner Skill Level (n = 1024). Table 4 and Figure 6 show the distributions of each of these questions. The means and standard deviations for each of the booklets ratings are: Song Rating (M=3.94, SD=0.78), Dance Rating (M=4.01, SD=0.84),

Song Familiarity (M=3.09, SD=1.47), Partner Familiarity (M=3.04, SD=1.50), and Partner Skill (M=2.96,

SD=1.12).

Table 4 - Dance Log Distribution Counts

Ratin Music Song Dance Song Partner Partner g Format Rating Rating Familiarity Familiarity Skill 1 737 6 7 235 231 114 2 289 13 33 129 177 229 3 0 271 201 207 151 358 4 0 480 447 215 205 230 5 0 256 293 237 236 93 Total 1026 1026 981 1023 1000 1024

Research Question Four - Do correlations exist within the characteristics rated by the

participants for individual dances?

There is a moderate correlation (n=981) between Dance Rating and Song Rating of rs = 0.427.

There is a moderate correlation of rs = 0.466 between Song Familiarity and Song Rating (n=1023), and of rs = 0.336 between Dance Rating and Partner Skill (n=979). All other correlations are weak. All correlations specifically mentioned are significant at the 0.01 alpha level (2-tailed).

600

500

400

Srate DRate 300 SFam Pfam PSkill 200

100

0 12345

Figure 6 - Dance Log Distributions

Research Question Five - Do any of the dance environment and demographic

characteristics have a significant effect on ratings given for individual dances?

A Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance for non-parametric data or Mann-Whitney U was utilized to examine for significant differences among independent sample groups. Sample groups were identified using demographics survey data. The groups analyzed are: Dance Role (lead or follow), Music

Format (either live musicians or DJ), Event, and Level of Expertise.

For Dance Role there is a significant difference between leads and follows in regards to their

Partner Skill (p < 0.001). This is to be expected, since as shown in the demographics survey, there is a significant difference between leads and follows on Level of Expertise. For Music Format there is a significant difference on Song Rating (p = 0.003), with live music preferred over DJ Music.

Events differed on two parameters, Song Rating (p = 0.014) and Partner Familiarity (p < 0.001).

A pair-wise comparison shows that for Song Rating the significant difference occurs between the two national events. Of the four events NE1 had the highest average rating (M = 4.03, SD = 0.036), followed by RE1 (M = 3.89, SD = 0.053), RE2 (M = 3.89, SD = 0.058), and finally NE2 (M = 3.82, SD = 0.067).

The pair-wise comparisons reveals Partner Familiarity differs between two event pairs (both at p <

0.001): RE2 to RE1, and RE2 to NE1. This fact may be due to the size of the scene and the age and culture of each event. RE2 was a small event, where many attendees likely came from the local scene, and scored the highest mean rating of familiarity (M = 3.45, SD = 0.109), followed by NE2 (M = 3.06, SD

= 0.128), NE1 (M = 2.94, SD = 0.067), and finally RE1 (M = 2.85, SD = 0.109). RE1 was a shorter event, with a shorter history, whereas NE2 and NE1 are large events with long established history’s that frequently attracts repeat attendees.

Level of Expertise shows several effects that are to be expected. First, the five different levels of dancers (Level of Expertise is a five point scale) was significantly different (p < 0.001) in the ratings for

Song Familiarity. This is likely the result of more skilled dancers being more familiar with the music than lesser skilled dancers. This same result is difference appears between how each group reports Partner

Skill (p < 0.001). As can be seen in Figure 6, Partner Skill follows closely to a normal curve. Therefore,

since Level of Expertise also follows the same normal, this validates that the dance log surveys are in fact a representative population.

CHAPTER SEVEN

DI SCUSSI ON AND CONCLUSI ON

Behind this study is a strong desire to establish a baseline descriptive understanding of the modern Lindy Hop dance community and its relationship with swing dance musicians. The qualitative analysis from Chapter Four has helped established a number of “markers” of influence as well as common descriptive terms with which to elucidate the relationship. To create a complete picture of the relationship between the swing dance musicians and dancers the next step is to combine this with the quantitative analysis of the dancers by first describing in detail the nature of the community for which these musicians performs and inter-relate.

Describing the Lindy Hop Community

The swing dance community is a group of people that is part of both a local dance community as well as a regional and national dance community. This study has helped establish a description of what constitutes that group within the context of regional and national events. The group appears closely divided between leads and follows (typically males and females), and represents people that have been dancing Lindy Hop from the about the mid 1990’s to present. The median year the group began dancing

Lindy Hop is 2009 and there is a strong correlation between how long a person has been dancing and the level of expertise within the dance. The self-reported Level of Expertise is also strongly correlated with

Auditioned Track, lending credence to the rating as it is consistent with that of expert observers (those conducting the auditions). The leads have been dancing slightly longer than the follows and appear to be slightly more skilled, at least by their own estimation. Each person attends dances about once or twice a week and travels to about four to eight events a year.

As the dancers travel around the country, different demographics attend different events.

National events tend to have more experienced and higher skilled dancers than do the regional events.

However, this does not mean that dancers that travel to national events travel more often. For instance regional event (RE1) had a significantly higher travel rate that the other events. This is potentially

explained by the type/style of the event which successfully attracted a number (28%) of Advanced level dancers who also were travelling a lot. Many of these dancers were regional organizers, teachers, and performers, working their way up within the Lindy Hop scene.

Music is both enjoyed and important to these dancers. Overall dancers rated the songs they danced to with a consistent positive affirmation. A mere 2% of songs were rated with a negative rating of any type. Over 70% of dancers gave positive ratings, with 25% marking the song with “Like Extremely”.

The music was also of importance as it relates to the participants dancing philosophy. 67% of respondents rated the music as either first in importance (46%) or second in importance (21%), over and above their own dancing and their dance partner. Dancers also have a distinct preference for Live

Music over DJ Music (p=0.003). This is a valuable result for it reinforces the Lindy Hop scenes present trajectory towards an increasing interest in both the practice thereof and the frequency of Live Music at

Lindy Hop events. The dancer’s familiarity is very typical with Song Familiarity following closely to a normal curve. At the same time, more advanced dancers are definitely more familiar with the music than less advanced dancers.

Dancers also have a positive view of the dances they have with each other. The mean Dance

Rating was even higher than that of the Song Rating, though the distribution is a slightly broader with

4% giving a negative rating and 74% giving a positive rating. A full 30% actually marked their dance as

“Like Extremely”. In regards to their familiarity with each other, dancers tend to dance with people that are either “not at all familiar” to them or “very familiar” more often. This is not surprising as with a large dance floor there is a tendency to just ask a random person to dance, or in contrast seek more familiar friends to dance with. Dancing with someone you are familiar with however, does not guarantee an enjoyable dance, shown by the weak correlation (rs = 0.211) between Partner Familiarity and Dance

Rating, but it is one of several potential factors.

Finally, dancers appear to have varying philosophies about how to approach the Lindy Hop. The scene appears to be divided into three separate generations. In a question asking dancers to rank the importance of the music, their own dancing, and their partner’s dancing, participants trended toward

particular rankings in relation to the dancer’s years of experience and level of expertise. Three generations were identified. The oldest generation values the music more than their partners. This generation includes the 10% of respondents who did not answer the question (or rather answered it with an unusable answer such as ranking all three attributes as rank one). During the data gathering several dancers voiced an objection to the question itself, stating that these were either all the same, or too inter-dependent to answer, which suggest a reason for such a large group of non-respondents (10%) for the question. The vast majority (76%) of the oldest generation also put their own dancing as last in rank, but 24% put it first. The difference is that those who ranked “Your Dancing” first are on average lower skilled dancers, than those who ranked their own dancing as last. The youngest generation, which is also the least skilled, consistently valued their partner first. Many dancers at the beginning are just learning the skill of listening to the music and understanding their own dancing, as note in the musician interviews earlier in the study (p. 51). This focus on their partner could therefore be a result of lack of development of the other two skills, or a result of ideological concepts they are learned. The group that is perhaps the most interesting is the middle generation, which represents the median age across all dancers. This group rates the music either first (48%) or last (52%). What is fascinating is the fact that this group consistently considers their “own dancing” more important than their “partner’s dancing”. When compared to the older generation this shows an ideological shift in philosophy in regards to the dance.

The older dancers appear to prize the “music” and their “partner’s dancing” first. Also, there is no significant difference in skill between these two generations. Observations by the author in the community have noted a change in language in the last 3 years regarding the topic of “my dancing” versus “my partner’s dancing”. These results seem to indicate that these ideological descriptions have had the greatest effect on the middle generation dancers, but that older dancers have held to their original principles. A longitudinal study could establish whether these changes are in fact trends or static principles of dancer development.

Discussion of the I ndividual Dance Ratings

Several critical factors are seen in the data. The first is the simple fact that dancers consistently

“like” the music being danced to, which is a desired and now substantiated outcome. Also, the differentiation from event to event demonstrates that the music at every event is not equally “liked”. This should not be attributed to just the musician’s performance, but as indicated in Chapter 3, to the organization of the event, or the architecture of the room, or the acoustic and sound reinforcement properties. All of these attributes provide equally interesting areas of inquiry for future consideration. The skewing of the data for Song Rating and Dance Rating also reveals a potential flaw in the study’s design.

By choosing a 5 point Likert-type scale the skew towards the positive ratings effectively reduced the scale to a 3 point scale. With such course granularity, correlations become increasingly difficult to detect. This is demonstrated by the fact that of the N=1032 over 50% of them actually had equal values for each rating (i.e. both marked with 4). Another 30% of the whole are only within one value. Lastly, dancers were more likely to mark a dance with the highest rating, than the song. This could be investigated further and could be an indicator of whether the dance may be a great influence on total enjoyment than would be the music. However, as has been noted both in the musician’s interviews and the historical overview of swing dancing, such separation of factors is both difficult and overreaching. After all, Lindy

Hop thrives on a strong interaction between the music and the dance and the community that is built as a support around it. Separating them for the purpose of study would not likely establish true results.

The results demonstrated a moderate correlation of rs=0.427 between Dance Rating and Song

Rating which for this study can be considered the metrics for “Dance Effectiveness” and “Music

Preference” respectively. The correlations between the other five dance log questions give a more complete picture of the process than does Song Rating and Dance Rating in isolation. Also, of influence is the impact Song Familiarity has on Song Rating. With a correlation or rs =0.466 it is effectively equal in influence to Song Rating and Dance Rating (rs = 0.427). Familiarity has been shown to have an effect on music preference (Hedden, 1981). It should be of no surprise that this is the case on the dance floor.

However, the psychological impact is quite different from controlled studies environments where

participants listen to music in isolation. Musicians One in Chapter Four gave examples of songs he performed which had trick endings. He noted that even though dancers are familiar with the song they are still “fooled” by the ending, and afterward give a collective “groan”. This is a circumstance that this author has witnessed multiple times. The “groan” is one of elation and enjoyment. Whether the dancers, though familiar with the song, always forget the ending, is impossible to know. However, the repeated familiar occurrence of being “fooled” can only make the experience more fun. This example is meant to illustrate the point that for dancers, song familiarity plays a more nuanced role.

The final correlation of relevance is Dance Rating and Partner Skill (rs = 0.336). This moderate result is expected. This comparison represents a common experience for dancers. From the author’s observation, most dancers appear to enjoy dancing with people that are more experienced than themselves. Dancing with the “rock stars” can be a mix of fear and gleeful anticipation. The reverse is equally common and is a concept that is described by one of the musician’s in Chapter Four. He describes a situation of dancing with someone below your level, in which the dance is perhaps not working. He uses this as a reason why bands should not perform songs longer than the typical three or four minutes.

The Effect of Demographics upon I ndividual Dance Ratings

Using data from the demographics overview and the dance log data combined several demographic characteristics were identified as having a significant effect upon the dance log ratings.

That is to say when the participants are grouped by the one characteristic, then they differ significantly on the other identified characteristics. These list of characteristics can also be combined with Dance Role and Event, which both differed by Starting Year and/or Level of Expertise. Combined these create a complete list of characteristics that had significant interactions with all the data, both demographic and behavioral. Therefore, these characteristics can be grouped into two different types of observable metrics: demographic characteristics and behavioral characteristics. Characteristics based on the demographics are inherent to the population and therefore must be identified and controlled as the precursor towards any subsequent experimental study, whereas the behavioral characteristics constitute possible observational variables for future studies. Such studies could investigate how these behaviors

work individually and more importantly how they interrelate and work together. See Table 5 for a complete list of related characteristics.

Table 5 - Demographic I nfluences upon Dance Log Ratings

Data Grouped By Group Differs By Demographic Characteristics Behavioral Characteristics Starting Year Travel Frequency Events Song Rating Level of Expertise Partner Familiarity Dance Frequency Dance Roles Level of Expertise Partner Skill Dance Philosophy Starting Year

Type Level of Expertise

Music Format Song Rating

Song Familiarity Level of Expertise Partner Skill

I mplications of the Qualitative Study of Musicians

This qualitative study’s purpose is to document and identify the language and concepts

utilized by musicians who play for swing dancing within the Lindy Hop community and

establish a set of potential markers of influence within their practice and a set of common

language descriptors. This study will focus on the interactions musicians have with dancers

and the performance practices relevant to the relationship. This analysis of the musicians

will provide a context in which to discuss the results of the Study Two.

The responses and stories of the musicians interviewed in this study in and of themselves reveal a great deal about these musicians and the dancers for which they perform and is an educational narrative for anyone interested in the practice of playing for swing dancers. However, one of the primary purposes of this effort was not only to document the oral history of these individuals, but also to elucidate their practices by revealing relevant markers of influence and the common descriptors used to describe the process. These markers and descriptors have been organized into five themes: Musician

Descriptors, Dancer Descriptors, Environmental Descriptors, and Performance Practices Descriptors, and

Community Descriptors.

These themes can also be organized into the same two groups as the dancer’s characteristics:

Demographic Characteristics and Behavioral Characteristics. Each of the descriptive themes centralizes on the demographics. They emphasize such characteristics as the musicians experience as a dancer or lack thereof, or from the dancers perspective their expectations about the music and the musicians.

Additionally, there is the environmental factors, such as the size of the venue, the proximity of the band to the dance floor, and the type of audience (dancer only or mixed). Like the quantitative demographics of the dancers, each of these characteristic contribute in some fashion to the behaviors of both dancer and musician. For instance, the musicians all referenced the skill level of the dancers as a metric that related to how complex their arrangements and improvisational solos could be performed. This observation is strengthened by the quantitative result’s demonstration of significant differences between events on Level of Expertise. There are many ways these variables could be extended in the future.

Surveys “in the field” that question both musicians and dancers simultaneously might compare each groups observations about any of the above identified characteristics.

The variables of influence identified under the theme of Performance Practice carry implications, both historical and contemporary. The concept of “catchable” rhythms and riffs is one that repeats during the interviews. This appears to articulate in the dancers on either a “macro” level, where rhythms can be seen across the entire dance floor, or on a “micro” level between the musicians and specific dancers, which appears to happen with greater rarity. Howard Spring in his article on the original Lindy Hop era uses the exact same language to describe the relationship.

”Such interaction was not unusual. Manning also described how he would often "catch" musical ideas from the band while dancing and how the drummer or soloist in turn would "catch" his steps. In this way dancers added to the music, and musicians added to the dancing. “- (Spring, 1997)

Likewise Howards quotes Dicky Wells (1907-85) of the Count Basie orchestra as saying:

“In a dancehall, you're not as self-conscious, and you do a whole lot of things on the horn you wouldn't do at a concert-a whole lot of relaxed things. For the dancer, you know what will please him. It has got to be something that will fit around him and with his step. When you see a dancer take his girl, and then drop her hands and walk off, something isn't right. Most likely the rhythm's wrong. But when you get that beat he's right there saying: "Play that again!" If you've got two or three thousand people in front of you at a concert, it's hard to imagine what they like, what rhythm they like. But when you've got people out on the dance floor and dancing you know what they like-you got 'em! Tommy Dorsey told me he could pretty well tell when he had a hit, because the floor stayed packed, and because the music sounded good to them there it would sell on a record. I've always thought that if they could screen the bandstand with glass or something at a place like the Savoy, and record while that band could still see those dancers, they'd get a wonderful effect. It would help the musicians a lot.”

The fact that these historical accounts line up with the contemporary descriptions should not be of any surprise. Did the musicians of today learn this language by reading and research? Perhaps, but it is more likely that the dancer and musicians of today learned this by experience, the same way that the original Lindy Hop dancers learned it. This lends credence to the hypothesis that the investigation of contemporary swing dance musician’s performance practices can be used to help understand their historical counterparts. The markers and descriptors identified in this study each provide a potential research focus for future studies. However, it is clear that such efforts must simultaneously investigate the dancer and the musician’s responses to observe this type of interactivity.

One final principle of note is the importance that familiarity and community performs in the processes of each of these musicians. Community, particularly, is a theme within all the musicians’ answers that is continually emphasized and highly valued. These musicians have invested greatly towards learning the expectations and needs of the dance community. They recognize “jam circles”, know the subtle performance changes necessary for competitions, recognize the variation in skill levels of dancers, and understand how their music best compliments various forms of swing dancing (Lindy Hop, Balboa, and Charleston). The next step in growth for this community is the hope that more dancers will likewise

learn about the forms of the songs, the roles of the instruments, and in general all the characteristics that musicians prize about the music. This mutual investment in one another can help create more and more of these incredible “magical moments”.

Recommendations for Further Study

The results of the study provide a rich context and baseline in which to continue research on the topic of Lindy Hop music and dance interactions. There are numerous directions possible. This section will focus on just a few of the potential future options for such work.

First, the reduction of the scale of the rating system used in the dance log due to the positive skew of the data provides an immediate adjustment. Of particular interest in how each of these variables relate to one another. A study using partial-correlations with a broader scale than was applied in this studies method might be of valuable use in determining how the interactions work and if any of the variables constitute a “suppressor” value.

Another interesting study would be to extend various portions of this work to establish a longitudinal study of lindy hop development rates and trends. This could be done first by taking a closer examination of different characteristic within the demographic data. One characteristic that stands out in this study is the slight but still significant difference of self-reported Level of Expertise between “leads” and “follows”. While this does correlate strongly with the auditioned track results at the one event at which this was measured, the fact that it only comes from one event (and therefore one audition sample set) means it could benefit from additional data from other events. This is in light of the fact that Level of

Expertise is a trait that has been shown to differ significantly between events already. Furthermore, more accurate results could be obtained by acquiring the audition results not from the participants but from the event organizers. This would allow for a blind comparison. In this study, participants reported both their self-perceived level and the result of their audition track placement. This might be creating an artificial consistency simply by the proximity of the questions. Method adjustments such as this in addition to doing such a work longitudinally could also help reveal how development rates of dancers trend, both as a whole population and as separate groups (“leads” versus “follows”).

This thesis has begun the work of examining swing dance musicians ideologies and descriptors in order to provide a context for discussion and further research. This was done qualitatively because the sample population is finite. Within the dancer population is a similar finite group that would make for an interesting parallel study. That population is made of the various Lindy Hop instructors that teach as their primary source of income. These would include instructors such as the one cited separately by two the musicians in this study praise for creating “magical moments”. Of interest would be to see how these instructors in turn describe and appreciate the musicians. As seen here, the relationships and friendships built as part of this community have a valued effect on how each musician perceives and understands his craft. It would be of great value to see if the dancers use the same language. This same study could also illuminate language surrounding the differences in pedagogical practice and ideological understanding of the dance. This is of further interest in light of the ideological differences indicated in the ranking question used in this thesis. These possible “generational divisions” would also make for an interesting quantitative follow-up study within the general Lindy Hop dancer populations. A qualitative study of the instructors, coupled with instructor associations from the dancers could help guide efforts to understand and unpack these trends.

Since community and familiarity have been such strong themes within the results of this study, another option would be to continue the quantitative approach with community as the focused theme.

One possibility would be to develop a method to examine the relationship of dance partner familiarity in relation to the dancer’s familiarity with the band. Increased interest and familiarity with the music and the musicians is an expressed interest at the end of the interviews as the musicians speculate on the future and their own hopes for the scene.

One final contrast could be to take the qualitative methods used to examine Lindy Hop musician’s attitudes about dancing and swing music and examine outside for similar or contrasting attitudes in faculty within higher education Jazz Studies programs. Since the focus of many Jazz Studies programs seems more focus on Modern Jazz rather than Swing Era jazz, it would be interesting to see if faculty perceive of this as a “living, breathing art form” as stated by Musician Four, or as something different.

Similarly, groups of musicians who play in what Musician Two referred to as “ghost” bands could also be of interest3. Such a contrast with the methods and ideologies of the musicians documented in this study would be of great interest to those who teach and work within this field.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this thesis has provided a quantitative descriptive analysis, designed in the context of historical accounts and a qualitative analysis of current musician’s interviews to provide contextualized conclusions regarding the relationship of dance effectiveness and music preference. Demographic and behavioral characteristics for both dancers and musicians have been identified providing a descriptive understanding of the community and its behaviors that may be used as a basis for further investigation of swing dance and music interactions. The method provided in this study also proved a successful model for engagement of the Lindy Hop community in investigation of its behaviors “in the field” without disrupting the habits and enjoyment of the dancers.

The overall purpose of this research has been to create a baseline set of data and analysis upon which future studies in this topic may be built. It is the hope of this author that the unique relationship of swing dance musicians to swing dancers described in this thesis may prove to be a subject of interest to other academics. This art form in its present day form lives in an environment that values and thrives on community. The subject is rich in material that will help broaden the sociological and cultural understanding of a part of American artistic history that continues to be celebrated by historian and is lived out in the Lindy Hop community today. Furthermore, this community represents a place where music is brought to bear not simply as food to soothe the hunger of consumerist appetites, but as a way to strengthen and nurture relationships within communities. It is an example of music in one of its most encouraging forms, in a world that often substitutes social media for social interactions. This is a group of people that uses music far beyond making it the sound track for their life, and far beyond even the

3 It is important to first identify exactly what “ghost” band means in this context.

typical concert environment. This is a people that not only respond to music just at the end of a song, but as an integrated part of its creation and function. Truly, it is community worthy of attention.

APPENDI X A

I RB APPROVAL AND CONSENT FORMS

Participant Consent Form

Swing Dancing: HOW DANCE EFFECTI VENESS MAY I NFLUENCE MUSI C PREFERENCE

You are invited to be in a research study of Swing Dance and Music Preferences. You were selected as a possible participant because of your participation in the general swing dancing and Lindy Hop community. We ask that you read this form and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to be in the study.

This study is being conducted by Michael Strickland, The Florida State University College of Music

Background I nformation:

The purpose of this study is to examine and understand the relationship of music preference and dance partnership among the community of swing dancers.

Procedures:

If you agree to be in this study, we would ask you to do the following:

1) Fill out a short survey about your dance preferences and background. 2) You will be provided with a dance log booklet and a pen if needed. The dance log contains a Participant and Event Description page which you should fill out before leaving. Following this is a page survey for a total of six dances. You may keep the booklet on your person or with your belongings. After each dance, please note your observations of that dance and your partner before proceeding to a new dance. You are not compelled to dance these dances all at once. Dance at your natural pacing. Try to pick your dances randomly throughout the evening. Also, please log the dances in the order you do them. After completing the booklet, please return the booklet to the information table at the sound booth.

Risks and benefits of being in the Study:

The study has minimal risk and poses no risks additional to the risk in participating in the dance. The benefit to participation is helping contribute to research in a new field of study.

Compensation:

There is no compensation for participating in this study. All participation is completely voluntary.

Confidentiality:

The records of this study will be kept private and confidential to the extent permitted by law. In any sort of report we might publish, we will not include any information that will make it possible to identify a subject. Research records will be stored securely and only researchers will have access to the records. (If

tape recordings or videotapes are made, explain who will have access, if they will be used for educational purposes, and when they will be erased).

Voluntary Nature of the Study:

Participation in this study is voluntary. Your decision whether or not to participate will not affect your current or future relations with the University. If you decide to participate, you are free to not answer any question or withdraw at any time without affecting those relationships.

Contacts and Questions:

The researcher conducting this study is Michael Strickland. You may ask any question you have now. If you have a question later, you are encouraged to contact me at FSU College of Music, ***-***-****, ***@****** Major Professor: Brian Gaber, ***-***-****, ****@*****

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study and would like to talk to someone other than the researcher(s), you are encouraged to contact the FSU IRB at 2010 Levy Street, Research Building B, Suite 276, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2742, or ***-***-****, or by email at ****@******.

You will be given a copy of this information to keep for your records.

Statement of Consent:

I have read the above information. I have asked questions and have received answers. I consent to participate in the study.

______

Printed Name

______

Signature Date

Study Code #: ______

Musicians Consent Form

Swing Dancing: How Dance Effectiveness May I nfluence Music Preference

You are invited to be in a research study of Swing Dance and Music Preferences. You were selected as a possible participant because of your participation as a musician in the general swing dancing and Lindy Hop community. We ask that you read this form and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to be in the study.

This study is being conducted by Michael Strickland, The Florida State University College of Music

Background Information:

The purpose of this study is to examine and understand the relationship of music preference and dance partnership among the community of swing dancers.

Procedures:

If you agree to be in this study, we would ask you to agree to a ten question approximately 20 minute interview (length dependent on your answers) about your experiences as a musician in the swing dance community. The questions are not of a personal nature and relate solely to your practices and observations as a musician. The interview will be audio recorded and transcribed as part of the research. The interview will be analyzed for common conceptual trends between participants. If the researcher desires to use direct quotes in publication, additional consent will be sought. Either way, your identity will be kept confidential.

If you agree, you may choose to do the interview at a time convenient to both your and the researcher. An in person interview is possible if scheduling permits, as long as it does not interfere with you duties at the event. Otherwise, if you prefer, a Skype based interview may also be possible.

Risks and benefits of being in the Study:

The study has minimal risks. The study will not identify you and your answers will not be matched to your person. The interview will be done only at your convenience so as not to interfere with any of your duties as a musician.

The benefit to participation is helping contribute to research in a new field of study.

Compensation:

There is no compensation for participating in this study. All participation is completely voluntary.

Confidentiality:

tape recordings or videotapes are made, explain who will have access, if they will be used for educational purposes, and when they will be erased).

Voluntary Nature of the Study:

Contacts and Questions:

The researcher conducting this study is Michael Strickland. You may ask any question you have now. If you have a question later, you are encouraged to contact me at FSU College of Music, ***-***-****, ***@******. Major Professor: Brian Gaber, ***-***-****, ****@*****

You will be given a copy of this information to keep for your records.

Statement of Consent:

I have read the above information. I have asked questions and have received answers. I consent to participate in the study.

______

Printed Name

______

Signature Date

Study Code #: ______

I RB Approval Letter

APPENDI X B

DANCE LOG BOOKLET

100

APPENDI X C

DEMOGRAPHI CS QUESTI ONS

101

102

APPENDI X D

MUSI CI AN’S I NTERVI EW QUESTI ONS

Name:

Email:______

Years of Experience Playing for dancers: ______Instrument: ______

Time and Date of Interview: ______Method of contact: ______

1) What first got you into playing for swing dancing?

2) How often do play for swing dancers? How often for non-dancing audiences?

3) Who or what has most influences your perspective on how to best play for swing dancers?

4) Are your performances influenced by what you see the dancers do? a. If so, can you describe a specific situation where this occurred?

5) During the 1920’s – 1940’s jazz music was often played for dancing. Many historians cite dance as the important influence in development of the music, some even describing it as an interdependent relationship. Do you believe this sort of relationship still occurs today? a. If so, in what venues and circumstances have you found this relationship most strongly displayed?

6) Do you consider the musician and dancer inter-relationship both on and off the dance floor to be a significant one for the continued development and practice of both the music and the dance? Is so, why?

7) Do you ever change the set-list, extend a performance of a song, or otherwise vary in a macro fashion the material to be performed based on what dancers are doing? a. Can you give a specific example?

8) When performing an improvisatory solo, in what ways is your performance influenced by what you see specific dancers do? a. Can you recall a specific instance?

9) In general, what attributes of dance performance have been the most influential on the creation and performance of your music?

10) Are there any additions stories or comments you would like to share that are relevant to our topic?

103

REFERENCES

Aldrich, E. (1991). From the Ballroom to Hell: Grace and Folly in Nineteenth-Century Dance. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Anonymous Interviews. (2014, August). Swing Musician Interview #1-4. (M. Strickland, Interviewer)

Barrows, S. (1999). Historical Perspective 1924-1999. Reston: National Association of Schools of Music.

Brian Setzer - Chart history Billboard. (2014). Retrieved from Billboard.com: http://www.billboard.com/artist/297218/brian-setzer/chart

Butterfield, M. (2010, February). Participatory discrepancies and the perception of beats in jazz. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27(3), 157-176.

Class Levels - Swing Out New Hampshire Lindy Hop Dance Camp. (2014, 10). Retrieved from Swing Out New Hampshire: http://www.swingoutnh.com/classes-activities/class-levels.aspx

Collier, G. L., & Collier, J. L. (Spring 2002). A study of timing in two Louis Armstrong solos. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19(3), 463-483.

Dance Perspectives Foundation, Inc. (2004). International Encyclopedia of Dance. New York: Oxford University Press.

Foundation, F. M. (2014, October). Ambassador Program. Retrieved from Frankie Manning Foundation: http://www.frankiemanningfoundation.org/ambassador-program/

Ginocchio, J. (2009). The Effect of Different Amounts and Types of Music Training on Music Style Preference. Belletin of the Council for Research in Music Education(182), 7-18.

Giordano, R. G. (2007). Social Dancing in America - A History and Reference. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

Goebl, W., & Palmer, C. (2009, June). Synchronization of timing and motion among performing musicians. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26(5), 427-438.

Hedden, S. K. (1981). Music Listening Skills and Music Listening Preferences. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 16-26.

Hove, M. J., & Keller, P. E. (2010, September). Spatiotemporal relations and movement trajectories in visuomotor synchronization. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 28(1), 15-26.

Jackson, J. D. (2001, Winter). Improvisation in African-American vernacular dancing. Dance Research Journal, 33(2), 40-53.

Keil, C. (1966). Motion and feeling through music. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 24, 337-349.

Lindsay, K., & Nordquist, P. (2007). Pulse and swing: Quantitative analysis of hierarchical structure in swing rhythm. Jornal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122, 2945-2946.

104

Lindyfest 2015 Workshop Levels. (2014, 10). Retrieved from Lindyfest: http://lindyfest.hsds.org/workshop.html#level

Luck, G., & Sloboda, J. (2009). Spatio-temporal cues for visually mediated synchronization. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26(5), 465-473.

Madison, G. (2006, December). Experiencing groove induced by music: Consistency and phenomenology. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24(2), 201-208.

Malone, J. (1996). Steppin' on the blues: The visible rhythms of African American dance. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Martens, P. A. (2011, June). The ambiguous tactus: Tempo, subdivision benefit, And three listener strategies. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 28(5), 433-448.

Maus, F. E. (1999). Concepts of Musical Unity. In N. Cook, & M. Everist, Rethinking Music (pp. 171-192). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McMains, J., & Robison, D. (2002). Swingin' Out. In M. Needham, I See America Dancing (pp. 84-91). Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois.

Morrison, S. (1998). A comparison of preference responses of white and African-American students to musical versus musical/visual stimuli. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46(2), 208-222.

Naveda, L., & Leman, M. (2010). The spatiotemporal representation of dance and music gestures using topological gesture analysis (TGA). Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 93-111.

Phillips-Silver, J. (2006). Multisensory Processing of Metrical Structure in Music: Movement influences Adults' and Infants' Auditory Perception. Hamilton, Ontario: McMaster University.

Phillips-Silver, J., & Trainor, L. J. (2007, December). Hearing what the body feels: Auditory encoding of rhythmic movement. Cognition, 105(3), 533-546.

Rammsayer, T. H., Buttkus, F., & Altenmüller, E. (2012, September). Musicians do better than nonmusicians in both auditory and visual timing tasks. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 30(1), 85-96.

Renshaw, S. W. (2006). Postmodern Swing Dance and Secondary Adjustment: Identity as Process. Symbolic Interaction, 83-94.

Rohwer, D. (1997). The effect of movement instruction on sixth-grade beginning instrumental music students' perception, synchronization and performance with a steady beat. ProQuest. The Ohio State University: UMI Dissertations Publishing.

Rohwer, D. (1998). Effect of movement instruction on steady beat perception, synchronization, and performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46(3), 414-424.

Sedimerier, P., Weigelt, O., & Waither, E. (2011, February). Music in the Muscle: How Embodied Cognition May Influence Music Preferences. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 297- 306.

Siegel, M. B. (1979). The Shapes of Changes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

105

Spring, H. (1997). Swing and the Lindy Hop: Dance, Venue, Media, and Tradition. American Music, 15(2), 183-207.

Squirrel Nut Zippers - Chart history Billboard. (2014). Retrieved from Billboard.com: http://www.billboard.com/artist/280245/squirrel-nut-zippers/chart

Stearns, M., & Stearns, J. (1968). Jazz dance: The story of American vernacular dance. New York: Da Capo Press, Inc.

Stevens, J. C., Emery, S., Wang, S., Kroos, C., & Halovic, S. (2009). Moving with and without music: Scaling and lapsing in time in the performance of contemporary dance. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26(5), 451-464.

Sykes, S. (2014). Slyvia Sykes Bio. Retrieved from sylviasykes.com: http://sylviasykes.com

The Camp | Lindy Focus. (2014). Retrieved from Lindy Focus: http://lindyfocus.com/thecamp.php?section=main

The Crowne Plaza Resort. (2014, October). Retrieved from Crowne Plaza Asheville, United States - Floor Plans and Planning Tools: http://www.crowneplaza.com/hotels/us/en/asheville/avlss/hoteldetail/floor-plans

Toiviainen, P., Luck, G., & Thompson, M. R. (2010, September). Embodied Meter: Hierarchical Eigenmodes in Music-Induced Movement. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 28(1), 59-70.

Westerlund, L. (2011, December 30). Lindy Hop Renaissance History. (M. Strickland, Compiler) Asheville, NC: Lindy Focus.

Wöllner, C., & Auhagen, W. (2008). Perceiving conductors' expressive gestures from different visual perspectives: An exploratory continuous response study. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26(2), 129-143.

Workshop and LED Schedule ILHC. (2014, 10). Retrieved from International Lindy Hop Championships: http://www.ilhc.com/class-schedule-2/ www.swingdjs.com View forum - Swinging Music. (2002-2014). Retrieved from Swing DJs: http://swingdjs.com

Yehoodi - Yehoodi.com. (1999-2014). Retrieved from Yehoodi: http://www.yehoodi.com

106

BI OGRAPHI CAL SKETCH

Since high school Michael Strickland has had an active interest in Jazz music. Receiving a Bachelor of

Science in Physics in 1999 from FSU, he worked as an IT professional, before taking on a job at the FSU

College of Music in 2004 as the IT Manager. While working there, he began pursuing a Master of Arts in

Music in 2009. From his undergraduate education on he has continuously pursued music, both personally and professionally. Michael has worked as a composer and audio producer for various bands since 1995.

From 2003 to 2007 he founded and closed a company that composed and produced music for interactive media. In 2003 he served as a staff musician for the FSU Department of Dance. He has also served as the worship leader at several churches. His pursuit of dance began in 2001 when his interest in jazz compelled him to learn Lindy Hop, and became involved in the start of a student organization for the promotion and teaching of swing dancing at FSU. He has served as the official advisor for this group since 2004. Michael and his wife are also active on national swing dance scene, where he works as the live sound engineer for various national and regional events around the country.

107