sorry for the non-timely reply, finally got time to get back to this
thread
On Dec 6, 2005, at 2:52 PM, /0 wrote:
not dancing isn't a fault. if someone pays the same money you did to
get into an event which focuses on AUDIO, is your night really
diminished because that person doesnt want to dance?
do you require that sporting event attendees cheer and scream
throughout the game/match?
i figured that would stir up some kind of response. Of course it's a
combo. You are coming from a 100% "me" centric view of the party, not
a "we" centric view (which i realize is basically extinct in this
country, but it wasn't always that way). I think the difference is in
the things you list, it's a clear performer (rockstar) & audience
(adoring spectators) relationship. in a soccer game, people can't run
from the stands onto the field and participate, whether they cheer or
not. If you regard a DJ like an arena rockstar, where you just watch
them rock out, standing in place - then you're reinforcing that the
crowd are just along for the ride, instead of being active particpants
in a special event that THEY HELP CREATE how the event feels. A
reason, in fact, to attend at all, other than the person on stage. LIke
when underground parties were ALTERNATIVES to mainstream nightclubs and
rock concerts (where there is typically a more brutal caste system, you
had to pay more, dress codes, velvet ropes, etc.) where in contrast
underground discos and raves were more about inclusion and
participation in "making the night", not just spectators who paid to
gawk at one person.
now of course some events are more tuned to participation than others,
i was just making a statement that i think the "what do you bring to
the party" element is dying/dead, unfortunately.
at a music-based that plays music specifically designed to make people
dance (or think, but STILL it's physical-driven music, played in
physically-driven way), there was a time when the crowd WAS the party.
The DJ didn't make the party, they just provided the soundtrack. I
went to early hawtin parties in detroit / eastern market where he and
other DJs would play behind a screen. This was more rare but it
happened. But the people controlled the vibe, the fun, the reason you
went. It was about "what can I add" , not "what can I get". THis is
getting more about party dymanics, (and away from a more 313 topic)
but in the not-too-distant-past, the whole temporary autonomous zone
that older parties had that made them more special that just typical
nightclub live PAs. I'm talking about an underground thing here. "A
dark room and a feeling" and all that good stuff.
if the music sucks but everyone else is dancing, are you happy?
well, probably moreso than if the music sucked and everyone just stood
around with mouth agape. but of course music is the reason people want
to dance, so it's hard to have one without the other.
not picking on anyone in particular, but people complaining that xy
and z wasnt dancing seems ridiculous to me.
and thousands of people standing around watching one of the best Djs in
the world play dance music for people to dance to seems ridiculous to
me. guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one
if it ruins your night, you're too damn sensitive
i'm probably too damn sensitive in general ;) but i never said it
ruined anyone's night. i just think parties are more fun with the
participants who understand they are an active role in making the event
as fun as much (or more than) the performer who is there to provide a
sonic backdrop to their fun. giving the party to the people, not the
person on stage, who is just one of a thousand other party
participants.
music appreciation is ultimately an individual choice, people will do
what comes to them - watch or sleep or jack their body. I just prefer
more active participants than you that help create something more
special than what amounts to watching a DVD.
peace
--
MM
http://sonicsunset.com
