(please do read the previous blog post beofre reading this - https://bsharpblues.weebly.com/bswing-blog/march-22nd-2019)
4. Actual Partnerwork I was fumbling for a title for this last point. I originally wanted to call it "real vs fake social dancing" but i felt that it was a bit too misleading. This is complicated so let's take it apart and see what all of this means. In the old days, the men led the dance and the women followed the dance. Sing danced a lot with Frankie in the 90s and tells me that his lead was "very strong and very clear". I think the terms have different meanings from what i would use in class today, but one thing is for sure - Frankie took efforts to lead his partners as best as he could. In today's modern global Lindy Hop scene, there is a lot of ...(for lack of a better word) pseudo-partnerwork. Pseudo means - pretended, not real, so pseudo partnerwork means - dancing that looks like it is really partnerwork but IS NOT. You may ask - as long as they are dancing together it is partnerwork right?? And i would have to agree with you, but also remind you that partnerwork in Lindy Hop terms (or even social dancing terms) is very different from partnerwork in ballet or hip hop, or other types of dances. In Lindy hop (and other social dances as well), partnerwork is predicated on LEAD & FOLLOW, a connection & communication between the 2 partners who are dancing together. I would go so far as to say that this connection & communication, is what is unique about social dancing in general, as opposed to a choreographed ballet (pas de deux) or 2 modern dancers dancing together. The major difference is generally that it is choreographed, whereas in social dancing, it is improvised. So here, i am going to define partnerwork in Lindy Hop as GENUINE and AUTHENTIC, if there is really 1. Lead and follow (each person in the partnership takes on a specific role and stays with that role & generally does not take upon the scope of the other role in the partnership) 2. (some form of physical) Connection between the 2 partners 3. (some form of) Non-verbal communication between the 2 partners For Social Lindy Hop to be Genuine and Authentic, i would add 1. Improvisation as one of the criteria, and we have discussed improvisation in the previous blog post already. Already, we can see that partnerwork in ballet or hip hop doesn't meet the same criteria, because there is no specific lead and follow. In a proper lead and follow scenario, one person initiates the movement or step, and the other executes the movement or step as signaled. There is no simultaneous execution of movements or steps because, like when one is driving a car, only one person has the wheel and the pedals, not both of them. A lot of times in these other dances, moves are executed simulatenously in tandem by both partners. Let's jump to our modern global Lindy Hop scene and discuss the types of dancing possible. B4 we move on, it is useful to understand that these scenarios i am describing run on a scale from MORE TO LESS. a) Partnerwork steps --- Solo Jazz steps b) Improvised partnerwork steps and sequences --- choreographed partnerwork steps and sequences c) Lead & follow that is loaded with communication and signals --- lead & follow which is spacious or empty Let's take scenario a). So here, clearly, when there is MORE partnerwork steps than solo jazz steps (if u think of a % like at least 60% partnerwork steps vs 40% solo jazz), then the dance runs closer to "REAL" (actual) partnerwork. We do have a dancer here in Singapore, who loves to dance solo jazz but with a partner. The way this person dances is very unique (no judgement here on this from me - i am purely describing the way this person dances) - in that the dance ends up being mainly solo jazz steps while either being in the typical open position, or the closed position. There is a lot of improvisation on the solo jazz aspect while holding hands or in close hold, but very little traditional partnerwork steps in that one partner (the lead) is giving signals to the other partner (the follow) what is to be done. As solo jazz variations are generally not "leadable", there is no way for the follow to do exactly what this leader is doing. For this particular dancer -the % scale would run roughly between 70 to 90% solo jazz and 30 to 10% lead and follow communication. I have no issue with this dancer wanting to dance like this, i just find that when it reaches this place of 70 to 80% solo jazz - it does not constitute actual partner dancing based on the definitions above, and so i would not call it "partnerwork" even though the positions being used, are the actual positions we use for partnered dancing in Lindy Hop. Globally speaking, I do see a trend towards greater and greater expression of solo jazz in partnered Lindy Hop. My take on this is very clear - I do not want to call doing solo jazz while holding hands or being connected to another person - PARTNERWORK. I feel that this would be a mislabeling of the term, since historically, partnerwork always involved the above criteria as i have mentioned. I think it is fair to say that there is a scale but a 50/50 ratio is the most i would give before i would call it something like - solo jazz while holding hands. While breakaways were present in the past, the moment the partners got back together, it would be lead & follow all the way till the next breakaway. Solo jazz was generally reserved for breakaways (a generalization but true) and the men really wanted to be dancing with the ladies in those days (the 30s and 40s). In competitions as well, i find there is no clear cut ruling on the matter of how much solo jazz is too much, and it seems that as long as the partners are holding hands or connected it is considered "partnerwork". My opinion on this is that it is a bias against dancers who actually lead and follow their partnerwork. I find that doing solo jazz while holding hands or in a partner position to be very much easier than actually leading and following. It would not be fair to equate the required mechanics of leading and following a swingout (for example), with 2 people holding hands and doing footwork variations for 1 eight, or executing a choreographed jazz break together for 1 eight. A complex lead and follow or partnerwork sequence, would require even more effort on the part of the partners involved than 2 partners holding hands and doing variations of solo jazz in various positions for 4 eights or so. Here, i think we have to give credit and respect where it is due - simply because lead and follow partnerwork does take more effort than "partner solo jazz" - no matter how much fancy the "partner solo jazz" is and how much more visually appealing it looks. Literally, solo jazz while holding hands is an individual dance for 2 reasons - 1. there is no possible way to communicate complex rhythmic variations to the partner to follow exactly, hence it is more or less individual improvisation and the partners can just do their own thing... (like how hard is that...) 2. if it is done together, it is more likely than not CHOREOGRAPHED and executed simultaneously, and not a lead and follow signal - and both of these scenarios are easier in terms of effort and difficulty than actual, improvised partnerwork dancing. I ask my readers to be discerning and aware of what is happening when you watch any performance or competition. Not everything is equal and not everything takes equal effort to put together. A routine heavy on solo jazz choreography, even if its very fast and very fancy, is still easier than an equivalent partnerwork routine done at the same speed or complexity. Scenario b). We mentioned a little bit about this in the previous blog post but here is the place to elaborate. In the modern global Lindy Hop scene, the norm is couples who teach and perform together exclusively. As they have been working together for a long time, these couples usually develop their own techniques and understandings which are unique to them and not to others. It would not be false to say that not all of the material that they use as leaders or followers could be applied on a general scale to dance with social dancers all over the world globally. That in itself is fine - the couples deserve the right to use whatever technique they want for their workshops and classes and performances. The issue is more that there is no awareness that this is so - many social dancers take class expecting these steps to be usable for social dancing when they are not really. Once again, i ask dancers to be aware and discerning about what they are learning in class. Just because a step looks cool and fantastic, doesn't mean it's gonna be applicable on the social dance floor, and also just because it was taught by so-and-so famous instructor, that it's gonna be applicable on the social dance floor when u try it with another social dancer. One of the reasons why this is important to bring up, is because it compromises certain situations in social dancing because of the familiarity. This was the case in certain American Lindy Hop competitions in the 2007 to 2011 period. The organizers and judges somehow realized that couples who were dancing with each other on a regular basis produced more stellar looking luck of the draw dances - but it was due to the partners' familiarity with each other that this could happen, not because they were excellent social dancers. Hence a ruling came into place which required that there be a certain amount of time that these teachers or dancers were not teaching and dancing together b4 they be allowed to be paired with each other for luck of the draw contests. Dancers beware, not all luck of the draw contests really feature genuine, authentic social dancing and partnerwork. When i am looking at a luck of the draw contest - i am looking out for 3 things 1. communication between the 2 partners (how well they communicate as they dance, missed cues, steps did not work out) 2. % of solo jazz to % of lead & follow partnerwork (if there is an emphasis on solo jazz then i do not consider them good partner dancers) 3. Whether the 2 partners have taught and performed together b4 and have a history working together. (once they have, it is hard to tell whether they are actually social dancing or it's coming from their long history of working together with each other - in a Strictly or Choreographed division, this issue would not really crop up, but in a luck of the draw division, this then renders the whole point of social dancing/improvisation - MEANINGLESS) Once again, it's an issue of giving respect or credit where credit is due - for example, I love Skye and Frida very much, but they do use a great deal of workshop material in their dancing, so on the scale of social dancing and improvisation, it falls somewhere in the middle. I'm not going to give them credit for improvising on the spot when they are executing chunks of workshop material or choreographed material at least 50% of the time they are "social dancing"- i would not call that (improvised) social dancing. I'm not saying anything about their ability to social dance at the high end of the improvisation scale. Both of them have excellent track records as social dancers, and they CAN social dance on the high end of the improvisation scale. I'm just saying, when they are dancing at a workshop or at a competition sometimes, they are not "really" social dancing the way we think they are, with a high level of lead & follow or improvisation, and dancers who watch these videos of them dancing, should be aware of that fact, and not blindly assume that just because they are executing partnered steps, that it is of the same degree and difficulty as the steps being danced on the high end of the social dancing/improvisation scale. I would just like that credit and recognition be given to dancers who are doing their dancing on the more improvisational/lead &follow end of the spectrum, because i think that this is harder and takes more effort than executing choreographed or preplanned sequences, and dancers do not seem to be aware of this issue, but it is really important!! If we are not careful about this, pseudo partnerwork would then be misconstrued as real partnerwork and luck of the draw competitions would begin to lose their meaningfulness, since luck of the draw contests are meant to test/benchmark, social dancing, lead & follow connection & communication and improvisation. We also need to be aware as dancers, what really is difficult and what is not - so as to give credit and respect to the correct things and not to the illusion of things. We also need to understand that there is a scale and it means that one end of the scale is easier than the other end so we have to be discerning to know which end is which and not blindy assume that steps or sequences executed while holding hands or in typical partnerwork positions are all equally difficult and all fall under "partnerwork". Scenario c). This is difficult to explain as it is rather technical in nature. Certain leaders (like myself for example) lead in a way where the lead could be called - spacious or empty. It comes about from a certain way of using the frame and structure, as well as a great deal of relaxation especially in the arms. This means that there is an ability to control the amount of information and signals being given to the follow, such that, just like in regular communication, the basis of understanding is that - If the leading is more empty, it is a less complex/complicated step, or a basic or neutral step. If the leading is full of information then it is going to be a complex or complicated step or sequence as the leader needs to process and send the information in rapid chunks to the follow in order for the step to be executed without issues. Here we are talking about improvisation, and not a preplanned or choreographed sequence which the follow is already aware of and has been worked out and practised prior to social dancing. Here the follow is unaware of the sequence of steps and has to dutifully follow the information as it is given by the leader in order to execute the complex step of pattern. Just like in verbal communication, if you have to say a lot on an issue in order to explain it clearly, it is considered more complex/complicated. If you do not have to say a lot and it can be explained clearly, then it is considered less complex. So here, the scale would be - If the dance generally consists of steps where the leading is spacious or empty, it would be easier. The steps would be called simple or uncomplicated. If the dance generally consists of steps full of signals and information, then it would be a complicated or complex dance. Linking this to effort and skill, it is obvious that when it veers towards complex/complicated, it takes more effort and more skill. Bringing it back to social dancing and improvisation, if the social dance was more full of steps with more complexity then it would be more difficult than a choreographed routine of equal complexity simply because of the factor of the improvisation. I would also like to mention here - that is why some leaders are easier to follow and some leaders are harder to follow. It depends very much on the complexity of their leading and the steps that they choose for their social dancing. When the leading is full of information, followers sometimes feel that they have not a moment to breathe or switch off as the leading information comes fast and furious at them for them to execute. Following the logic here, it means that followers who can follow complex steps are more skillful than follows who cannot. This is also important to say here - I am not saying a that a complex or complicated dance is necessarily a better dance, i'm just saying it takes more effort and skill to execute, and we give credit for the effort and skill. Just like in cooking, a dish could be really complex and have many ingredients and take many steps to prepare, but even after all of that, one might not like the taste of the dish. But that doesn't negate the effort and skill required to prepare the dish. Whether or not one likes the dish, has no bearing on the effort or skill required to make it. That's the recognition i am asking dancers to become more aware of. If we look at the scenario closely, we see that in many cases, many instances, we value the skill and effort it takes to do something. Why do we not apply this to our dance as well? Why do we not apply this discerning perspective to our social dancing as well? We apply it to food, we apply it to products, we apply it to services, but we do not readily apply it to dance. We scrutinize products and services for best value, best quality, best materials or ingredients, and we recognize these qualities by paying according for them - we are happy to pay for perceived quality or skills, but here, we do not readily recognize what is actually difficult or skillful in dancing, and we are easily misled by fancy and aesthetic looking performances and routines with lots of solo jazz and footwork over more difficult and requiring-more-skill partnerwork and improvised dancing. Why is that? I think it's time to be educated on this so we can be clear on what we are dancing, and that ultimately bodes well for our dance in general, as the dancers globally become more discerning and more aware of what really needs to be understood. I hope this blog post has brought to light the complexities of improvised dancing, especially in the area of partnerwork, and brought to your attention that not all partnerwork is the same or equal in terms of skills or effort required. I hope it has allowed you to see a bigger perspective on the use of solo jazz within partnerwork, or the use of choreographed sequences in partnerwork. All these things have their place in our dance. It is just important to understand where. It is also important to be discerning about the different ways of dancing partnerwork in that some ways inherently require more skill and effort than others, or are more difficult and complex than others. This way we can give credit where credit is due, and not lump everything under the same umbrella. Should you have questions, come and speak to me when you see. Till the next time. In this blog post, i thought i would take time out to write about some of my own ideas, beliefs, principles and values with regard to topics in Lindy Hop. I would call this series "About B". A little bit about me Although BSL is a relatively new venture, I have been dancing July 2001, and have been teaching in Singapore professionally since 2006. During 2001 to 2005 I was part of NTU's Kinetics Lindy Hop club, in various roles including as a performer, choreorgrapher and committee member. Later, after leaving NTU I taught under Jitterbugs Swingapore as one of the "teacherbugs" until Jitterbugs no longer ran adult classes. I also taught at NTU in an official capacity for many years. The history behind this is privy to me because I was part of the original committee who awarded the contract for teaching to Sing & Jitterbugs in 2002. After I graduated from NTU, Sinclair held down the fort at NTU for a couple of years until he longer worked with Jitterbugs in any capacity, then I stepped in as the official teacher from Jitterbugs shortly after. After some years teaching at NTU, i think maybe 5 years or so, i was ready to move on - the commute was long and the pay not great. I had a discussion with Sing to tell her i was wanting to stop, and in good faith, we decided that it would be a good opportunity to pass on the teaching post to a young and enthusiastic dancer who wanted very much to teach. Sing also graciously awarded the contract to this dancer as well, so all the money from the school would go to this person. (Previously, Jitterbugs would take a cut, and as the official teacher from Jitterbugs I was paid the Jitterbugs teachers rate, which was $40/h at that time. I personally thought it was a great opportunity for this person, not in terms of money or convenience, but in terms of learning - learning about humility, responsibility, how to teach, learning about how to learn, learning about managing a group and choreography etc etc. I am the dancer today because i walked down this path of teaching, choreography and performing, all thanks to my time at NTU and the Lindy Hop club there.) Also i think it was a gift, given that this dancer had no track record as a teacher or anything of note at all other than being super eager to teach, share their own ideas and philosophies and become a teacher. Sing and I valued such enthusiasm hence we made our decision that way. I myself had become a better dancer and a better person by becoming a teacher but I guess not everyone succeeds in this way. I was also a member of Swing Express, the performance team of Jitterbugs Swingapore from 2005 to 2010, and also performed with many of the groups that Sinclair formed under Jazz Inc. After Sing left Jitterbugs, we teamed up to teach at Timbre at the Arts House, until that was no longer viable, and then BSL was formed shortly after. One of the reasons why i have remained so obscure is because of my aversion to social media. I prefer face to face communication and do not maintain personal Facebook and Instagram accounts. Mediated communication is not for me. I also prefer to be known for my dancing and teaching abilities rather than being known from pictures taken of me at so-&so event. The dance is very important to me and between being a well-known person who is not a good dancer vs a not well-known but really good dancer, if i had to choose, i would rather be the latter. But social media is happily taking care of the former circumstances so who knows, I may end up becoming both some day. The current accounts on FB & Instagram are purely for dance and BSL and I make it a point ONLY to post dance related media. Personal media is kept out so you wont find details of what projects I'm working, what social activities i went to, what food i am currently raving about, what clothes/fashion I have just bought - UNLESS these are somehow related to dancing. I prefer it this way. If you want to get to know me as a person, just come talk to me; interact with me face to face. I am generally frank and blunt sometimes so bear that in mind in case you are a sensitive person who gets offended easily. Come 2019, i will be 39 but I still continue to teach and perform today where-ever i have the opportunity to share my love for this special and unique family of dances. I believe that a dancers' longevity is important, because a lot of us start dancing at a later age, and we have to learn, alongside learning the dance, ways to take care of our bodies, so that we can enjoy this activity well into our 70s or 80s, just as Frankie and Norma did. Today's "About B" topic My belief is that - Improvised dancing is much harder than choreographed dancing and good improvised dancing (that is "real") is way more difficult to achieve than good choreographed dancing. (In this article, we can assume the terms improvised dancing to be interchangable with social dancing, and choreographed dancing to be interchangable with performance dancing. The latter terms are what we are familiar with in general, and it's easier to simplify the explanation this way for real life relevance and not a abstract discussion where there is no application to what we do with Lindy Hop in real life. The terms are not synonymous, of course, as there is improvised performance dancing and choreographed social dancing, so i would ask the reader to remember that as well. also - I am a person who gives credit or recognition based on what i think is difficult [as objectively as i can], because i recognize effort and skill undertaken in order to achieve the required mastery.) Let's explain the statement above properly and in what context. It is quite specific in its understanding so i will have to define some of the terms used in the statement above for clarity. When the word "factual" or "objective" is used, I use it to mean - "I see it as a matter of fact" and not a "matter of opinion". So for example (as explained below) - I see improvised dancing as "factually" taking more effort than choreographed dancing. Moving on - By social/improvised dancing, we mean - 1. non-choreographed dancing. This really has to be explained. To be honest, all social dancing is choreographed because we ALL learn steps that have already been invented. A good analogy - words and sentences. Dance steps are like words. We learn them individually and then string them together to make a sentence. Usually we don't break up the words we know into individual letters and then start making sentences from the individual letters. we use the words in the whole form, and string together longer and longer groups of words, making sentences or paragraphs. A swingout, is 8 counts. This is a fairly long word that we use often. There are shorter words, like 6 count steps, and even shorter words, like 4 count steps. There are also groups of words that we use as a group, like Frankie Sixes (or Frankie Four), which is 4 6ct steps, strung together to make like a little sentence. There is also the "sentence" - 3 swingouts and a circle, which i use very often in my classes. Improvisation...then, really is the stringing together of these words and sentences (and sometimes paragraphs) in a NON-FIXED order. If we strung them together in a FIXED ORDER, then we get what is called a CHOREOGRAPHY - which remains the same because of its fixed order. But because we don't string them together in a fixed order, we call it improvisation. This then, is the main difference between choreography and improvisation, in the context of social lindy hop. You have to understand this b4 we proceed on. From here, you can already see that, it requires more effort to improvise during social dancing, than to dance to a choreography - based on this idea that a choreography is fixed and unchanging, while an improvisation is constantly changing. Once you are past the initial stage of memorizing the choreography, then the work is done, but with improvisation, you have to redo it each time you dance so that it doesn't remain in a fixed order. This is of course a spectrum - the more fixed your personal arrangement of dance steps and sequences are - the closer it is to a choreography than an improvisation. The second thing that determines this is whether you use larger or smaller chunks of dance sequences. The larger your chunks, the more it veers towards choreography, the smaller your chunks, the more it veers towards improvisation. You might not agree with me, but i think that it is far more difficult to improvise with smaller chunks than larger chunks, and it is far more effort to constantly keep changing the sequences than to remain in a fixed order. Let's not factor in things like - how well you memorize, how familiar you are with steps, or how small/large your repertoire of dance steps/footwork/following steps is - lets make all those equal, and then just look at the effort needed to execute a social dance vs executing a choreography (which you have already memorized and each time you perform it it will be the same). So my conclusion here is - Improvisation using smaller chunks is more difficult than improvisation using bigger chunks, which is then more difficult than a fixed order routine, otherwise known as a choreography. If you have issues with memory work or issues with remembering things in a fixed order, you may well find choreography more difficult for yourself personally than improvisation, but that is a lack of practice in your ability to remember things and not a factual thing that each time you perform a choreography it is the same, but each time you improvise, it is different. That in itself is extra effort aside from your personal issues with learning and memorizing a choreography. I would say that you are just better practiced, at improvising than memorizing. It doesn't make improvisation - factually less effort than choreography if both abilities were equal. So, coming back to topic, non-choreographed dancing really means - how non-fixed the order is, and how small the chunks of sequences are For myself, I have no basic fixed order and i improvise at the 2 count level. If we go back to the analogy, it means i am making up "words by using individual alphabets", so for dance steps, i am making up dance steps, using 2 count basics. If you don't understand what that means in terms of dancing, that's fine, come take a class with me...but at least understand the analogy here - A large part of my dancing is built from the 2 count level, even big "words"/"steps" like swingout, circle, charleston etc etc.If you have danced with me as a follow, that would explain why I seem to have endless lead variations that are unexpected. But really they are just smaller individual pieces of dance steps than the average leader does, put together in a non-fixed order. 2. Lead and Follow Communication In a social dance, lead and follow communication always has to be LIVE and present for a good social dance to occur. In performance dancing, especially with routines that are very familiar, the lead and follow dynamic (the physical dynamic that needs to occur to get the step executed) exists, but the communication between the lead & follow for the execution is un-necessary as it is a choreography, planned beforehand and familiar to both parties. There is no need to tell one another, ok this next step is....then after that is .....then after that again is this......All of which is needed for social dancing. In social dancing, the leader has to keep telling the follow through his leading, what's coming up, what's coming up, what's coming up. In a performance, they already know the whole routine start to finish. No need to engage in that. This again, objectively, is extra effort during a social dance, vs a performance dance. When i'm dancing a performance, i just remember my role, and i leave it to the follow to remember her role. I don't need to lead her with 100% focus and accuracy to execute any given step, i can put that extra energy into performance styling or project it to the audience. But if i'm taking care of my follow the way that i do for social dance, 100% of my energy goes there, making sure throughout the social dance she's aware of what's happening, where to go to, what's coming up, preps to make the journey smooth etc etc. So here the scale is - Again, to me, that's just factual - improvisation just needs one to always be alert and listening, choreography you can switch off this aspect sometimes and use the energy elsewhere if you wanted to. It's just not needed all of the time, another reason why social dancing takes more effort than performance dancing. Once again, let's make all other factors equal. Performers of course put in a lot of energy into a performance and for social dancing we can skimp on that, but if we were to equalize that, it still wouldn't change the fact that this is effort that has to be undertaken when social dancing over performance dancing. I personally try to put in energy into my social dancing so that the level of execution can reach performance levels. What can i say? I like it when it looks nice too.
I know that some of you reading this would say - performance is so difficult, i could never perform and look good or remember choreo but i can social dance so easily week after week. And then it seems like there's no way social dancing can be objectively more difficult than performance. But i put this scenario to you - suppose, you started off as a Lindy hop performer, day after day, you learnt steps and routine and all you did was perform them. After 5 years, someone asks you for a social dance, which you have never done before. Will it be difficult? Yes. Will you be unable to improvise smoothly on the spot? Yes. Will you be stressed and say things like - "my mind blanks out, i can't think fast enough, i dunno what's going on..."? Yes. Will you actually have fear of social dancing? Yes! I see this a lot with syllabus tap dancers and musicians. They know how to play a piece or tap a routine, but they CANNOT IMPROVISE. It's so tough for them. Why? It's as tough for them to improvise as it is for you to perform. It's just what you have put time & effort into. I want you when reading this article, to put aside any bias you have that social dancing is easier than performance or vice versa and just read it from the place where you are hypothetically good at both, because that is the context this discussion is placed in, not the context where you assume one is easier or more difficult than the other from your lack of experience and practice with it. 3. Social dancing skills and techniques are not given as much recognition as performance skills and techniques are I have mentioned this before in short. The main reason for putting this here is because, social dancing is meant to be fun and not meant to be stressful. So we don't put a lot of emphasis on good social dancing skills and we also don't make want to make dancers feel like they are not dancing well - when the point is to go out there and have a really good time. I'm completely aware of that and i want all of you social dancers to have a good time as well - whether or not your technique is good, whether or not you've been dancing for 1 year or 10 years, whether or not you can really lead or follow or not. On the social dance floor, all of that is NOT IMPORTANT. But having said so, that doesn't change the fact that there are social dancers who - are better than others - who can lead & follow better than others - who are clean and precise and beautiful to watch in terms of their social dancing - most importantly, who feel good to dance with in both a PHYSICAL level (this is about the physical dynamic of the lead & follow connection, that it is smooth, clear, gentle yet firm, caring etc and not jerky, yanky, confusing, staccato, hard, stiff, painful etc) and feel good on a mental/emotional communicative level (in that as they dance with you they are making the effort to communicate with you, not blanking out, not on autopilot, not "somewhere else" and only dancing with you because the job demands it - this is really tough for teachers, especially since they have to dance with so many students at any given workshop) All i hope for, is that the time and effort put in by these dancers into their social dancing be recognized. I have met international teachers, who because they perform and teach for a living, are average social dancers - simply because the amount of time and effort that they have spent has been put mainly into performance skills and not social dancing skills. On the social dance floor, they are beautiful to look at, but not necessarily a fun and enjoyable dance in terms of communication, engagement, creativity or the physical feeling of connection. Sometimes the leading is very simple and basic, sometimes the connection is a bit strange, sometimes the partner is a bit stilted, sometimes there is no interest to social dance other than for the job....and i understand why. I give them the recognition for their achievements in performance dance, but not when it comes to social dancing. A lot of times, people give RECOGNITION AND RESPECT to these dancers/instructors, automatically giving credit for their social dancing skills because of what they have performed and how they have performed (or even their international reputation as teachers and performers), instead of making this assessment based on having several social dances with them. One of our local dancers told me that she didn't have a good dance with a world famous dance instructor at SLR 2 years ago, and she told me she felt so lousy about that. I happen to know that 2 other people had danced with this instructor and also was not impressed, so given this information, i was more inclined to believe that this instructor was not fun to social dance for whatever reason (no judgement there). But this local dancer automatically assumed that she was at fault because of her poor technique and her poor skills (which may have been the case as well, we can't factor that out) but the reason she gave me was - she's just a local dancer and the leader is a world famous teacher, so based on this reasoning, SHE HAD TO BE THE WRONG ONE. This i completely disagree with. Don't jump to conclusions based on the reputation and name of the instructor alone - that's such a biased perspective, and the wrong kind of mentality to have. Such thinking compounds the problem. These are 2 different skill sets that do overlap, but they are distinct enough. Very few teachers are very good at both.It could also be possible that the teacher is at fault, keep it as impartial and open as possible and don't jump to either side of the equation - that it must be you who was wrong, or that it must be the teacher who was wrong. Look at it objectively and ask other people for their experiences and observations. Don't just assume. There's more to come, but i will post the continuation another day as the next section could end up being a bit long on it's own and i think, deserves more attention as it covers a big area. See you on the dance floor in the meantime! - end of part 1 - B. Social Dancing is a huge area to write on. It is inexhaustible, and as social Lindy Hop dancing develops, so do new things pop up to be written about. This post cannot be exhaustive, naturally. I think's its just a good starting-off point. I will start off with something important to me, which i think is important to social dancing and Lindy Hop in general.
A discussion on GOOD & BAD / RIGHT & WRONG in Social Dancing (disclaimer - the views expressed here are my own) When i started social dancing in 2002, these labels were already present. There were good social dancers and bad social dancers. As a beginner, I remember trying very hard to improve so that I would not fall into the bad category. I didn't think much of the implications nor the more complex ideas that underpin the existence of such labels, after all, the main aim was to dance and be good at dancing, and naturally, that included being good at social dancing. So the first thing to note is - these labels have been in existence since before the Savoy. The Savoy had a Cats Corner where the best dancers would hang out and dance with each other, and you had to prove yourself before you could dance in the Cats Corner. Similarly, Whitey chose the dancers he thought were the better ones, or who had the most potential, to be part of his Lindy Hop teams, and he was picking them out of the dancers he was looking at in the Savoy ballroom, so i presume/assume, that he was looking at dancers who were social dancing at the Savoy and picking out who he thought were good or had potential to be good. In other words, some form of this labeling of good and bad social dancers was already present in the 1930s, although i certainly cannot speak for Whitey and what he thought was good or bad. In a modern day context, I think we need to discuss the whole thing a little bit and define the terms clearly. I'm gonna go with the things i personally find important to social dance - To start, we can eliminate STYLE - which is an aesthetic and is subjective. STYLE includes how you like to dance, what you think looks pretty or appropriate for dancing, what sort of presentation and vibe you would like to give your dance. I think of it as fashion for the dance - like putting clothes on - what kind of colours, casual or formal clothes, mix and match, shirt or t shirt, jeans or pants ... As STYLE is highly personal and subjective, STYLE does not fall into a category of good or bad unless the STYLE you like to dance is disrespectful, dangerous or hurtful to others (elaboration later). TECHNIQUE can be labelled good or bad. In order to give a more impartial basis to technique, we need to use more objective qualities to define whether technique is good or bad. i like to use the qualities effectiveness and efficiency. Secondary qualities that i like to use in consideration of good or bad technique is clarity and comfort. By effectiveness, i mean success in producing a desired or intended result, so the technique being used should be able to consistently produce the same desired result most, if not all of the time. A lead is ultimately a type of signal. If the lead signal is not effective, it will fail to produce repeatable results and that's when we decide "ok, we need to learn how to lead something better." By efficiency, i mean achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or energy. For example, generally speaking, a more rigid frame is more tiring to dance with, regardless of whether you are a leader or follower. It is NOT WRONG TO DANCE WITH A RIGID FRAME, just LESS EFFICIENT and therefore LESS EFFECTIVE in terms of the mechanics of social dancing. Here, if we were to apply the label "WRONG/BAD", it refers to "less efficient, more tiring, therefore less effective". We could say the same about arm-leading or arm-following. If you led or followed with your arm and not with your body, at the end of the social dance, you would generally go home feeling very tired in your arm, and waking up with muscle ache in your biceps and shoulders the next day. By clarity, i mean the clearness of the signal/communication being used between the 2 partners. A speaking analogy works well here - rambling, mumbling, stuttering are all forms of unclear speech that makes communication difficult. If we apply that to a dancing context, we can see that the lead & follow signals we use should not be rambling, mumbling, stuttering or otherwise unclear. By comfort i mean ease, relaxed, free from pain or tightness/restriction. Injuries, discomfort, tiredness, ache are signs that dancing was not comfortable. (here we'll not discuss muscle capability - which is the strength needed by the muscles to perform dance moves. If you have weaker muscles, they will ache after dance but that is not the same context we are discussing currently) You can begin to see how the qualities interact with each other in a social dancing situation, good technique is more effective, clear, efficient and comfortable to use than otherwise. Even so, all of the qualities that i've described above are different for different people. I absolutely dislike waking up with tired arms the next day but not tired legs or core. Some people might prefer tired arms to tired legs or core. It's hard to say. At this point, i think if i were to thoroughly explain each and every thing to do with each and every quality, it would take FOREVER, literally. If you have specific questions come talk to me on Fridays or after class when/where you see me. Last one - COMMUNICATION, by which i refer to the way the 2 parties in the dance communicate and exchange information, as well as the temporary relationship we have for the duration of that 3 min song. Communication can obviously be good or bad, once again thinking back to a speaking analogy. We all know that misunderstandings and arguments can occur when people do not communicate well, and in a dance context, frustration and injuries can occur if lead & follow do not communicate well. The desire to maintain good communication is a kind of respect for your partner and the whole partnership. I think people don't think much of this in a dance context but i find this to be super important. Using a conversation analogy, it's like when you're talking to someone, sharing something and you find the person distracted with the phone or blanking out, not really listening to you, not really there with you. Conversations work best when both parties are present and engaged in the conversation, and why should lead & follow be any different? Your partner should be engaged with you fully present all the way for that 3 minute song and not distracted by other things, like looking in the mirror, making eyes at someone else standing at the wall etc. Now - the bad stuff - Whatever that is disrespectful, dangerous or hurtful to others is bad for our dance. This too, is very broad, and i don't want to spend a lot of time discussing this here. In any case, any form of physical harm or injury is bad. Now, accidents can occur, but they should be one-offs and corrected asap. If accidents happen frequently, then something is wrong. It's the same for feelings of discomfort or tiredness. If your leg or arm is aching very frequently after dance, something is off. Go take the time to find out what is the problem. If you frequently feel unsafe or hesitant to dance with someone, something is off. Take the time to figure out what & why and decide on a course of action. This includes areas concerning physical boundaries and privacy, as well as basic respect for each other as human beings. Being rude, being pushy, being aggressive all fall under this category. Leaders need to be more aware of follows' permissions, especially when it concerns close hold full body contact, airsteps, tricks and dips. Follows should not be forced into doing steps that they are not comfortable with or dislike. Also, we need to be very clear on intention when we come dancing - for example - Guys should not come to dance wanting to pick up girls/hookups and girls should not come to dance looking for husbands or boyfriends. We are here to dance, have a good time and interact in a socially appropriate manner that makes everyone feel safe & comfortable. These things should stay outside of the dance venue and not be mixed in together with dance. Like i said, this is really broad and this barely covers the issues in this area. I would like to ask anyone who feels discomfort or unsafe to come & speak with the teacher or organizer that you feel safe to confide in, whether at the venue you usually dance, or another venue. Sometimes you are uncertain if something is indeed wrong and need clarification. Come talk to us confidentially, don't just ignore the red flags in your head. ----- I think what makes this labeling of good and bad tricky is that each person has different thresholds for what is acceptable/not acceptable and different perceptions for what is good/bad. If we talk about a yank, where a leader forcefully pulls a follow, some follows will be more ok with it and others not so ok with it. It's a complex scenario where whether or not a follow gets injured depends on several factors and not just solely on pain threshold or technique or communication. At this point, i think its just important for dancers to begin thinking about what's good and whats bad for you personally as a dancer and have conversations and discussions with other dancers about those things. I think discussing it will lead to new insights or realizations about "good and bad"/"right and wrong". Honestly i don't think there's another way except to discuss it and learn through the process of discussion. Coming back to social dancing, what are the implications? For one, everyone likes dancing with a "good" dancer. If you've been to workshops or dance weekends, you can see the queue form for the visiting teachers, everyone wants to dance with them - and the reason is that they are (PERCEIVED by the workshop participants to be) good dancers and therefore everyone wants to dance with them to see how that feels like. From the perspective of the regular social dancer, that's what we come to dance for - to have a good time and to have good dances with other people. Based on the reasoning above, i think its fair and respectful for each individual to understand and become more aware of the person you're dancing with - basically, that means to get to know the person better, understand where they are coming from, in terms of wanting to dance, reasons for dancing. We don't do this often enough. Many people come to dance with many different intentions and motivations, some are valid, others a bit iffy, and some might be dangerous or criminal. From a personal safety aspect we should try and get to know the people we are dancing with so we can better gauge their personality and character and not throw caution to the wind and expect that the organizer will keep the place safe or that the people who come to Lindy Hop are always without fail, nice. We do this in our daily life - we take stock of people and situations because it's our personal responsibility to do and we should not shirk that responsibility when it comes to Lindy Hop and social dancing. Looking at the sexual assault cases that have rocked the Lindy Hop scene globally in recent years, i feel being responsible for one's personal safety is still the best option. The organizer wants to keep the venue safe, but the organizer is not gonna be omnipresent to see everything that goes wrong, so rather than place the responsibility on the organizer fully, just do it like how you would do in regular life. Another issue that would affect the perception of good/bad and right/wrong is commonality between people for dancing. People with more similar motivations, reasons, values and mindsets will get more out of dancing with each other than dancing with someone who has vastly differently motivations and values from you. Once again, getting to know the other person is the only way to know if this person is more similar or more different to you in terms of those values and beliefs. In our dance we welcome all types. It's part of the spirit of Lindy Hop to be open and welcoming, and also the diversity and freedom really exemplifies some aspects of the original Spirit of the dance. What happens quite frequently, although it doesn't seem to be addressed much, is when 2 dancers come together with differing values and motivations for dancing. The question here is - Is it possible for people with different motivations and values to have an enjoyable dance together? How can someone, who likes flashy stuff, dance with someone who likes to keep it simple? How can someone who values connection, dance with someone who doesn't? How can someone, who takes dance seriously and is always trying hard to improve, dance with someone who views dance only as a hobby, a recreation, something not so important? How can these 2 parties dance with each other, and still have the best possible time together for the next 3 mins? My answer is - yes, it's possible but it may not be as much fun as when you dance with someone who has more commonality with you. But there are exceptional circumstances where it can be more fun as well. What i am about to discuss may be controversial or offensive, so it needs to be taken in its full context. We need to have this understanding when we come for social - Don't go into a dance - thinking only about what you are getting out of it and your personal motivations for dancing - thinking, "this other person is here at the same place as i am, therefore he/she must want the same things as i do when it comes to dancing". Don't assume that - all the different people dancing Lindy Hop at any given social are all wanting to enjoy the dance the way you do, or wanting to get the same things you want/get out of dancing. - because everyone is indeed there to have a good time, that what you think is a good time is the same as what another person's idea of a good time is. We see this issue with guys/leaders very often - their idea of a good time is (for example) showing off flashy moves, lots and lots of spins and tricks, jamming at fast tempos. And there is AUTOMATICALLY the (wrong) assumption that this is what the follows want as well. It could not be further from the truth, isn't that right follows? But it doesn't only apply to this specific scenario, it applies to all scenarios where people have different motivations for dancing. As a teacher, i have very different motivations for dancing than a recreational dancer. It would be presumptuous of the recreational dancer to assume that what he/she wants out of dancing is what i want out of dancing too, and ask me for a dance with that assumption/expectation in mind. For example, recently someone asked me at an event i was at - "What, leaving so soon? Why don't you dance? There's a live band, the weather is cool, you came all the way, you're still young..." But for me, the wet/muddy grass, the light drizzle and the outdoor setting are all big "no"s for me. This person was superimposing their personal ideas and assumptions about dance onto me. To this person, the setting was good enough to dance, for me it was not. In this case, no harm done, but it shows a lack of understanding between us. Conversely, it would presumptuous of a serious dancer/a dancer who is serious about improving, to assume that everyone who comes to dance wants to dance at a high level and constantly work at their dance. That is certainly not true for a lot of the folks who come dancing, for whom social dancing is recreational/leisure. So then you get these rumblings of discontent that sometimes you hear about - "...this leader is so boring to dance with, he always does the same thing, never improves..." "...this follow doesn't connect with me, how am i supposed to lead her like this...?" "...it's so stressful to dance with this person, they are so intense about being a good dancer but i'm not...." "...why does this leader always want to dance fast songs only and keep spinning me...?" - stuff like that. But really, when you think about it, I feel it's just people not understanding each other well and not making compromises when dancing with each other. It all boils down to the understanding that different people have different motivations and desires and one should not assume things. The following 2 points might help - 1. Treat each person as unique and individual. Get to know the person better. This allows you to adapt your style of dance (if possible) and also adjust expectations (if possible) when you go for the dance. I don't think we do this often enough, either bcos we are not versatile, technically speaking, or we are too focused on getting what we want out of the 3 mins. We hardly stop to consider what would work best FOR THE PARTNERSHIP. If we were to do that, i think it would really make a mile of difference. The power of this quality of "willingness to communicate/be open and listening" to the other person is powerful in transforming your experience on the dance floor. 2. If the differences are too far apart and there is no room for compromise, just say no to the dance. At our venues, we generally discourage people from saying no, but the reason/context is really different from here. We don't want shyness, insecurities or doubt to prevent you from having a good time, from giving the dance a chance to make you happy, so we tell all our beginners, if someone asks you, don't refuse. Give dance a chance, don't let your personal doubts and fears get in the way of trying out the dance and having a good time. This context of commonality/differences is entirely different. Here we are talking about the preferences each individual has and usually we are talking about intermediate and above social dancers who have already decided on certain perferences. If a leader likes to do airsteps and dance fast songs, and you are a follow who doesn't, it's better to say no, unless you can make some sort of compromise about it and feel ok with what will happen when u say yes - then that's fine. The important thing is to know whether you'll feel ok about what's going to happen next but if dancing with a particular person consistently makes you feel unhappy, unsafe or frustrated, then it's better to turn down the dance. So if a "no" will save you a lot of grief, it's better to say no - rather than suffer the next 3 mins and come out feeling disappointed about it. And if you do say yes, take responsibility for that "yes" by adjusting your expectations and reminding yourself - this is who this person is, and how he/she likes to dance, and i am the one who said yes so i have a responsibility as well. If the other person would do the same, then it shows a willingness on the part of both parties to try and make the 3 mins worthwhile. It's quite simple really, but i think this understanding is not present in our minds when we go for a social. We're not going to try and change the motivations, values, beliefs and desires of the various people who come for dancing. Each one is unique and has every right to be there, whether its recreational or serious, exercise or artistic, show off-flashy or simple enjoyment, beginner or advanced dancer. I'm just going to try and understand the person more and adapt my dancing (if & where possible) and also adjust my expectations and compromise where it's needed in order to make the next 3 mins, the best possible time for us. If each person came to each 3min dance with this perspective, what a world of difference it would make, instead of coming to the dance with all these (false and probably wrong) assumptions about what dancing means to each individual. Compromise is also a 2 way street - both parties have to make concessions in order for this to work. Sometimes i hear advice being given that the more skilled dancer "dance down" for the less skilled dancer in order to make the partnership more successful. I think that is unfair to the more skilled dancer. It is something that is up to the more skilled dancer to consider, but it should be a choice, not a given in scenarios like that. The reason for this is because ultimately, all enjoyment in dance comes from authentic expression - if a dancer is "dancing down" he/she is not dancing authentically, i.e. true to themselves. If a dancer cannot express themselves authentically throughout the whole night of social dancing, i think there would be a lot of disappointment and frustration. (this too is a complex issue and shouldn't be reduced to such a general statement but for brevity's sake and not overly complicating this blog post we shall leave it at that) In the end, the desire to change is personal and lies solely with the indiviudal involved. If you are getting feedback that you are not pleasant to dance with, the responsibility lies with you to find out why and whether you would want to change. Ultimately, our social dance is about PARTNERSHIP, so the change will be for the betterment of that. Tying this post up, in conclusion - - i would like to say, take time to think about things. Take time to think about what you think is good/bad, right/wrong and then discuss that with other dancers. Have a conversation and learn about other people and their motivations (not everyone values airsteps, not everyone values good tecnique etc). - Become technically versatile so you can change the way you dance. Bring the understanding with you that everyone's different and wants different things, but it is the personal responsibility of each person to find that out about the other person, and not impose one's personal viewpoint on the other through assumptions. - Know that good/bad & right/wrong are dependent on what qualities you use to measure them with and what values you prefer in dance. - Finally, make an effort to communicate and find places to compromise to make that 3 min song the best possible 3 mins that you can make it. We all know that the purpose of dance is to enjoy ourselves, to feel alive and authentic, and to express ourselves. With better skills and better understanding we can do just that. This post is by no means exhaustive, if you want to come talk to me, come look for me after class or on Fridays. See you on the dance floor somewhere! |
Archives
February 2019
Categories
All
|