Bad Dancing/Fun Dancing

[pygmalion]

I was talking with a friend recently about going out ballroom dancing, and he gave me the run-down of places he likes/doesn't like to go. Why? Certain venues are FULL of bad dancers -- perhaps social dancers with few, if any, lessons under their belts. His reaction? Stay away, and seek out more serious ballroom dancers. The only problem is that a lot of the people at "serious" ballroom venues take themselves WAY too seriously, IMHO. I guess he had a point, but my take was more live and let live. At least the bad dancers are having fun.

What's your take on this? would you rather ygo out dancing with a group of bad dancers who are having a blast, or a group of serious dancers who aren't? Do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Thoughts, anyone?

[lily]

I haven't noticed that so much in Partner dancing (although I have more experience with Swing than Ballroom) but it seems to happen all the time in my Belly Dance classes. Wherever I go, the girls who attend the beginner classes are just so much more friendly and welcoming than those who go to advanced level classes. It's really annoying, but I agree that it seems that beginners are there to have a good time whereas advanced dancers are so concentrated on getting even better that they don't have time to enjoy themselves too. It's a real shame. So as far as Belly Dance goes, I stay with the lower level classes because I'd rather progress more slowly but enjoy the classes than spend an hour or two without exchanging a single word or glance with another dancer in the same room.

[Adwiz]

That's a great topic! I get the impression he likes to generalize. There may be more of one kind than the other, but I have never seen truly excessive percentages of either kind, and I would enjoy myself either way regardless of the crowd.

If I'm getting ready for a comp, I like places where there are fewer bad dancers because they tend to do silly things like practice in the fast lane or go against the line of dance, making it more difficult to practice a routine. But for general dancing, a crowd that has more beginners or social dancers is more appreciative of good dancing, so you can have even more fun there. As a performer, it's kind of fun having them stop and watch.

If I'm just going out to have fun, my approach is the same as yours, live and let live. Beginners sometimes ask for help with a step, and it is enjoyable to give some tips when asked. There are always some dancers who seem to take themselves too seriously, but perhaps they are just focused on preparing for a comp or medal test. Doesn't bother me. I'm primarily annoyed by people who do more posturing than dancing.

[KevinL]

What's your take on this? would you rather go out dancing with a group of bad dancers who are having a blast, or a group of serious dancers who aren't? Do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Thoughts, anyone?

I would rather go out with less-skilled dancers who have fun than to go out with serious dancers who don't really seem to enjoy it. The purpose of dance is to enjoy doing it, not to make it work! (Although it can sometimes be work, as any professional knows.)

Do the "serious" dancers and the "fun" dancers have to be mutually exclusive? Hopefully not, but how often do competative International Style dancers do dances that are appropriate for crowded social dance floors? I think it would be great practice for avoiding obstacles, but what do I know?

Kevin

[dancin_feet]

Geez, I like to go out and have fun, but I also like to get better. I see a social or party night as just that, so I don't try so hard with my dancing (even though I probably should), but just have fun with it. Though if there is someone at my level that I am dancing with, we'll generally try a bit harder.

[d nice]

The only ballroom dance I do regularly is the Vienesse/Rotary Waltz. I love it, and have since day one... mostly because I associate only with people who dance for the joy.

I refuse to allow dance be a sport for me on the social dance floor. When I'm out kicking a soccer ball around or just shooting hoops with friends I laugh, I joke, we make mistakes and we laugh and joke more. I do the same when I'm on the social floor. I don't clip or hip check my friends, block or commit personal fouls to make the goal or make a basket, because there is no score. Now in a game, a tournament I'll hip check, block, or slide tackle my best friend, as he will me. That seriousness, and thirst for victory has no place in a social atmosphere.

People who get overly technical or critical or egotistical about their dancing on the social floor have forgotten what joy it is to just move to the music with a partner, because the music moves you and your partner inspires you.

It makes me sad.

[Bronzestudent]

Great topic, Pygmalion! My range of dance experience is limited compared to most of the other folks here, I'm sure. Where I dance, it's mostly people who are just there to have fun. Some of them compete, but they are typically the people that enjoy it the most. Our teachers stress good technique along with just enjoying it. The social scene predominates. But, my contact with people, usually younger, like my age, who get too into the technical aspect of a particular dance can make it get dry really quick.

I'd rather dance with serious dancers who have loads of fun, but, alas, that wasn't one of your options to pick from! I think I'd learn more from the serious crowd, but I'd be intimidated by their skill perhaps, if they flaunted it. So, maybe I'd pick the having fun crowd, and try not to turn into one of the "serious" dance technique repairmen while I was there!

[pygmalion]

Personally, I dance seriously when I'm in a lesson, performing or competing. when I go out dancing, I want to have fun, so I'd pick the bad but fun dancers any day of the week. *shrug* What can I say?

[tsb]

fun is equivocal.

the more skilled a dancer is, the easier it should be for their partner to have a good time. so anyone who is a bad dancer can have a good time because all they need is a decent attitude - and they are often oblivious to the effort a more experienced partner has to expend to accomodate their deficiencies, while that more experienced partner has to spend more effort in being a good partner and less able to enjoy the dance. so if a bunch of followers were all having a good time but all had lousy frame, claws for hands and no awareness of how un-fun that is and no inclination to adjust anything before the end of the evening, i'd pass.

[BayAreaBallroomLady]

His reaction? Stay away, and seek out more serious ballroom dancers.
8) Something tells me that this guy feels that way about a LOT of things in his life......

[pygmalion]

He's pretty stuffy, I think. :roll: But he's not the only one I've heard express that opinion. Sad, isn't it? Few of us are ever going to be world class dabcers, so why not have some fun?

[KevinL]

Few of us are ever going to be world class dancers, so why not have some fun?

I dance for fun, and I teach so I'll have more partners, and be able to have even more fun!

Fun is good.

I fully support having fun.

Kevin

[Genesius Redux]

I've only really been dancing three years or so, so my own experience is a bit more limited than some of the folks here--but a lot depends on your idea of fun. To me the essence of the fun is not in the particular "success" of what you do on the floor, but in your connection to your partner, either out socially or in competition.

I like to use the analogy of dog agility trials, in which I've had a lot more experience. You go to trials or to classes, and there are always people who have their dogs running all over the place without the slightest idea of where to be or what to do. Often, after a miserable performance, the other competitors will smile sweetly and say to the poor handler, "Your dog looked like he was having so much *fun*." This is not a compliment.

On the other hand, you've got plenty of ultra-serious people who grimly plan their way around the course and who stalk off the moment their dog makes a "mistake" (which was really caused by the handler). These folks certainly aren't having fun either. No communication here--they've made their dogs into mere adjuncts of their will, not partners in the enterprise.

But then you have your top competitors, who seem relaxed and natural on the course, don't sweat it if they or their dog screw up, and generally finish in the top of their classes. These are the people who have fun--because their focus is on running a great run, having a conversation with their dog, rather than beating everyone else. As a result, they beat everyone else with regularity.

People who are great at what they do, whatever it is, are humble before what they do. Like agility, if you're interested in dancing, you're interested in dancing, not hung up on your own ability or the ability of your partner.

So in a social dance setting, I look for in essence the same thing I look for in dancing at a competition--a connection to my partner as strong as I can find given what I know and what she knows. Obviously, this is going to be different from partner to partner--sometimes I'm more experienced, other times she is. In any event, what's important on the floor is communication in that shared language of motion. If I'm dancing with someone with a more limited vocabulary than I have and I have to do a rumba box for the whole dance, that's fine. It's a make-believe story we construct together, right? The important thing is that we're talking, what we say is secondary.

In practical terms, this translates for me into something like this: I dislike dancing with anyone who makes me feel like she's doing me a favor by dancing with me, or who is hyper-conscious of what we're doing "right" or what we're doing "wrong." But I also dislike dancing with people who just totally ignore me and do their own thing. In both cases, what is missing is real communication. In neither case am I having fun.

What I like best is sharing the floor with someone who is "listening" and responding to what I "say," regardless of ability. I mean, isn't that what we all want? An engaging conversation in a language we share?

Cheers,

Genesius

[tsb]

What I like best is sharing the floor with someone who is "listening" and responding to what I "say," regardless of ability. I mean, isn't that what we all want? An engaging conversation in a language we share?


this is a good way of putting it. and best (next to telepathy) when you only need to whisper a few words to be totally understood by the other person who then responds accordingly.

[delamusica]

Fun is great, but there is a point were dancing can be so bad as to not be fun. For example, dancing with someone who can't stay with the music or in a set tempo (with the music or otherwise!), whose leads rip your arm off (or follows that hang on your arm way too heavily!), or frequently run you into people . . . dancing that is technically bad can still be a LOT of fun (yea fun!!), but sometimes bad is just bad!

[Sagitta]

Fun is great, but there is a point were dancing can be so bad as to not be fun. For example, dancing with someone who can't stay with the music or in a set tempo (with the music or otherwise!), whose leads rip your arm off (or follows that hang on your arm way too heavily!), or frequently run you into people . . . dancing that is technically bad can still be a LOT of fun (yea fun!!), but sometimes bad is just bad!

Ditto!!

Now I better work on my dancing, as I've been warned!! :wink: :)