Ballroom style

[nottomention]

What I must keep an eye out for is this alleged 'folk' form of the BR dances. Whole dance communitites (it is implied) who have turned their backs on the standardised form of the dance and rediscovered an authentic strain of the dance that had lived on, despite everything, and is danced by its adherents, er.... where, exactly?

It is not necessary to shun aspects of ballroom that someone has also standardized any more than it is necessary to avoid any common action in Argentine Tango simply because some pattern-teacher has incorporated into a choreographed class routine. What is important is to be able to understand the underlying essential ideas.

In the case of a well thought out standardization and a dancer who understands the essential ideas of the dance, they will often end up doing many things that are related to what has been standardized, but go further than the standards do - because the standards are just an approximation to the underlying idea that they are pursuing in greater depth. They are neither confined to what has been standardized nor compelled to avoid it - instead, they are free to do anything that their skills can enable.

To recognize the difference between real ballroom and a well-done approximation, you would probably need to experience the feel of dancing with the person. But when you look at a badly done approximation and have the reaction "that's just not right" - rest assured that real ballroom people have the same opinion of it.

 

[nottomention]

I agree with you largely, but as I was invited to I'm left wondering which tango style is the 'real' one. My view would be that there are only the 'current' ones, and that they are connected to the 'origins' of the dance just as tangentially as the 'marketed form' (ballroom tango, presumably). They went in different directions, and are now different.

No, you were invited to compare whatever you think is the authentic form of Argentine Tango, to the real forms of ballroom dances, rather than the marketed approximations of them.

 

[UKDancer]

No, you were invited to compare whatever you think is the authentic form of Argentine Tango, to the real forms of ballroom dances, rather than the marketed approximations of them.

What is the 'authentic' form of Argentine Tango, and what are the 'real' forms of the ballroom dances, then? I'm not sure why I would want to compare them, either.

 

[UKDancer]

No, you were invited to compare whatever you think is the authentic form of Argentine Tango, to the real forms of ballroom dances, rather than the marketed approximations of them.

Actually, no. I quoted you directly.

 

[tangotime]

Are you saying that the 'Texas Push' or 'Slicker' style are more authentic and original versions of current standardised BR dances, and if so, which?

"Slicker " is possibly a fore-runner of Intern. style F/trot that has been danced in Calif since the 30s .

Texas Push is a form of Amer.style swing, a slot style .
They are authentic in their own right.. point is, just because a "style " doesnt go mainstream, that doesnt lessen its value or authenticity.
Carolina Shag is another e.g. and Peabody .

Many of these types have had influences on the dances we consider "standard ", all of which are hybrids of another form.

 

[nottomention]

Actually, no. I quoted you directly.

You don't seem to have quoted anything. I was correcting your mistaken speculation that ballroom tango is the marketed form of AT.

Rather, what you have experienced of ballroom tango is probably the marketed, rather than real, form of ballroom tango.

The thing about essential, rather than market forms of dances is... that they aren't marketed. So they take some effort to find, hiding behind all of the more readily available and approximate distractions.

 

[UKDancer]

I was correcting your mistaken suggestion that ballroom tango is the marketed form of AT.

Rather, what you have experienced of ballroom tango is probably the marketed, rather than real, form of ballroom tango.

The thing about essential, rather than market forms of dances is... that they aren't marketed. So they take some effort to find entry to.

I didn't suggest that: they're both 'tango' and they share a common origin.

But just what is this 'real' ballroom tango to which you refer? Do you have any examples you can share?

 

[UKDancer]

"Slicker " is possibly a fore-runner of Intern. style F/trot that has been danced in Calif since the 30s .

That sounds awfully late to be a forerunner? Surely FT was largely standardised by then?

 

[tangotime]

That sounds awfully late to be a forerunner? Surely FT was largely standardised by then?

American style F/trot IS the original form. thats where we(UK ) got it from. In matter of fact, Arthur Murray had a social level developed that he was teaching by mail in the 20s that became the basis of the current social style at Bronze level... long before we had established an agreed system.

 

[Steve Pastor]

TT, wondered if you'd seen this take on Push aka Whip (according to the article - even within Texas there are varieties of the "same" dance to this day)
http://www.ssqq.com/information/descwhip.htm
Not sure I but the whole story...

 

[UKDancer]

American style F/trot IS the original form. thats where we(UK ) got it from. In matter of fact, Arthur Murray had a social level developed that he was teaching by mail in the 20s that became the basis of the current social style at Bronze level... long before we had established an agreed system.

Well, yes, but you're the one suggesting that a 30s dance is a forerunner, not me.

 

[nottomention]

I didn't suggest that: they're both 'tango' and they share a common origin.

You sure gave the appearance of calling ballroom tango the marketed form of something other than ballroom tango, when you wrote "just as tangentially as the 'marketed form' (ballroom tango, presumably)"

But just what is this 'real' ballroom tango to which you refer? Do you have any examples you can share?

Ballroom tango as danced by experts in the subject for their own purposes, rather than for the benefit of someone outside the couple.

As I said, it's not widely marketed. There are lucky situations where you can find this taught in a beginner context. But these are infrequent, as most beginner offerings are either business oriented or presented by teachers who have little real knowledge of the underlying dance, and so stick instead to the distractions from it with which they are more familiar.

But when the champions of yesteryear coach the champions of today (those who already have the competitive aspect well in hand), more than half the time is spent on the essential character of the most basic sub-figure actions. Similarly, if you get to hear those same experts comment on what they disliked after judging an event, you'd probably find a lot that resonates with your values in other partner dance styles.

Essentially, you find the true form of dances in those settings where the many potential distractions from them are either not yet, or no longer, a pressing concern.

 

[samina]

in recent readings about the origins of these dances, i learned that the FT came out of the jazz/african-american (then called "negro") communities. and that it was associated with the one-step and the rag, and originally included quickstep type of moves, until the two were eventually separated (once it got to the UK) into the "slow fox" and the "quickstep" (which was originally called "the quickstep & charleston" & incorporated charleston steps).

one of the reasons i don't comprehend the endless argument & bickering when it comes to determining The Authentic Original "Real" Tango/Foxtrot/Salsa/<insert dance> is that dance naturally evolves. it's all its different forms, each with its own value and following based on the needs & values of the dancers of the time.

the black jazz community called it fox trot -- was that not the original form of that style of the dance? arthur murray may have codified his original form... the brits codified their particular evolution of it, original to them. seems to me each one is different & unique in its own way.

 

[nottomention]

one of the reasons i don't comprehend the endless argument & bickering when it comes to determining The Authentic Original "Real" Tango/Foxtrot/Salsa/<insert dance> is that dance naturally evolves. it's all its different forms, each with its own value and following based on the needs & values of the dancers of the time.

What is the historic form of something is a lot less interesting than what is a form grounded upon a base conception of being an un-choreographed partner dance.

All of these dances have some people who do them in that sort of manner, and others who do more scripted or performance-image approximations to them.

Relative proportions of one method vs. the other seem to depend a lot on the degree of technical challenge in what are stylistically considered to be basic actions. If the basic actions are physically simple, informal learning works well and standardization is not likely to be a dominant distraction. But if the basic actions require a lot of physical precision to be comfortable, then standardization is a useful learning tool, but one that can easily be perverted into a distraction from the essentials of the dance rather than a tool for gaining initial access to them.

 

[tangotime]

the black jazz community called it fox trot -- was that not the original form of that style of the dance? arthur murray may have codified his original form... the brits codified their particular evolution of it, original to them. seems to me each one is different & unique in its own way.

Point made.. but I think the poster was making refernce to something that has similar context to todays version and WHEN they were codified ( originals seldom are )