Bradamant
Member
I will posit that there are probably a lot of issues swirling in, around, and under our various takes on this issue. Social vs. Competitive dance (a less than useful distinction, in my opinion, but a prevalent one, nonetheless), various degrees of "purism" vs. an inclination to the avant garde; how "we" learned it vs. how "they" do it, etc. Actually, all those would make for fascinating discussions in general (and across disciplines, actually.)
I'll use a metaphor that works for me: the different modes, styles, versions, genres of partner dancing all sum to a living thing, which parts and pieces diverge and converge in more and less interesting ways, and do so more and less consciously from individual to individual much like the English language does for all of us and for me in particular.
I enjoy having the ability to write scholarly articles in the jargon of the given subject, employ on-point colloquialism with those who relate to them, push further into patois on an educated whim, think it's pretty dope when Will.I.Am uses contemporary slang to paint his verbal pictures, and get a kick out of then being able to turn around and write the most excruciatingly cogent (slightly bombastic) business memos in concise, standard English - perhaps, on occasion utilizing opportunities to employ the subjunctive/conditional were I really wanting to make a certain point. And then going home and saying, "Ah, I'm tired; I think I'll go lay down now." My facility with American English in all its glorious forms gives me a leg up, I believe, to accomplish what I most want to accomplish: to communicate well with anybody, anytime, in the most appropriate manner.
I know a really great guy, a good, experienced teacher, whose background is in rhythm and smooth. He has very strong opinions about oh so many things, eg. Salsa is a perversion of Mambo, Hustle must be danced at a tempo that the large community of Hustle dancers (active for 30 years) I knew back in California would laugh off as "too fast ballroom hustle." (Why, because at those tempos, the character of the dance as it has evolved is utterly lost, and not a few rotator cuffs have been sacrificed on the altar of fast "disco" music for hustle in these up-tempo ballroom venues.) Is LA style salsa a perversion of NY style Salsa? I know NY style hustle is a complete perversion of the original latin hustle - and all I can say is - thank goodness for that. I know some who still teach the ending coaster step in WCS, because to them the anchor step is a perversion. And well, Samba is a complete perversion - one I enjoy immensely, thanks. And, my goodness! What those pesky Italians have done to Standard!
Getting back to the issue at hand:
I linked the video I did because I thought a newcomer routine would best showcase the basics of the dance. I think the newcomers did themselves proud.
The reviled "ballroom" arms:
The aesthetics of the arms is very much secondary to the part they play in good body mechanics. I still remember a long lecture from Steve Vasquez back in the day about that very thing. Until then, I was befuddled by what to do with these two long things trailing off my shoulders when they were not actively attached to my partner. But then Steve Vasquez' talk and demo made me understand that the arms are primarily an extension of the core, a very much needed counter balance in certain circumstances, and my partnering skills and the speed of my, to use one example, New Yorkers were both vastly improved. It's just a happy secondary effect that strong, full lines (in the case of Nightclub) happen to be aesthetically pleasing for many people, but it is rightly primarily about good body mechanics and partnering.
Specifically in regard to (smooth or country) Nightclub, it's my opinion that the country ballads with a tempo of about 55bpm are suited for one of two dances: the Seventh Grade Sway (in which case, true, one wouldn't have to worry about the arms at all as hers will be locked around his neck and his around her waist for 98 percent of the dance) or Nightclub. Being a dancer who likes to actually move instead of shuffle from foot to foot, I'm already inclined to appreciate Nightclub over the Seventh Grade Sway. As someone who happily danced up-tempo (rhythm or Schwimmer) Nightclub Two Step for over a decade before encountering the country version, I've got to say it's still my favorite dance to those kinds of (beloved) pop songs. I like that kind of music. I like that Schwimmer's moves and technique match that music. BUT, now that I am in places that play country love songs a good 2/3 the speed of those (my favored) songs, I felt compelled to learn a different - and in this situation - better suited way to enjoy this slower music for partner dancing.
Steve asked above if I had ever noticed anyone ever looking good while doing Schwimmer's moves to Country (slow) ballads. Well, I dance more than I watch, to be sure, but on the occasions I have sat out and watched I can say . . . nope, never have. I both lead and follow, so more importantly, I have never myself experienced dancing the Schwimmer way to extremely slow music (lead or follow) that felt anything less that tediously awful.
I asked the above referenced highly opinionated American style dancer/teacher what he would recommend dancing to a song that was only 55bpm and he answered, "Swaying in place." So, yeah. That's pretty much the gist of it for me as well. Except, I've branched out and explored other possibilities.
I mean, really, some radical innovation like keeping knees over toes is a perversion of country dancing, looked at a certain way. In this way of thinking, shouldn't we have kept to the bow-legged, high-stepping hoe-downey way of twirling around the floor? So what that we can accomplish less, that it is injurious to bodies, that it makes partnering more complicated and some pretty popular steps near impossible to pull off without amassing impressive bruises?
Preferences and strong opinions are all well and good. Boy do I have them myself, in abundance. But, personally, I try to keep a rein on my own tendency to be reactionary, because every time I succeed in doing so, I feel I've taken the opportunity to grow in my own dancing and add skills and tools (like facets of language) that I can pull out in different circumstances at need. But that's my approach and philosophy on the subject.
Oh, and because I am currently working with a woman who was a very, very accomplished professional toe dancer for many years and who is now trying mighty hard to wrap her muscle memory around partner dancing, I can assure everyone that those delightfully brave and dedicated newcomers up there in my example video dance _nothin'_ like ballet dancers.
It makes me chuckle to think I'm "defending" a certain lively element of contemporary country dance since, yeah, I really still do not like the music nor the urban "cowboy" culture I grew up with. It's not my love nor my passion, but it is something I've come to respect. I think the UCWDC and ACDA have done some good things and raised the level of dancing for those who wish to pursue that particular avenue. For one, I think it is really a very sound idea to encourage a return to what amounts to learning closed "bronze" waltz before progressing to open steps - makes for a better understanding of dancing one's own body, lays the foundation for truly grasping the characteristic movement of waltz that makes it special, and demands better control and balance right from the start. One can make the argument that closed steps are in some ways "harder" and less easy to fudge, and the end result is a much more efficient and pleasant partnering experience. But, as always, that is my most humble opinion.
One question, for those of you wedded to "the real" (Schwimmer) Nightclub Two-Step, do you really enjoy dancing it to a song that is played at 55bpm? If so, more power to you. I don't believe I ever would, especially now that I've experienced this different way of approaching that music.
Thanks for the discussion.
I'll use a metaphor that works for me: the different modes, styles, versions, genres of partner dancing all sum to a living thing, which parts and pieces diverge and converge in more and less interesting ways, and do so more and less consciously from individual to individual much like the English language does for all of us and for me in particular.
I enjoy having the ability to write scholarly articles in the jargon of the given subject, employ on-point colloquialism with those who relate to them, push further into patois on an educated whim, think it's pretty dope when Will.I.Am uses contemporary slang to paint his verbal pictures, and get a kick out of then being able to turn around and write the most excruciatingly cogent (slightly bombastic) business memos in concise, standard English - perhaps, on occasion utilizing opportunities to employ the subjunctive/conditional were I really wanting to make a certain point. And then going home and saying, "Ah, I'm tired; I think I'll go lay down now." My facility with American English in all its glorious forms gives me a leg up, I believe, to accomplish what I most want to accomplish: to communicate well with anybody, anytime, in the most appropriate manner.
I know a really great guy, a good, experienced teacher, whose background is in rhythm and smooth. He has very strong opinions about oh so many things, eg. Salsa is a perversion of Mambo, Hustle must be danced at a tempo that the large community of Hustle dancers (active for 30 years) I knew back in California would laugh off as "too fast ballroom hustle." (Why, because at those tempos, the character of the dance as it has evolved is utterly lost, and not a few rotator cuffs have been sacrificed on the altar of fast "disco" music for hustle in these up-tempo ballroom venues.) Is LA style salsa a perversion of NY style Salsa? I know NY style hustle is a complete perversion of the original latin hustle - and all I can say is - thank goodness for that. I know some who still teach the ending coaster step in WCS, because to them the anchor step is a perversion. And well, Samba is a complete perversion - one I enjoy immensely, thanks. And, my goodness! What those pesky Italians have done to Standard!
Getting back to the issue at hand:
I linked the video I did because I thought a newcomer routine would best showcase the basics of the dance. I think the newcomers did themselves proud.
The reviled "ballroom" arms:
The aesthetics of the arms is very much secondary to the part they play in good body mechanics. I still remember a long lecture from Steve Vasquez back in the day about that very thing. Until then, I was befuddled by what to do with these two long things trailing off my shoulders when they were not actively attached to my partner. But then Steve Vasquez' talk and demo made me understand that the arms are primarily an extension of the core, a very much needed counter balance in certain circumstances, and my partnering skills and the speed of my, to use one example, New Yorkers were both vastly improved. It's just a happy secondary effect that strong, full lines (in the case of Nightclub) happen to be aesthetically pleasing for many people, but it is rightly primarily about good body mechanics and partnering.
Specifically in regard to (smooth or country) Nightclub, it's my opinion that the country ballads with a tempo of about 55bpm are suited for one of two dances: the Seventh Grade Sway (in which case, true, one wouldn't have to worry about the arms at all as hers will be locked around his neck and his around her waist for 98 percent of the dance) or Nightclub. Being a dancer who likes to actually move instead of shuffle from foot to foot, I'm already inclined to appreciate Nightclub over the Seventh Grade Sway. As someone who happily danced up-tempo (rhythm or Schwimmer) Nightclub Two Step for over a decade before encountering the country version, I've got to say it's still my favorite dance to those kinds of (beloved) pop songs. I like that kind of music. I like that Schwimmer's moves and technique match that music. BUT, now that I am in places that play country love songs a good 2/3 the speed of those (my favored) songs, I felt compelled to learn a different - and in this situation - better suited way to enjoy this slower music for partner dancing.
Steve asked above if I had ever noticed anyone ever looking good while doing Schwimmer's moves to Country (slow) ballads. Well, I dance more than I watch, to be sure, but on the occasions I have sat out and watched I can say . . . nope, never have. I both lead and follow, so more importantly, I have never myself experienced dancing the Schwimmer way to extremely slow music (lead or follow) that felt anything less that tediously awful.
I asked the above referenced highly opinionated American style dancer/teacher what he would recommend dancing to a song that was only 55bpm and he answered, "Swaying in place." So, yeah. That's pretty much the gist of it for me as well. Except, I've branched out and explored other possibilities.
I mean, really, some radical innovation like keeping knees over toes is a perversion of country dancing, looked at a certain way. In this way of thinking, shouldn't we have kept to the bow-legged, high-stepping hoe-downey way of twirling around the floor? So what that we can accomplish less, that it is injurious to bodies, that it makes partnering more complicated and some pretty popular steps near impossible to pull off without amassing impressive bruises?
Preferences and strong opinions are all well and good. Boy do I have them myself, in abundance. But, personally, I try to keep a rein on my own tendency to be reactionary, because every time I succeed in doing so, I feel I've taken the opportunity to grow in my own dancing and add skills and tools (like facets of language) that I can pull out in different circumstances at need. But that's my approach and philosophy on the subject.
Oh, and because I am currently working with a woman who was a very, very accomplished professional toe dancer for many years and who is now trying mighty hard to wrap her muscle memory around partner dancing, I can assure everyone that those delightfully brave and dedicated newcomers up there in my example video dance _nothin'_ like ballet dancers.
It makes me chuckle to think I'm "defending" a certain lively element of contemporary country dance since, yeah, I really still do not like the music nor the urban "cowboy" culture I grew up with. It's not my love nor my passion, but it is something I've come to respect. I think the UCWDC and ACDA have done some good things and raised the level of dancing for those who wish to pursue that particular avenue. For one, I think it is really a very sound idea to encourage a return to what amounts to learning closed "bronze" waltz before progressing to open steps - makes for a better understanding of dancing one's own body, lays the foundation for truly grasping the characteristic movement of waltz that makes it special, and demands better control and balance right from the start. One can make the argument that closed steps are in some ways "harder" and less easy to fudge, and the end result is a much more efficient and pleasant partnering experience. But, as always, that is my most humble opinion.
One question, for those of you wedded to "the real" (Schwimmer) Nightclub Two-Step, do you really enjoy dancing it to a song that is played at 55bpm? If so, more power to you. I don't believe I ever would, especially now that I've experienced this different way of approaching that music.
Thanks for the discussion.
