I feel strongly that much of the history of swing is well understood and in general consistently repeated by those how were there. This is also readily available on the web through Peter's site (caljazzdance). I think that where data is available, it, rather than hearsay, urban legend or outright myth, should be provided.
A number of people, including d_nice, have invested enormous amounts of time, energy and thought into determining the history as best they could. Respect for this is a very good thing.
First,
let me make something very clear; I admire greatly, humble myself before, and am very interested in those who have devoted serious study/life work to the history of such things. Though, I have studied much more than the average person as to how to do them,
I am an expert of nothing in dance outside of AT and Latin. I know my passion for these dances, and apologize to d'nice if I offended the studies in his.
It is just that there is a mountain of evidence that contradicts... well nearly everything you said, and you specifically put your information up counter to what had been presented before.
Now if all you have are conversations from years ago with no verification, and no way to prove your memory is correct, then we can let it go.
Point 1. Getting back to the post that started this assault, my 'only' point was that history is largely a matter of the interpretation/s of what has been passed down over the years. Some historians have swing dances coming from African-amer. dances, while others have them coming from Native Amers, for Christ's sake (Indians... [for clarity only], pardon the lack of PC, here). With some exception (such as Frankie discussing his 'personal' involvements), we are rarely priviledged with the acutal facts of such things as dance origins.
Point 2. There is no argument that swing, in general, evolved from the old African-American traditional/folk/slave dances. "A-Step Stomp", "Gut Stomp", "Stomp"...who knows what the "real" name of that movement was, was a dance done by taking a one step left - one step right - and a type of rock step back and forward. We know it as a dance that the Africans performed before coming to the U.S. (no doubt by some other name), and, recognizing the similarity, we also know it as a type of Swing that, today, we mostly call a Single Time Swing. History tells us that the slaves in amer. would dance this, or something similar, at the end of the day to celebrate finishing the day's work.
Probably...the operative word here, the high lifting of the knees had something to do with the original movement, and, as was added over the years, ...the fact that they [dancers] were dancing in the fields which made such movement necessary.
Point 3. Together with proper study, it is a reasonable assumption...ooh! I know, there's that dreadful word, that the 2 step movement of the Lindy is an evolution of the one step movement of Stomp. I recognize, and fully accept, as others have, all of the readings of how Shorty George coined the name, and of how he and others developed the dance afterwards. But, Lindy Hop is a fcombination of many dances that came before or were popular at the time. It seems practically impossible to solidly chronicle to one true source the solo and improvized moves of, say, jazz, and the partnership stuff of Lindy, and the formal eight-count structure of other stuff. There are varying stories as to how it all came about. I guess, I fall...fell...somewhere in here.
Yet, further, it is logical, based on film and other study, that the 3 step movement of later was an evolvement of the 2 step movement/evolution of the Lindy and other dances...Charleston, etc.). This is supported by the film, and kind of b/c, we further have learned that perhaps Stomp didn't influence Swing directly, but became initially popular in what we call Blues dancing. Only later, it crossed over to the swing genre. When I say "learned", of course I mean 'have read or seen (movies)' as an alternative to some other opinion/study.
When listening to the music, it is easy to understand the development of these dances, and the confusion/s as to which came; first, when, and how. As, I am sure that you have, I have encountered many persons who use terminologies interchangeably..."Swing" for "Jitterbug", "Jitterbug" for "Jive", "Lindy" for "Swing".
Dance is extremely important to me and the history and music of the dance is equally important to me.
I agree with you
completely that such study is interesting, necessary (to the best of our abilities), and should be taken seriously much as everything else in hsitory.
Seeing it treated so cavalierly, seeing good and verifiable information dismissed, does bother me.
This, I think, was a wee unfair. Nothing in my posts suggests authority, a "cavalier" attitude, nor, certainly, a dismissal of information. Again, I was merely sharing. Perhaps, it is prudent, or at least a safety zone for me,
that you, and others, could keep in mind that I, and many, learned these things largely in European schools, which taught, no doubt, a very different history than the U.S.
I find it incredible that you never heard this stuff
http://www.dance-forums.com/showpost.php?p=587412&postcount=21, but when looking through some of my stuff, begging your indulgences that 'my stuff' is well divided between Hawai`i, Alaska, and the Gulf, here are some things that I pulled which speak to some of this.
1. Zimbabwe Dance and African Dance (both by Kariamu Welsh Asante)
2. Free Dance by Susan Clark
3. Bound and Free (a book on early, early Jazz) by Stearns
5.
The Story of American Vernacular Dance (I think with Frankie)
6. The Black Tradition in American Dance
Conceding, this is it. :notworth: Just as in life...always a student. :cheers:
Angel
