PDA

View Full Version : Are 'Better' dancers an 'Elite'



Gus
1st-December-2005, 02:16 PM
A few posts made by resident pedants Stewart38 and ESG have raised the issue as to 'Eliteism'. There seems to be an increasing assumption made that the better dancres see themselves as being BETTER than the common masses. PaulF felt it neccesary to apologise for wanting to dance with better dancers.

Can we have a nice (some hope) discussion about what we mean by these phrases and why these perceptions occur?

My personal view is that;
Its rarely the A list dancers who act like Hotshots
We should applaud those who have made the effort to develop their dancing to the highest levels
We shoud try to learn from the better dancers, not bemoan them
Accept that good dancers deserve the opportunity to dance with similar and better dancres without being classes as Elitest

We all have dnace places, music and dancers that we feel more comfortable with. We should be allowed to enjoy that without being named called as long as respect is given to dancers and events that might not hit the mark. Fair comment?

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 02:21 PM
Good thread.
I was going to post something along similar lines but couldnt word the question well enough.
It comes down to my fascination as to what people think when they use the term 'Elitist'


Heres a definition form Cambridge press:

'elitism'
-noun [U] MAINLY DISAPPROVING
-when things are organized for the benefit of a few people with special interests or abilities:

El Salsero Gringo
1st-December-2005, 02:29 PM
Accept that good dancers deserve the opportunity to dance with similar and better dancres without being classes as ElitestIf you're happy with the way you feel about dancing with "the common masses" - or even if you're just happy using that phrase - who on earth cares if someone gives you some label?

Why are you letting the way someone else feels about you become *your* problem?

Paul F
1st-December-2005, 02:36 PM
If you're happy with the way you feel about dancing with "the common masses" - or even if you're just happy using that phrase - who on earth cares if someone gives you some label?

Why are you letting the way someone else feels about you become *your* problem?

I dont think its quite that easy.
How we perceive ourselves and how the world perceives us are two differing concepts but, to a lot of people, they are just as important.
Even though some people may not admit it, the way society operates forces us into caring about how we are seen by others.

TiggsTours
1st-December-2005, 02:47 PM
Can we have a nice (some hope) discussion about what we mean by these phrases and why these perceptions occur?
Let's hope so!



Its rarely the A list dancers who act like Hotshots
:yeah:

We should applaud those who have made the effort to develop their dancing to the highest levels
:yeah:

We shoud try to learn from the better dancers, not bemoan them:yeah: but, at the same time, they should be willing to teach, and to help those not as good by dancing with everyone too.

Accept that good dancers deserve the opportunity to dance with similar and better dancres without being classes as Elitest
:yeah: Where would Wimbledon be if the likes of Tim Henman, and all those before him (and all the other world class tennis players) had be berated for mainly wanting to play tennis with those of equal standard (that does not mean an equal as a person, those not of equal standard at tennis, may well be better dancers, I can't hit a ball to save my life!)
[/LIST]

We all have dance places, music and dancers that we feel more comfortable with. We should be allowed to enjoy that without being named called as long as respect is given to dancers and events that might not hit the mark. Fair comment?
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: Some of my favourite dancers aren't even that great, I just have alot of fun dancing with them!


Well done Gus for saying exactly what (I think) everybody is thinking, without saying anything that could be taken offensively!:worthy:

TT.:flower:

David Bailey
1st-December-2005, 02:55 PM
A few posts made by resident pedants Stewart38 and ESG
:eek: :tears: I've spent ages trying to get known as an official pedant, I insist on being included in that list.

Other than that, I can't find anything offensive to disagree with in your post - and, of course, I tried very hard. :innocent:

El Salsero Gringo
1st-December-2005, 03:00 PM
I dont think its quite that easy.
How we perceive ourselves and how the world perceives us are two differing concepts but, to a lot of people, they are just as important.
Even though some people may not admit it, the way society operates forces us into caring about how we are seen by others.I don't think it's fair to control how other people see us.

Repeating "I'm not a hotshot, I'm not elitist" till you're blue in the face isn't going to change how other people interpret what you (anyone) have written on the Forum. If you've expressed preferences about who you prefer to dance with, and why you prefer some music over other - they you have to accept people's right to form their own opinion of you on that basis.

Furthermore, it's quite demeaning to someone to contradict an opinion that they've come to (in this case an opinion about you - anyone).

You (anyone) hear(s) this: "You're a hotshot/elitist" and you reply "no, I'm not".

The other person's experience of the same exchange is quite, quite different: "I feel that you are a hotshot/elitist because you make me feel bad about myself", is what they are actually saying - and your reply comes back as "Your feelings are INVALID, and you should feel about me the way *I* tell you to".

You can't tell anyone what to think of you, and it's pointless trying.

KatieR
1st-December-2005, 03:15 PM
blah blah .....Repeating "I'm not a hotshot, I'm not elitist" till you're blue in the face isn't going to change how other people interpret what you ..... blah blah blah

Why say it then? Comes back to the whole live and let live argument... if you didn't suggest that people were hotshots/elitists/ferns :rolleyes: we wouldn't have to defend ourselves would we.

TiggsTours
1st-December-2005, 03:28 PM
You know, its funny, when I first started dancing there were a number of really good dancers around who now would be (or even are) called hotshots or elitist by a number of people on this forum.

These people always had time to dance with me, the beginner, but still preferred dancing with people of the same standard, and we didn't have the added benfit of taxi dancers then, so we relied on these people.

I personally used to watch them and think "Wow, they're fab, I wish I could dance like that, I'll never be that good" (I still don't think I am as good as alot of them). I never once looked at them and thought "hotshot, elitist" or any other derogatory term. I never once berated them for preferring to dance with the other good dancers than with me, and I always felt so happy when they danced with me, without getting any sense of feeling "grateful", or made to feel like I should. I completely understood why they would want to dance with the other good dancers, and was glad they still made time for me.

So, who are the people who really deserve to be slated:
the ones who openly say "I prefer dancing with good dancers" but still enjoy dancing with everyone, and are willing to do so, so long as they get a fair enough share of dances with the ones that make them feel good about their own dancing[/*]

or

those who stand back and brand them as "hotshot/elitist" and other derogatory terms, simply for wanting to get some payback for their hard-earned abilities?[/*]

Perhaps the ones getting branded as such should stop dancing with the ones who say it, afterall, why should anyone be nice to someone who will be slagging them off in public the next day?

El Salsero Gringo
1st-December-2005, 03:30 PM
So, who are the people who really deserve to be slated:Perhaps, no-one?

TiggsTours
1st-December-2005, 03:31 PM
Why say it then? Comes back to the whole live and let live argument... if you didn't suggest that people were hotshots/elitists/ferns :rolleyes: we wouldn't have to defend ourselves would we.
:yeah:

TiggsTours
1st-December-2005, 03:32 PM
Perhaps, no-one?
The difference being that, the ones being branded as hotshot/elitist, are the ones who have done nothing to deserve being slated.

David Bailey
1st-December-2005, 03:45 PM
You (anyone) hear(s) this: "You're a hotshot/elitist" and you reply "no, I'm not".

The other person's experience of the same exchange is quite, quite different: "I feel that you are a hotshot/elitist because you make me feel bad about myself", is what they are actually saying - and your reply comes back as "Your feelings are INVALID, and you should feel about me the way *I* tell you to".

You can't tell anyone what to think of you, and it's pointless trying.
I guess the clear problem is one of the difference between perception and actual reality.

For example, if I were ever rash enough to say "XXX was rude", then that means to me that "My perception of XXX's behaviour was rude", in that I didn't think XXX was considerate. XXX may indeed have different (and from their POV, equally valid) interpretations.

All of these labels (hotshot, elitist, rude, cliquey - hell, even pedantic) are perceptual. They relate to how a person or group is perceived by another person or group.

And of course, the person or group being targeted will almost never see themselves in that particular light. For example, as I believe DavidB said (sort of) recently, "No-one inside a clique can see that clique".

So any accusation of clique-hood, hotshotism or other aspects will automatically be rejected due to the differences in perception. The accuser will always think they're right, and the accused will think they are right. And from an external perspective, they both are right.

ESG, that's interesting - and that's the first time I've had to engage my brain all day. Well done, you deserve rep-kinghood (today...).

JonD
1st-December-2005, 03:48 PM
When Oliver Koch was talking to me about AT in the summer he frequently said things like "I leant this by watching the better dancers ......". Oliver has been dancing AT for 12 years, he went back to university to study dance teaching, before that he was a professional stage dancer for about 10 years. He's a truly excellent dancer and teacher and yet he doesn't consider himself one of the "better dancers".

Perceptions are relative. Someone who has only been dancing MJ for a few months will probably consider me to be one of the "better dancers". In my opinion I'm nothing of the sort - I'm not bad compared to the entire MJ population but when I watch the floor at a national event I'm learning from and being enthralled by the "better dancers".


Furthermore, it's quite demeaning to someone to contradict an opinion that they've come to (in this case an opinion about you - anyone). I don't agree. If someone decides that I'm a "hotshot" simply because they perceive that I can lead, consider "movement" more important than "moves", have a passion for learning about dance and like dancing to music more challenging than "Call On Me" then that is their problem. If they express that opinion to me, or publicly about me, then it is they that are being demeaning and I will contradict them.

For the most part, it's the people who express these opinions that are being elitist. They are creating an elite that they can criticise because it makes them feel less bad about the shortcomings they perceive in themselves. Frankly, it's about time they grew up.

Feelingpink
1st-December-2005, 03:51 PM
Hey, TT, you agree with Gus saying "We should try to learn from the better dancers, not bemoan them", adding "but, at the same time, they should be willing to teach, and to help those not as good by dancing with everyone too."

You then agree with Gus's statement that we "Accept that good dancers deserve the opportunity to dance with similar and better dancers without being classed as Elitest".

I don't see how these two statements fit together. On the one hand you are saying that good dancers have an obligation to dance with those are aren't as good, AND that they deserve the opportunity to dance with those who are similar or better. Perhaps you could explain further or I've misunderstood what you meant.

Personally, I don't believe everyone SHOULD HAVE TO BE willing to teach others. Many of us make the decision to do so, but I object to it being thought of as obligatory.

David Franklin
1st-December-2005, 03:52 PM
music more challenging than "Call On Me"
Inconceivable!

El Salsero Gringo
1st-December-2005, 03:53 PM
For the most part, it's the people who express these opinions that are being elitist. They are creating an elite that they can criticise because it makes them feel less bad about the shortcomings they perceive in themselves. Frankly, it's about time they grew up.So the best way you're going to deal with someone's negative opinion about you (anyone) is to create for yourself an *even* more negative opinion of them?

And TT wonders why this kind of thing leads to arguments....:whistle:

EDIT: ...and to wars...

stewart38
1st-December-2005, 04:11 PM
A few posts made by resident pedants Stewart38 and ESG have raised the issue as to 'Eliteism'.

I was actually referring to comments made on the forum

Hot shot someone who wants to dance with better dancers NO

Hot shot some one who turns their nose up at dance with me YES

next ..............

ducasi
1st-December-2005, 04:12 PM
I think people were being "slated" for giving the impression that at their favourite venues, while a few keen beginners may be tolerated, they shouldn't be encouraged to come, as that would first, dilute the pool of "better" dancers, and second, potentially force a change in the music policy.

My own impression is that this has a tinge of elitism, but I don't see anything wrong with that. Paul F's supplied definition of elitism covers it well... "when things are organized for the benefit of a few people with special interests or abilities."

We need special places for special people. :wink:

If it went as far as restricting people from attending due to their lack of ability, I think that's going too far. But I don't think that's likely... :flower:

stewart38
1st-December-2005, 04:16 PM
If it went as far as restricting people from attending due to their lack of ability, I think that's going too far. But I don't think that's likely... :flower:


Im just wondering should people be 'allowed' to post on this Thread unless they have been dancing for say 8 years ??

ChrisA
1st-December-2005, 04:22 PM
Hey, TT, you agree with Gus saying "We should try to learn from the better dancers, not bemoan them", adding "but, at the same time, they should be willing to teach, and to help those not as good by dancing with everyone too."

You then agree with Gus's statement that we "Accept that good dancers deserve the opportunity to dance with similar and better dancers without being classed as Elitest".

I don't see how these two statements fit together. On the one hand you are saying that good dancers have an obligation to dance with those are aren't as good, AND that they deserve the opportunity to dance with those who are similar or better. Perhaps you could explain further or I've misunderstood what you meant.

I see no contradiction here.

All three are true:


We should try to learn from the better dancers, not bemoan them
... is about our responsibility as a less good dancer (and applies to all of us, since there are always people better than ourselves).


but, at the same time, they should be willing to teach, and to help those not as good by dancing with everyone too."

... is about their responsibility as a better dancer (and also applies to all of us, since there are always people less good than ourselves).


Accept that good dancers deserve the opportunity to dance with similar and better dancers without being classed as Elitist
... just says that when dancers aren't either learning from better ones, or giving to less good ones, they can have some time of their own to dance with whom they please.

There's no contradiction, it's just three true things that apply at different times.


Personally, I don't believe everyone SHOULD HAVE TO BE willing to teach others. Many of us make the decision to do so, but I object to it being thought of as obligatory.
I agree... I think using hard words like "obligatory" makes it more of a religious debate than it needs to be. It's nice if they do when it's appropriate (and it often isn't), and it oils the wheels and makes everyone feel good.

It's not obligatory, but it is desirable.

stewart38
1st-December-2005, 04:26 PM
... (and also applies to all of us, since there are always people less good than ourselves).




NOOOOOOOOO

Have you seen my brother dance ? I cant think of a worse dancer, the buck has to stop somewhere ??

TiggsTours
1st-December-2005, 04:30 PM
Hey, TT, you agree with Gus saying "We should try to learn from the better dancers, not bemoan them", adding "but, at the same time, they should be willing to teach, and to help those not as good by dancing with everyone too."

You then agree with Gus's statement that we "Accept that good dancers deserve the opportunity to dance with similar and better dancers without being classed as Elitest".

I don't see how these two statements fit together. On the one hand you are saying that good dancers have an obligation to dance with those are aren't as good, AND that they deserve the opportunity to dance with those who are similar or better. Perhaps you could explain further or I've misunderstood what you meant.

Personally, I don't believe everyone SHOULD HAVE TO BE willing to teach others. Many of us make the decision to do so, but I object to it being thought of as obligatory.
When I go dancing I arrive at about 9pm, and the average night lasts till 10:45, so that's 105 minutes, take, say 20 mins for announcements, gaps, another say 15 mins for breaks, leaves 70 mins of dancing. The average track is 3 mins long, so that's an average of about 24 dances a night. Say I spend (being generous) 8 of those dancing with beginners (when not taxiing) that leaves me 16 dances to spend dancing with the "good" dancers, the ones I want to dance with.

Taking all this into consideration, can I not agree with all that Gus said, and still state that I think better dancers should spend some time dancing with people at a lower standard? The beginners of today are the champions of tomorrow, I'm sorry, but yes I do think the advanced dancer owes it to them to dance with them, but they can still spend 2 thirds of their night dancing with people they really want to! I think 2 thirds of the night counts as an opportunity.

Like I said, I don't know about you, but when I started there were no taxi dancers, without people who were willing to dance with me, I'd never have improved, and probably given up!

We always say to our beginners in class, ask anyone to dance, if they say no, remember their face. When, in a years time, they are queuing up to dance with you after you've won the National title, say no to them!

ChrisA
1st-December-2005, 04:34 PM
another say 15 mins for breaks
Wow...

The music must be fab then....but it's included in the dancing, really... :whistle: :innocent:

Chef
1st-December-2005, 04:45 PM
Im just wondering should people be 'allowed' to post on this Thread unless they have been dancing for say 8 years ??

Not really. It would be an onerous restriction and would keep out people that had been been dancing only 3 months and gained great ability and insight while allowing in people who had been dancing for 8 years and learnt nothing. It is just like being in a job for 20 years. The big question is have you had 20 years experince once or just one years experience 20 times.

Some people are hugely proud of the sheer number of moves that they know but can't do any of them well. All the women that I have had these converstaions with on this subject have expressed the view that they would rather a man know about 10 moves but be able to do them extremely well rather than 100s done badly.

For me, the current situation is fine. Everybody welcome to post. People on the whole are able to sort out the wheat from the chaff and decide which opinions they give more attention to.

Feelingpink
1st-December-2005, 04:45 PM
... I think better dancers should spend some time dancing with people at a lower standard? The beginners of today are the champions of tomorrow, I'm sorry, but yes I do think the advanced dancer owes it to them to dance with them, but they can still spend 2 thirds of their night dancing with people they really want to! I think 2 thirds of the night counts as an opportunity.

...So Tim Henman should spend a third of his practice time with beginner tennis players?

ChrisA
1st-December-2005, 04:50 PM
So Tim Henman should spend a third of his practice time with beginner tennis players?
It would explain a lot if it turned out that he did...

El Salsero Gringo
1st-December-2005, 04:51 PM
So Tim Henman should spend a third of his practice time with beginner tennis players?Who said only beginners? There are lots of people who are of a lower standard than Tim Henman (who are far from novices.) I'd be surprised if it was remotely feasible for Henman *not* to spend the majority of his playing time with players of a lesser standard.

David Bailey
1st-December-2005, 04:52 PM
So Tim Henman should spend a third of his practice time with beginner tennis players?
Tim Henman is a full-time professional at the top (well nearly) of a highly-competitive sport.

I don't think there's any sort of realistic comparison there with MJ...

stewart38
1st-December-2005, 05:04 PM
Not really. It would be an onerous restriction and would keep out people that had been been dancing only 3 months and gained great ability and insight while allowing in people who had been dancing for 8 years and learnt nothing. It is just like being in a job for 20 years. The big question is have you had 20 years experince once or just one years experience 20 times.

Some people are hugely proud of the sheer number of moves that they know but can't do any of them well. All the women that I have had these converstaions with on this subject have expressed the view that they would rather a man know about 10 moves but be able to do them extremely well rather than 100s done badly.

For me, the current situation is fine. Everybody welcome to post. People on the whole are able to sort out the wheat from the chaff and decide which opinions they give more attention to.

I was joking and I assume you know I was joking :whistle:

TiggsTours
1st-December-2005, 05:06 PM
Who said only beginners? There are lots of people who are of a lower standard than Tim Henman (who are far from novices.) I'd be surprised if it was remotely feasible for Henman *not* to spend the majority of his playing time with players of a lesser standard.
My point exactly, very well put.:worthy:

TiggsTours
1st-December-2005, 05:13 PM
Tim Henman is a full-time professional at the top (well nearly) of a highly-competitive sport.

I don't think there's any sort of realistic comparison there with MJ...
Feeling Pink was referring to one of my posts. I was making this comparison using professional tennis players as I don't know any just really good ones.

The comparison is purely between people who are really good at something against people who are not so good, regardless of whether or not they ever will be, and the sharing of talents and experience of those that are better, in order to improve those who could be one day.

I believe the Children are Our Future, and any other soppy song title or quote that may come to mind!

Cruella
1st-December-2005, 07:52 PM
When Oliver Koch was talking to me about AT in the summer he frequently said things like "I leant this by watching the better dancers ......". Oliver has been dancing AT for 12 years, he went back to university to study dance teaching, before that he was a professional stage dancer for about 10 years. He's a truly excellent dancer and teacher and yet he doesn't consider himself one of the "better dancers".

Perceptions are relative. Someone who has only been dancing MJ for a few months will probably consider me to be one of the "better dancers". In my opinion I'm nothing of the sort - I'm not bad compared to the entire MJ population but when I watch the floor at a national event I'm learning from and being enthralled by the "better dancers".

I don't agree. If someone decides that I'm a "hotshot" simply because they perceive that I can lead, consider "movement" more important than "moves", have a passion for learning about dance and like dancing to music more challenging than "Call On Me" then that is their problem. If they express that opinion to me, or publicly about me, then it is they that are being demeaning and I will contradict them.

For the most part, it's the people who express these opinions that are being elitist. They are creating an elite that they can criticise because it makes them feel less bad about the shortcomings they perceive in themselves. Frankly, it's about time they grew up.
:yeah: I hate quoting myself but couldn't be bothered to retype this from the Funky Lush thread.

What one person would consider a good dancer another wouldn't. I know that ZW and i have sometimes disagreed on the ability of certain men! So how can a venue be said to have 'only good dancers' it's all down to individual opinion surely? :flower:
In the same way that someone saying they will only dance with 'better' dancers surely means that they are dancing with people they prefer to dance with. To someone else these may not be better dancers!

Gadget
1st-December-2005, 10:00 PM
The following is not so much bout the views put forward, but the language used in putting them forward....

... that's an average of about 24 dances a night. Say I spend (being generous) 8 of those dancing with beginners (when not taxiing) that leaves me 16 dances to spend dancing with the "good" dancers, the ones I want to dance with. So by implication, you don't want to dance with those 8 dancers of lesser ability. You feel you have to. An obligation to be fulfilled so you can justify selecting the good dancers you want to dance with. What happens with the nineth? "Sorry, I've had my quota of poor dancers this evening..." :(


...I do think the advanced dancer owes it to them to dance with them, but they can still spend 2 thirds of their night dancing with people they really want to! I think 2 thirds of the night counts as an opportunity. owes it to them? People are there to dance. No matter their ability to 'hear' the music, interperate it, make a connection, hold a frame, or do moves. To have "People you really want to" dance with, implys to me that there are people you really don't want to dance with. And these people are beginners and people of a lesser ability.
The term "Hot Shot" or "Elitist" to me is about attitude. This attitude. The "I suppose I will come down to your level and dance with you if I must" attitude. The "I will dance with you, but I really don't want to" attitude.


Like I said, I don't know about you, but when I started there were no taxi dancers, without people who were willing to dance with me, I'd never have improved, and probably given up!I think it must be something about the mentality: "Willing" to dance with you? Dancing should not be a chore. Not even with partners who are challenging.

Ablility only comes into the equation if you think that the only challenge is one of music. Dancing is a three way connection - you, your partner and the music. Each one has it's own set of difficulties to overcome and it's own techniques to learn.


We always say to our beginners in class, ask anyone to dance, if they say no, remember their face. When, in a years time, they are queuing up to dance with you after you've won the National title, say no to them!:tears: They have done it to you, so you should just do it back. Revenge. Rubbing salt in the wounds. Cruel, unforgiving and simply nasty. :mad:
If they say no, then that's their loss. Move on. Ask them again next week. :flower:

Night Owl
2nd-December-2005, 01:12 AM
When I go dancing I arrive at about 9pm, and the average night lasts till 10:45, so that's 105 minutes, take, say 20 mins for announcements, gaps, another say 15 mins for breaks, leaves 70 mins of dancing. The average track is 3 mins long, so that's an average of about 24 dances a night. Say I spend (being generous) 8 of those dancing with beginners (when not taxiing) that leaves me 16 dances to spend dancing with the "good" dancers, the ones I want to dance with.

Taking all this into consideration, can I not agree with all that Gus said, and still state that I think better dancers should spend some time dancing with people at a lower standard? The beginners of today are the champions of tomorrow, I'm sorry, but yes I do think the advanced dancer owes it to them to dance with them, but they can still spend 2 thirds of their night dancing with people they really want to! I think 2 thirds of the night counts as an opportunity.

Like I said, I don't know about you, but when I started there were no taxi dancers, without people who were willing to dance with me, I'd never have improved, and probably given up!

We always say to our beginners in class, ask anyone to dance, if they say no, remember their face. When, in a years time, they are queuing up to dance with you after you've won the National title, say no to them!

Couldn`t have put it better myself:yeah:

under par
2nd-December-2005, 05:22 AM
Are 'Better' dancers an 'Elite' ??

Rant mode on a bit.....

Having perused this thread I feel a certain sinking in my heart as we are trying to put labels on individuals and groups of individuals based on no particular ?

What are dancers?

They are people who pay their good hard earned money as customers at events put on by organisers (who mainly attempt to run their events for profit)

The important point is they are paying customers who have made their choice to attend that event.

Why are they dancing?

I hope they are dancing for fun/pleasure. That is why I dance. I hope I am not transferring my own dillusional misconceptions onto others here.

Having paid my money where does it say anywhere in the contract of entry to any venue that any dancer has to dance with anyone else?

You pay your money you dance or don't dance as you see fit.

Dancing is seen as a social enterprise and it is customary for social interaction to take place.

Many dancers elect to dance with many and varied partners. This is their choice they have made and to be honest it is a choice many make.

I have to say though there is nothing wrong with one dancer dancing solely with another individual dancer all evening. They have paid their money as customers and have decided they would like to dance together.

There is no obligation on anyone to dance with anyone else at all at any venue at any time. This is particularly relevant to pervs yankers and smelly ones but it need not be the only set of criteria. It is purely down to individual choice. In fact some people do pay entry money and sit and watch the dancing.
If I dance for fun why should I dance with people I do not enjoy dancing with?
The answer is I do not need to. I may choose to though.

This perception of obligation is a myth.

Where does this leave the initial thread question?

Are 'Better' dancers an 'Elite'

Why should they be considered elite?

They are dancers of better standard who
1. pay their entry fee and
2. dance with other dancers of their choice
3. who agree mutally to dance with them.


If they choose to dance with only one or only ten partners...well thats life.

why do some people percieve those dancers as elite? I do not know ! It's they that want to enjoy their dances with those one or ten!

why do some complain of not being part of the scene/group? i do not know!

what entitles anyone to be part of any scene/group?:confused: :confused:

why do some individuals think they have a right to dance with others? no idea

why do some individuals feel the need to complain that some other groups appear to be enjoying each others company / dancing

and almost be demanding to be allowed to be part of it:angry:

why do we keep hearing "I went to this/that venue where they were not very friendly. or they were cliquey" if most people where known to each other and were having fun dancing join in as best you can! once you get to know them and it may take some time you will also be part of the clique you percieve

Do these people think their entry money entitles them to instant gratification?....... to be party to and involved at the centre of whatever else anybody might be doing?

Are the complainers really aware of how social interaction amongst us really works?

Sometimes I find it very difficult to imagine a more charitable, friendly, humerous, easy going cross section of society than we have in the modern jive community. With rare exceptions that you are bound to get in any walk of life, the modern jive community is exceptionally friendly.

So the difficulty I have is anyone being labelled as anything at all because they are having fun dancing.

So I do have difficulty within the forum sometimes (which is not strictly representative of the general MJ community )because there appears to be a certain lack of tolerance and maybe respect.

"Good dancers", "A list dancers", "advanced dancers" can hardly get discussed now before the tiresome link to "hotshot" "clique" "elitism"

What have these people done to keep getting these snipes all the time.

They are good/great dancers who like dancing and having paid their money dance. FULL STOP! PERIOD!

There have been numerous threads that have detereorated into elite/hotshot/elitism debates and to be absolutely honest I get really fed up with it.

Now we have a thread dedicted to the topic.

A hotshot/elitist/clique is someones elses poor perception of another.

Why don't you keep your poor perceptions to yourself ....just for change!

All people are at different levels of dance and in Utopia we would have a Viktor, Amir and David Barker available to dance the night away with every beginner follower that comes to a venue. And for every intermediate leader we will have Nina Daines, Kate Hargreaves and Lily Barker as personal dance slaves... but in the real world you have to dance with those who will dance with you.

That is life.


Live and let live ...sometime life is good sometimes its sh*t but thats LIFE

under par
2nd-December-2005, 07:45 AM
Are 'Better' dancers an 'Elite'

I forgot to answer the question IMHO NO


They are just dancers who dance better.

Cruella
2nd-December-2005, 09:08 AM
Are 'Better' dancers an 'Elite' ??

Rant mode on a bit.....

Having perused this thread I feel a certain sinking in my heart as we are trying to put labels on individuals and groups of individuals based on no particular ?.............Lots of stuff well said:clap:


Have some rep UP. I totally agree with this post.

latinlover
2nd-December-2005, 09:31 AM
Are 'Better' dancers an 'Elite' ??

Rant mode on a bit.....
.........................................BIG SNIP....................................



Why don't you keep your poor perceptions to yourself ....just for change!

All people are at different levels of dance and in Utopia we would have a Viktor, Amir and David Barker available to dance the night away with every beginner follower that comes to a venue. And for every intermediate leader we will have Nina Daines, Kate Hargreaves and Lily Barker as personal dance slaves... but in the real world you have to dance with those who will dance with you.

That is life.


Live and let live ...sometime life is good sometimes its sh*t but thats LIFE

:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:

WOW what a post!
Good for you Boyo , have some rep
exactly what I would have written if I had the time!
what a bore it all is, this bleating.

Gadget
2nd-December-2005, 09:42 AM
What are dancers?

They are people who pay their good hard earned money as customers at events put on by organisers (who mainly attempt to run their events for profit)

The important point is they are paying customers who have made their choice to attend that event.
It's a fiscal thing? I've paid good money for this, therefore I can do what I like with it.
!bzzzzzt! incorrect answer. It's a social thing. The money you pay at the door is a contribution to ensure that the venue keeps it's doors open, the teachers keep teaching and the DJs keep playing tunes. It's irrelevant to the dancing or the night in general: It's the people that matter and the interaction between them that make a night. Just because a night's dancing may be free or cost £50 does not make one of a better quality than the other or guarantee a better night than the other.


You pay your money you dance or don't dance as you see fit.

Dancing is seen as a social enterprise and it is customary for social interaction to take place.
~
There is no obligation on anyone to dance with anyone else at all at any venue at any time.
Again incorrect. It's a social gathering. It has it's own sub-set of social rules and etequette.
I could take a novice to a busy venue, barge into the middle of the floor and start doing aerials out of time with the music, and when not cavorting, simply stand there with drink in hand... if I wanted to. {well, if I could do aerials :rolleyes:} There is no obligation to be courteous to fellow dancers. There is no obligation to get off the floor when not dancing. There is no obligation to dance with anyone/everyone.


This perception of obligation is a myth.Myth. Fable? Fantasy? Story? Made-up? Sure. But aren't all social rules {/religions :wink:} based on the same quality of myth?


"Good dancers", "A list dancers", "advanced dancers" can hardly get discussed now before the tiresome link to "hotshot" "clique" "elitism"

What have these people done to keep getting these snipes all the time.Nothing except being good. It's not these people that are the cause of this, and it's not these people that are the "hotshots" "elite" or "clique" - It's the people that think that the only way to get there is to soley dance with them.


Why don't you keep your poor perceptions to yourself ....just for change!why don't you keep your perceptions of what is "poor perception" to yourself... just for a change!

People have perceptions - it's how they perceive the world. Hence the word. People convey them. If you don't like it, argue against it and debate it: don't just tell them to shut up because it dosn't tie in with how you perceive the world.

ducasi
2nd-December-2005, 09:55 AM
It's a social gathering. It has it's own sub-set of social rules and etiquette. Yep Gadget, I think this is the key thing that makes UP's post wrong.

Everywhere you go there are social rules which tell you what you should and shouldn't be doing.

That said, I don't think anyone should feel obliged to dance with beginners if they don't want to. But it's nice if you do. :nice:

KatieR
2nd-December-2005, 10:14 AM
Yep Gadget, I think this is the key thing that makes UP's post wrong.

This above statement is the kind of thing that drives us all crazy.... how can one person be wrong and one person be right..?? We are all very different creatures with very different opinions.

I on one hand agree with UP, but it is my OPINION. Im not going to go around saying, well you must be wrong. I respect the fact that you have an opinion and it is different to mine.

Ive said it before and Ill say it again.. Live and let live.

4634 fluffy bunnies.... hurumph.:mad:

bigdjiver
2nd-December-2005, 10:42 AM
IMO UP's suberbly expressed post is quite right, if his argument is directed at dancers at a dance. Gadget et al are also quite right for the etiquette at a dance class. If there is a lesson it is a dance class, a place where people go to learn how to dance and learn how to dance better. If that lesson is a beginners lesson, then it is an event put on for the benefit of non-dancers wanting to learn. It should not be usurped by dancers demanding more advanced lessons and more advanced music. IMO the elite should seek their own special place for those things.
At the Ceroc classes I go to the Taxi Dancers have the last half hour off. I think that it is fair to assume that that half-hour is not aimed at beginners, and the dancers have a right to make demands on that time.

Andy McGregor
2nd-December-2005, 11:22 AM
If you're happy with the way you feel about dancing with "the common masses" - or even if you're just happy using that phrase - who on earth cares if someone gives you some label?

Why are you letting the way someone else feels about you become *your* problem?ESG seems intent on getting Forumites onto his therapist's couch. My own opinion is that in this instance he's got nothing to add but doesn't like the tone Gus has used.

Now, students, what does this observation tell us about the way Mr Gringo views the world? Does he see people as his equals to debate with or does he see himself as a far cleverer observer and commentator? Or does Mr Gringo think he's better than Gus? And, finally, why does Mr Gringo feel the need to tell everyone what he thinks about Gus? One thousand words by next Tuesday ...

MartinHarper
2nd-December-2005, 11:26 AM
Why do we keep hearing "I went to this/that venue where they were not very friendly. or they were cliquey"

People go to different venues, and sometimes they post their impressions on this forum. Some venues have better dancers. Some have more pop music. Some are more cliquey. Some have a faster dancefloor. Some have a "no row". Some have better teachers. Wouldn't it be dull if all venues were the same?


join in as best you can

I think that's good advice. If I go to a venue where the music is not really to my taste, I'll join in as best I can. If I go to a venue where most dancers are much better than me, I'll join in as best I can. If I go to a venue that is very cliquey and unwelcoming, I'll join in as best I can. I'm a big boy - I can cope.


Why don't you keep your poor perceptions to yourself ....just for change!

I think it's inevitable, and desirable, that dancers (sorry, "paying customers") will talk to each other about different venues, and what they each liked and didn't like, and that will include thoughts about the culture of the place. I don't see why this type of discussion should be barred.

stewart38
2nd-December-2005, 11:33 AM
Now, students, what does this observation tell us about the way Mr Gringo views the world? Does he see people as his equals to debate with or does he see himself as a far cleverer observer and commentator? Or does Mr Gringo think he's better than Gus? And, finally, why does Mr Gringo feel the need to tell everyone what he thinks about Gus? One thousand words by next Tuesday ...

If were all equals then I guess we are all never going to agree with each other because we will all have our own views on the TRUTH or FACT

Therefore old wise one where do i go to find the oracle that gives me the TRUTH and or FACTS

I did think it was Mr Gringo ,if im wrong where do I look for it :sick:

TiggsTours
2nd-December-2005, 11:35 AM
ESG seems intent on getting Forumites onto his therapist's couch. My own opinion is that in this instance he's got nothing to add but doesn't like the tone Gus has used.

Now, students, what does this observation tell us about the way Mr Gringo views the world? Does he see people as his equals to debate with or does he see himself as a far cleverer observer and commentator? Or does Mr Gringo think he's better than Gus? And, finally, why does Mr Gringo feel the need to tell everyone what he thinks about Gus? One thousand words by next Tuesday ...
Whereas Mr McGregor, on the other hand, seems to find it necessary to point out to the world, at every opportunity, every time ESG, and a select few others, say anything at all that he doesn't agree with, in a highly patronising fashion, and seems desperate to highlight all their flaws for the world to see. What does this say about him? I wonder.

Andy McGregor
2nd-December-2005, 11:37 AM
You know, its funny, when I first started dancing there were a number of really good dancers around who now would be (or even are) called hotshots or elitist by a number of people on this forum.

These people always had time to dance with me, the beginner, but still preferred dancing with people of the same standard, and we didn't have the added benfit of taxi dancers then, so we relied on these people. I was starting dancing at around the same time as TT and in the same venue. I had a very different take on the situation. There was a friendly class on a Monday and a Tuesday class packed with hotshots and quite a few of them turned me down when I asked them for a dance :tears:

I think I know why...

Andy McGregor - Male beginner, 40, short, balding, knows 3/4 moves and does them badly with little regard for the beat.

Amanda (not yet Tiggs Tours) - Very pretty, vivacious young blonde.

Now why I got turned down by the good women and she got asked to dance by the good guys is a mystery to me:whistle: But, I learned from this situation: I started wearing blonde wigs and being pretty:innocent:

TiggsTours
2nd-December-2005, 11:42 AM
The following is not so much bout the views put forward, but the language used in putting them forward....
So by implication, you don't want to dance with those 8 dancers of lesser ability. You feel you have to. An obligation to be fulfilled so you can justify selecting the good dancers you want to dance with. What happens with the nineth? "Sorry, I've had my quota of poor dancers this evening..." :(

owes it to them? People are there to dance. No matter their ability to 'hear' the music, interperate it, make a connection, hold a frame, or do moves. To have "People you really want to" dance with, implys to me that there are people you really don't want to dance with. And these people are beginners and people of a lesser ability.
The term "Hot Shot" or "Elitist" to me is about attitude. This attitude. The "I suppose I will come down to your level and dance with you if I must" attitude. The "I will dance with you, but I really don't want to" attitude.

I think it must be something about the mentality: "Willing" to dance with you? Dancing should not be a chore. Not even with partners who are challenging.

Ablility only comes into the equation if you think that the only challenge is one of music. Dancing is a three way connection - you, your partner and the music. Each one has it's own set of difficulties to overcome and it's own techniques to learn.

:tears: They have done it to you, so you should just do it back. Revenge. Rubbing salt in the wounds. Cruel, unforgiving and simply nasty. :mad:
If they say no, then that's their loss. Move on. Ask them again next week. :flower:
Putting words in to my mouth, somewhat, aren't we?

I said "want" maybe I should have said "would prefer to" lets not split hairs here! Would I rather dance with someone who's been dancing 3 weeks & will do the same 4 moves over and over again, badly, and not in time to the music, whilst struggling to remember what else he's learnt, or, would I prefer to dance with someone who is going to lead me smoothly in such a way that I don't even know what moves he's doing, while I glide effortlessly around the floor as if dancing on air? I'm not even going to begin to justify my preferences! Why should I?

That does not mean I do not enjoy dancing with beginners, I do, why else would I have chosen to have the fact I do it stamped across my chest on a none to stylish t-shirt once a fortnight for the last 3 and half years?! I just enjoy dancing with the second option more!

I really like vanilla ice cream, but I prefer Haagan Daz Baileys ice cream!

Andy McGregor
2nd-December-2005, 11:43 AM
If were all equals then I guess we are all never going to agree with each other because we will all have our own views on the TRUTH or FACT

Therefore old wise one where do i go to find the oracle that gives me the TRUTH and or FACTS

I did think it was Mr Gringo ,if im wrong where do I look for it :sick:D-

Please rewrite this essay. The clues are in the questions. There is plenty of material out there about ESG so you will need to be selective to keep your essay down to 1000 words :wink:

N.B. For TT's benefit, ESG and I get along just fine. He loves it when I talk dirty :devil:

David Franklin
2nd-December-2005, 11:43 AM
Andy McGregor - Male beginner, 40, short, balding, knows 3/4 moves and does them badly with little regard for the beat.

But, I learned from this situation: I started wearing blonde wigs and being pretty:innocent:Sounds like a plan. When are you going to learn move number 5? (I'm not sure there's much hope on the beat thing).

Andy McGregor
2nd-December-2005, 11:47 AM
Sounds like a plan. When are you going to learn move number 5? (I'm not sure there's much hope on the beat thing).Now I'm old I can't even remember the 4 moves I knew all those years ago :confused:

Why do you think I went blonde and learnt to follow? :wink:

El Salsero Gringo
2nd-December-2005, 11:48 AM
And, finally, why does Mr Gringo feel the need to tell everyone what he thinks about Gus? One thousand words by next Tuesday ...I don't think I've ever said what I think about Gus, and I've certainly never posted my opinion on the Forum. If I were to say what I thought of him, Andy, you, and possibly he, might be a little surprised. In any case, I have little to go on since (regretfully) he and I have never really spoken. I have however commented on his posts - good and bad - just as you and he have on mine. There's difference between commenting on what someone writes, and commenting on the person - I'm surprised you haven't spotted that.


Whereas Mr McGregor, on the other hand, seems to find it necessary to point out to the world, at every opportunity, every time ESG, and a select few others, say anything at all that he doesn't agree with, in a highly patronising fashion, and seems desperate to highlight all their flaws for the world to see. What does this say about him? I wonder.I'm happy for Andy to hilight what he sees as my flaws, and I always listen carefully to what he has to say.

stewart38
2nd-December-2005, 11:49 AM
Andy McGregor - Male beginner, 40, short, balding, knows 3/4 moves and does them badly with little regard for the beat.



Now given on another thread you remember Nixons Assassination of 1963 the age thing is hard to believe :whistle: Surely your worse then you make out ?

What we need for MG is a new campaign

I hear Marlboro are sponsoring the ceroc champs next year and giving out free cigarettes at the venue isnt that great :wink:

TiggsTours
2nd-December-2005, 11:52 AM
I was starting dancing at around the same time as TT and in the same venue. I had a very different take on the situation. There was a friendly class on a Monday and a Tuesday class packed with hotshots and quite a few of them turned me down when I asked them for a dance :tears:

I think I know why...

Andy McGregor - Male beginner, 40, short, balding, knows 3/4 moves and does them badly with little regard for the beat.

Amanda (not yet Tiggs Tours) - Very pretty, vivacious young blonde.

Now why I got turned down by the good women and she got asked to dance by the good guys is a mystery to me:whistle: But, I learned from this situation: I started wearing blonde wigs and being pretty:innocent:
I'd sort of say fair other than, both my parent started dancing at the same venues too. My father started at the age of 61, he loved it, he found it all very friendly, and that all the women there (young pretty ones included) were all very approachable and willing to dance with him.

My mother on the other hand hated it, she started a year later when she too was 61, and nobody ever asked her to dance (have to say, Andy was an exception to this rule, maybe experience taught him a thing or 2), and she actually used to get flatly turned down!

So maybe it is a case that only the young pretty girls have no trouble getting dances, and are more willing to dance with beginners? seeing as in the situations we have described, this is the only true line followed, or maybe, its all about the attitude of the individual, on both sides of the fence!

David Bailey
2nd-December-2005, 11:53 AM
Andy McGregor - Male beginner, 40, short, balding, knows 3/4 moves and does them badly with little regard for the beat.
Christ, that's me now... :tears: :tears: :tears:


Now, students, what does this observation tell us about the way Mr Gringo views the world?
Err, maybe he just thought it was funny? I know I did, I didn't think of it as a world-changing post or anything (i.e. not like all of mine, of course).

Andy McGregor
2nd-December-2005, 11:58 AM
I don't think I've ever said what I think about Gus, and I've certainly never posted my opinion on the Forum. If I were to say what I thought of him, Andy, you, and possibly he, might be a little surprised. In any case, I have little to go on since (regretfully) he and I have never really spoken. I have however commented on his posts - good and bad - just as you and he have on mine. There's difference between commenting on what someone writes, and commenting on the person - I'm surprised you haven't spotted that.

I'm happy for Andy to hilight what he sees as my flaws, and I always listen carefully to what he has to say.Welcome to the ESG show. Let's all talk about him. He loves it :whistle:

p.s. For the benefit of TT, this isn't serious. ESG and I are just indulging a little bit of light banter and mild character assasination in the absence of anything of substance to argue about. I thought we might start a debate on which foot you step back with in the first move but there's only one debating day left this week and that's a 4 day argument :devil:

MartinHarper
2nd-December-2005, 11:59 AM
So maybe it is a case that only the young pretty girls have no trouble getting dances, and are more willing to dance with beginners?

Cause and effect?
The dancers who encouraged me when I started are one of the reasons I try to encourage those who are starting now.

Gus
2nd-December-2005, 12:26 PM
It's a fiscal thing? I've paid good money for this, therefore I can do what I like with it.
!bzzzzzt! incorrect answer. It's a social thing. The money you pay at the door is a contribution to ensure that the venue keeps it's doors open, the teachers keep teaching and the DJs keep playing tunes. Hmmm .. I'd always assumed it was a business thing ... since when did Ceroc(tm) become a charity?

ducasi
2nd-December-2005, 01:31 PM
This above statement is the kind of thing that drives us all crazy.... how can one person be wrong and one person be right..?? We are all very different creatures with very different opinions.

I on one hand agree with UP, but it is my OPINION. Im not going to go around saying, well you must be wrong. I respect the fact that you have an opinion and it is different to mine. Expressing an opinion is one thing, but UP was making statements of fact. In my opinion, he has his facts wrong.

I don't think that makes him a bad person. :flower:

El Salsero Gringo
2nd-December-2005, 01:45 PM
ESG and I are just indulging a little bit of light banter and mild character assasination in the absence of anything of substance to argue about.No boss - the only one doing any character assasination is you.

(Although I didn't recognise it as that until you pointed it out...:whistle: )

Gadget
2nd-December-2005, 01:59 PM
IMO UP's suberbly expressed post is quite right, if his argument is directed at dancers at a dance. If there is a lesson it is a dance class...
Do you mean just through out the actual "class", or the whole night following a class?


At the Ceroc classes I go to the Taxi Dancers have the last half hour off. I think that it is fair to assume that that half-hour is not aimed at beginners, and the dancers have a right to make demands on that time.
:what: It's my right to demand a dance?


Putting words in to my mouth, somewhat, aren't we? As I said at the start of that reply- I understand the sentiment and mentality behind it; however the words used to convey it seem to reflect a different view.


Would I rather dance with someone who's been dancing 3 weeks & will do the same 4 moves over and over again, badly, and not in time to the music, whilst struggling to remember what else he's learnt, or, would I prefer to dance with someone who is going to lead me smoothly in such a way that I don't even know what moves he's doing, while I glide effortlessly around the floor as if dancing on air?I think that there is a massive difference between leads and followers on this argument: Followers have to subject themselves to whatever lead. Leads impose their leading onto followers.

Would I rather dance with a follower with the same criteria, or one that I'm not even aware is on the end of my arm? Either. Whomever is closest and whomever I havn't danced with - I can manoveur the beginner into moves. I can impose my timing. I can smooth over any errors. I don't require her to remember anything. My main focus is on my partner.
With someone that I know I can 'leave to their own devices' and lead into/out of anything, then the main focus is on my own dancing.
With someone that is not too confident on their own, but can be led into/out of anything, then my main focus is on the music.
:shrug: it's about striking the optimum balance to get the most out of the dance. Preference as to who I have on the end of my arms for the next track has very little to do with ability.


That does not mean I do not enjoy dancing with beginners, I do, why else would I have chosen to have the fact I do it stamped across my chest on a none to stylish t-shirt once a fortnight for the last 3 and half years?!There are other threads that explore this :whistle::wink:


I really like vanilla ice cream, but I prefer Haagan Daz Baileys ice cream!So if you have the option to pick between the two, it's the Baileys that wins it every time. You know that there is some at the bottom of the freezer, so you rummage arround and ignore all the vanilla to get to it... I don't think that was the best of comparisons :rolleyes::D
{In the same metaphor, my preference would be to pull out any and see what it tasted like. Probably with a bias towards a flavour i've not tried yet.}


Hmmm .. I'd always assumed it was a business thing ... since when did Ceroc(tm) become a charity?From the punter's point of view, what difference does it make? The money 'donated' is mostly used for a good cause, to spread the influence, and get better services.

Lou
2nd-December-2005, 02:07 PM
Andy McGregor - Male beginner, 40, short, balding, knows 3/4 moves and does them badly with little regard for the beat.
Sounds like a plan. When are you going to learn move number 5? (I'm not sure there's much hope on the beat thing).

I'm glad you posted this, David. I was wondering which was the particular move that Andy knew three quarters of. I just assumed that not dancing to the beat was a bonus by lengthening it out. Silly me.

BTW... TT - I'm with you on the ice-cream. However, Vanilla can be fantastic too, if you get the stuff flavoured with the real pods. :drool:

(Yes, I know it's thread drift, but there's nothing I can add to the original debate).

under par
2nd-December-2005, 02:09 PM
It's a fiscal thing? I've paid good money for this, therefore I can do what I like with it.
!bzzzzzt! incorrect answer. It's a social thing. The money you pay at the door is a contribution to ensure that the venue keeps it's doors open, the teachers keep teaching and the DJs keep playing tunes. It's irrelevant to the dancing or the night in general: It's the people that matter and the interaction between them that make a night. Just because a night's dancing may be free or cost £50 does not make one of a better quality than the other or guarantee a better night than the other.


The base line Gadget is having paid to enter a class or freestyle you as a customer do have a choice.

You can 1. sit and watch 2. stand at bar and watch, 3. dance with one partner all evening 4. take full part in lesson then do 1. 2. or 3. or 5. take full part in the lesson and dance with everone. or 6. walk out after 5 minutes having done nothing.

I am sure there are many more that could be added.

Everyone that goes has paid their money and will choose to do what they want.

It would not be a good night out if no one did number 5.

As a matter of fact most people do do number 5.

what is wrong IMHO is the castigation of those that make a different choice.

there is nothing on the conditions of entry that should obligate anyone to do anything they don't want to.


Now dancing is a social thing and many will attend for social reasons (I do!) but I stand up for the right of those who do not want to be as sociable in the way that others expect you to do, to attend and do something different having paid thier entry fee.

Live and let live and enjoy your dancing

TheTramp
2nd-December-2005, 02:31 PM
there is nothing on the conditions of entry that should obligate anyone to do anything they don't want to.

I've been saying that all along.

I don't like this "You HAVE to dance with anyone who asks policy". And certainly not stated loudly from the stage.

I'm sure that it puts people off coming. Certainly in the beginning, where people may be a little unsure of themselves and shy.

If you pay your money to do anything, then you have the right to do that thing in the way that you want (provided it doesn't impinge on the safety or enjoyment of others).

Gadget
2nd-December-2005, 02:37 PM
Now dancing is a social thing and many will attend for social reasons (I do!) but I stand up for the right of those who do not want to be as sociable in the way that others expect you to do, to attend and do something different having paid thier entry fee.
What about my rights to stand on the dance floor while chatting to my mates? What about my rights on crowded floors to dip ladys and throw them in the air? What about my rights to letch and leer? Would you also stand up for the rights of smokers? What about for someone in a cinema, during a film, wanted to have a conversation on their mobile?
They have all paid their money - does that entitle them to do as they please?

Why do we have Laws? To prevent people from acting in a way that is detramental to the social structure of society. It may be acceptable in one society for you to do somthing that is completley unacceptable in another.

OK, that's a bit extreme; but the principle behind it is the same. There is a social code of ethics that is promoted and encouraged within MJ venues: If you are acting contrary to these, then you are seen to be rude and may be shunned from the rest of that society.

tsh
2nd-December-2005, 02:49 PM
I think that there is a massive difference between leads and followers on this argument: Followers have to subject themselves to whatever lead. Leads impose their leading onto followers.


I chose to avoid dancing with the followers who make up their own minds about where they're going - because I find this very ininspiring. Does this make me elite???

Sean

Chef
2nd-December-2005, 02:57 PM
What about my rights to stand on the dance floor while chatting to my mates? What about my rights on crowded floors to dip ladys and throw them in the air? What about my rights to letch and leer? Would you also stand up for the rights of smokers? What about for someone in a cinema, during a film, wanted to have a conversation on their mobile?
They have all paid their money - does that entitle them to do as they please?

I think the quote from The Tramp below will answer your question


(provided it doesn't impinge on the safety or enjoyment of others).


Why do we have Laws? To prevent people from acting in a way that is detramental to the social structure of society. It may be acceptable in one society for you to do somthing that is completley unacceptable in another.

So which part of the MJ scene are you proposing to make mandatory?


OK, that's a bit extreme; but the principle behind it is the same. There is a social code of ethics that is promoted and encouraged within MJ venues: If you are acting contrary to these, then you are seen to be rude and may be shunned from the rest of that society.

To most people homosexulaity is socially acceptable but it don't want it to be made compulsory for all.

stewart38
2nd-December-2005, 03:11 PM
I think the quote from The Tramp below will answer your question

So which part of the MJ scene are you proposing to make mandatory?

To most people homosexulaity is socially acceptable but it don't want it to be made compulsory for all.


Cant see the connection with dance setting and homosexuality ?

Nothing is compulsory (to an extent) in a dance setting

A 'better dancer' doesnt have to dance with the masses or anyone, they have paid there money etc

Some would view that as being 'Elite' probably the fast majority though are more interested in 'did they leave the iron on'

Mary
2nd-December-2005, 03:34 PM
What about my rights to stand on the dance floor while chatting to my mates? What about my rights on crowded floors to dip ladys and throw them in the air? What about my rights to letch and leer? Would you also stand up for the rights of smokers? What about for someone in a cinema, during a film, wanted to have a conversation on their mobile?
They have all paid their money - does that entitle them to do as they please?

Why do we have Laws? To prevent people from acting in a way that is detramental to the social structure of society. It may be acceptable in one society for you to do somthing that is completley unacceptable in another.

OK, that's a bit extreme; but the principle behind it is the same. There is a social code of ethics that is promoted and encouraged within MJ venues: If you are acting contrary to these, then you are seen to be rude and may be shunned from the rest of that society.

My understanding of Mr. UP is he is defending the right not to dance, NOT the right to dance in whichever way one pleases without due consideration for others.

M

Chef
2nd-December-2005, 04:57 PM
Cant see the connection with dance setting and homosexuality ?

Nothing is compulsory (to an extent) in a dance setting



I love the way you can answer your own questions.

LMC
2nd-December-2005, 05:12 PM
:what:

Dancing was supposed to be fun the last time I checked (it's been over a week since my last outing :tears: ). As I said on another thread, IMO elitism is about attitude - it's not about dancing ability or musical preferences.

I thought I could talk cr@p 'til the cows come home but I am humbled by many of the posts on this thread, I'm just an amateur, I'll get me coat.

TheTramp
2nd-December-2005, 06:26 PM
I thought I could talk cr@p 'til the cows come home but I am humbled by many of the posts on this thread, I'm just an amateur, I'll get me coat.

TAXI for LMC please..... :whistle:

Gadget
2nd-December-2005, 10:36 PM
They have all paid their money - does that entitle them to do as they please?I think the quote from The Tramp below will answer your question

(provided it doesn't impinge on the safety or enjoyment of others).
But that's the point: by refusing and being excessivly narrow minded about selecting dance partners you are impinging on the enjoyment of others.

Even if you* are not, how about instead of being neutral about other's dancing and enjoyment you instead be positive and see about tending other's instead of yourself? (ie. instead of "I'm not bothering them or causing them any ill, let them find their own pleasure while I seek mine" try "I wonder how much enjoyment I can give to them?")
Apathy and a culture of "it's not my problem" are what leads towards the perception of 'elitism'. Simply by not taking a more eclectic approach to dancing and selecting a partner, a dancer may find that they are tarred with the 'elitist' brush. Not due to any action but rather due to inaction.
Fortunatly, within the MJ culture, there is the attitude of "get of your arze and have some fun". Less apathy and more "it may no be my problem, but I can help".


{*not Chef in particular, just 'you' in general}


So which part of the MJ scene are you proposing to make mandatory? mandatory? Ah; laws. But laws are guidelines. Juges & juries make the call as to which side of that line you are when you approach it.
Do we need a book of dancing law? The ten (by ten by ten) commandments? It's govened by standard social ettequete - "show some respect for your fellow dancer". With an added "and help them when you can."
What part of refusing dances based on ability or having an "if I must" attitude falls into this ettequite?


To most people homosexulaity is socially acceptable but they don't want it to be made compulsory for all.We are talking about a 'club' enviroment with it's own sub-set of social rules. It is socially aceptable for me to dance down the main street during christmas shopping. I don't want that to be compulsory for all... then again :innocent:
What is so wrong about going to a dance venue and expecting to dance? Am I delusional for thinking that people are there because they want to dance? Is it wrong to be shocked and stunned when you are turned down for a dance in this enviroment?

Rose
2nd-December-2005, 11:18 PM
Ceroc can be a competitive dance and why not? - it is healthy to be constantly striving to be a better dancer. I certainly enjoy myself and have a great time. I sometimes like to dance with the so called 'elite' sometimes not depending on my mood and who is available. I agree with LMC that it is a question of attitude. Dancers with the right attitude are a much better turn on for me. It is good etiquette to say thank you for the dance and say you really enjoyed the dance if you did. It is so nice when my partner is complimentary to my style of dancing. I try not to let it go to my head feels fab though:flower:

Magic Hans
2nd-December-2005, 11:47 PM
But that's the point: by refusing and being excessivly narrow minded about selecting dance partners you are impinging on the enjoyment of others.
...


Agreed ... to an extent. As a fee paying customer who also wants to see a venue survive and thrive, to what degree do I do what I should do for the good of the venue, as opposed to what I want to do for my own (and quite frankly selfish) personal gratification?

That there are certain people that I prefer to dance with is unquestionable. I am biased, and I do make decisions.

However, I also appreciate that I may be able to help other dancers progress, in the same way that past dance partners of mine have helped me. And so, although that particular dance might not have been quite so enjoyable as another as a dance, I do (sometimes) take the longer term pleasure of witnessing, 1st hand, little break throughs, and overall improvement and (most importantly) enjoyment of those who are, perhaps, less practiced.

Do I feel like this all the time? No!! I call it being human. Sometimes I fell sh*tty, I've had a bad day, and I've come to dance, purely and unashamedly for quick self-gratification.

And it's a good job, since if I did dance with, say, a first timer, I'd probably end up giving them a hard time, quite possibly shatter any self confidence that they might have built up, lead to their never again returning!!

Other times, I do feel far more able and equipped to try out some other people, and see how we get along!

As for elitist, personally I don't see a problem with the word or the concept. Is it not our unelitist education system that is producing more top grades than ever before? Aren't our elite troops the SAS? Quite frankly I strive to reach the elite level of those activities that I take a strong interest in (stage work, climbing and singing). Doesn't mean I have to shun anyone.

Anyhow .... Peace and Love all round, eh?? :wink:

Daisy
3rd-December-2005, 01:34 AM
I've been saying that all along.

I don't like this "You HAVE to dance with anyone who asks policy". And certainly not stated loudly from the stage.

I'm sure that it puts people off coming. Certainly in the beginning, where people may be a little unsure of themselves and shy.

If you pay your money to do anything, then you have the right to do that thing in the way that you want (provided it doesn't impinge on the safety or enjoyment of others).

Completely agree with this Steve:yeah:

Ghost
3rd-December-2005, 01:46 AM
A similar discussion re-occurs on a different (non-dance) forum on a fairly regular basis for about the last 5 years. The end is always this
!) Within reason, if you’re a paying customer you can do what you want. (Obviously you have to abide within the rules. Punching people will get you kicked out for example, but ignoring beginners if allowed)
2) It may however be in your own interest to encourage beginners.
3) Obviously you can leave No 2 to someone else if you want
4) There are a variety of reasons why people don’t want to help beginners. These are argued a lot. No-one ever really agrees.
5) Personality is a factor. Some people just prefer other people's company regardless of their skill
6) Some people enjoy helping beginners

Obviously as its a non-dance forum it's not a perfect example. :blush:
Feel free to substitute "beginners" with "bad dancers" etc.

No offence is intended. :flower: I appreciate there are other points being made.

Take care,
Christopher

Ghost
3rd-December-2005, 01:47 AM
but ignoring beginners is allowed) :blush:
Sorry,
Christopher

bigdjiver
3rd-December-2005, 03:45 AM
In the classes I attend it is quite clearly stated from the stage that anybody can ask anybody to dance, and it is expected that they will be accepted. It is also stated from the stage that certain behaviours are unacceptable and various good practices are desirable. The ethos of the dance class is quite clearly stated. As far as I can see this ethos is the right one for teaching people to dance, and to dance better, and to enjoy themselves whilst doing so.
There are sometimes people who attend those classes that have "paid their money" and have a different social agenda, It does not take many of them to ruin the atmosphere of the class.

TheTramp
3rd-December-2005, 04:32 AM
But that's the point: by refusing and being excessivly narrow minded about selecting dance partners you are impinging on the enjoyment of others.

Is it wrong to be shocked and stunned when you are turned down for a dance in this enviroment?

Sorry Gadget. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one...

While personally, I try not to turn people down to dance (though, regretably, it seems to happen these days, mostly due to the inability of my body to keep up with the rest of me), and do look to dance with new people, I still feel that it is wrong to try to tell other people how to behave (outwith of areas that satisfy legal and moral reasons).

Hence, if someone wants to come along, and only dance when it suits them, and who it suits them with, then I see absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. It's their decision, and I have to respect that. I guess that it may impinge on the enjoyment of other people who ask them to dance, but that's life. When I ask people to give me £50, and they say no, that impinges on my enjoyment too. But it's still their right to say no. (I'll try this one on you on Tuesday, and see how far it gets me!).

Hence, yes, it is theoretically wrong to be shocked and stunned when turned down for a dance. However, it is natural to feel slightly upset (I think that shocked and stunned might be taking it a little too far). I know it's happened to me in the past, and I've felt that way. I've managed to get over it reasonably quickly though. And (as said before), once someone has turned me down twice in a row (without a reason), I'll get the picture, and wait for them to ask me to dance in future.

MartinHarper
3rd-December-2005, 03:18 PM
Hence, if someone wants to come along, and only dance when it suits them, and who it suits them with, then I see absolutely nothing wrong with that at all.

I wouldn't say that it's a bad thing to do, but I would say that it's not a good thing to do. Is that a meaningful distinction?

Kinda like charity. If someone with a disposable income wants to give no money to charity, then ok, I can accept that decision. It doesn't necessarilly make them a bad person. On the other hand, they're missing out on the opportunity to do a good thing.

stewart38
3rd-December-2005, 03:19 PM
TAXI for LMC please..... :whistle:


Make that a BIG taxi

Awaits the -ve rep :whistle:

David Bailey
3rd-December-2005, 03:47 PM
I've been saying that all along.

I don't like this "You HAVE to dance with anyone who asks policy". And certainly not stated loudly from the stage.

I'm sure that it puts people off coming. Certainly in the beginning, where people may be a little unsure of themselves and shy.
I'm not sure about this, I can see both sides.

From one point of view, it's very important to promote on of the unique features of Ceroc / MJ, which is the "everyone can and does dance with everyone else" mentality - this is first introduced in the rapid partner-swapping during classes, and is then reinforced by taxi dancers, teachers (usually) dancing with beginners, etc etc.

And it could be argued that to get a message across, you have to put it simply. Like a lot of other Ceroc "Laws" ("you too can be dancing after 1 lesson", "There's no footwork", etc. etc.), you find out after a while that these are really more like guidelines than rules.

But they're useful approximations, and serve very well up until a certain point. Of course, they then turn into hindrances (for some reason, I'm thinking of Newtonian and Einsteinian physics as analogies, my mind is often strange).

So the teacher saying "We recommend you dance with a lot of different people, as this promotes the uniquely-friendly nature of Ceroc dances. But not if you don't want to, or if you're too tired, or if they're yankers or pervs or...." wouldn't exactly be the strongest recommendation to make.

So it's easier to say simply "Dance with everyone"...

TheTramp
3rd-December-2005, 04:55 PM
So it's easier to say simply "Dance with everyone"...

I could probably live with this.

However, I've heard (from the stage) things like, "We never, ever turn anyone down in Ceroc if they ask us to dance", (pretty much a quote).

And then, your new person gets asked to dance immediately by 3 people - the yanker, lecher and stinker. Feels that they absolutely can't say no. Then walks out, never to return. Maybe an unlikely case. But something similar could happen.

Or the person who comes along, and really doesn't like dancing with someone (for whatever reason), but that person asks them three times a week every week, and again they don't feel that they can say no, since that's not the Ceroc way. So again, they decide it's easier to leave and never come back. And I know that this sort of situation happens.

Have to say, that I'm all for the general mentality of not turning people down. I just hate the 'You must never, ever turn anyone down mentality'.

TheTramp
3rd-December-2005, 04:59 PM
I wouldn't say that it's a bad thing to do, but I would say that it's not a good thing to do. Is that a meaningful distinction?

Absolutely. I also have no problem with people who don't spend their entire time doing good things though. Nothing wrong with that! :whistle:

Andy McGregor
3rd-December-2005, 06:42 PM
However, I've heard (from the stage) things like, "We never, ever turn anyone down in Ceroc if they ask us to dance", (pretty much a quote).I do not say this. I'm completely sexist when I give this little speech. I tell everyone that the're at a dance class and they should be surprised if people they don't know ask them to dance. And, because the're at a dance class the person asking you knows you're there to dance so any refusal to dance might be taken personally :tears: However, I qualify this by saying that the girls do not have to say 'yes' to every guy that asks them - but it would be nice if they left the guy with his dignity by giving them a reason (read "excuse") why they won't dance with them - I give examples like taking a break, feeling dizzy, opened an artery, etc. For the guys I tell them it takes a lot of guts for a girl to ask them to dance, some of the time it could be the first time a girl's ever asked a guy - so the guys are not allowed to say "no". And why would they want to? :confused: I advise the guys to hide outside if they need a break so they don't ever need to turn a woman down.

The other side of the coin is the women that stand around with their arms folded looking grumpy and not being asked to dance. These women complain to me that they've not danced all night because nobody asked them (usually while I'm dancing with them :confused: ). I ask them if they asked anyone to dance and often get the reply "of course not" like I'm mental for metioning it. It makes my blood boil that women complain because everybody did what they were doing - probably defines hypocrisy :wink:

Gadget
4th-December-2005, 02:18 AM
I still feel that it is wrong to try to tell other people how to behave (outwith of areas that satisfy legal and moral reasons).There is only one rigid 'law' of dancing: don't cause harm. However there are several moral/ethical codes that exist where (MJ) dancers congregate. It is these that make the social 'togetherness' of a venue/night/class/event:
- don't stand on the dance floor unless you are dancing.
- don't carry drinks accross a floor.
- don't walk through a floor with dancers on it.
- etc.
amoung these are the codes of
- Accept every dance offer.
- Dance with new faces and new dancers.
Whether you agree or disagree with these codes does not matter - they are there. It is part of the social dance scene. If you disregard them and can dance well, then it can be assumed that you know these rules and are snubbing them.
There may be a pefectly sound and acceptable reason - again, it does not matter - it is the action (or lack thereof) that goes against the dancer. Not the reasoning behind it.


Hence, if someone wants to come along, and only dance when it suits them, and who it suits them with, then I see absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. It's their decision, and I have to respect that.
Correct: their decision. And if they are an experienced dancer, then they will know the social expectations of them by turning up at a class. By refusing to live up to these, by refusing to follow the social guidelines, they run the risk of branding themselves outside of acceptable social guidelines. And since they have placed themselves there, self-centred and elitist.

Beginners don't yet know the social expectations and guidelines, so are therefore granted amnesty until they do.


{from a further post}...And then, your new person gets asked to dance immediately by 3 people - the yanker, lecher and stinker. Feels that they absolutely can't say no. Then walks out, never to return. So this is the problem related to not saying "no" rather than problems related to getting yankers to stop yanking, letches to stop letching and stinkers to stop stinking? :what:
If this is the concern about refusal, then I would suggest that it is not the ethos of accepting every dance that needs to be softened, but the non-acceptance of other anti-social behaviours that needs strengthening. If you are standing up for the rights of one form of anti-social behaviour (ie refusal) then what does that imply about other forms like those mentioned above?


Or the person who comes along, and really doesn't like dancing with someone (for whatever reason), but that person asks them three times a week every week, and again they don't feel that they can say no, since that's not the Ceroc way. So again, they decide it's easier to leave and never come back.And this is a problem with the social situation of "Must not refuse" and not one of "Confrontation"? If the dancer in question is unwilling to broach the subject to the problem partner, Taxis and Teachers are approachable about nuisance dancers. As are most experienced dancers.

With the 'must dance' ethos, there is also more likleyhood of people like this being found and rehabilitated.


...I just hate the 'You must never, ever turn anyone down mentality'.There is no such thing as an unbreakable rule - even the "No harm" {I would inflict a small pain on my partner to avoid a larger pain} However I just hate the "It's OK to do what you want" and "I've paid; my money - I don't have to follow your rules."

Everyone is following these 'rules'. Then someone says "I know that rule, but I'm going to step over it." Combine this with the fact that they are a good dancer and you get the summary: "I am too good for these rules to apply to me." or even worse; "I have paid good money so that these rules don't apply to me." This is where the perspecitve of "Elitist" or "Hotshot" dancers comes from.

Anna
4th-December-2005, 02:35 AM
At the risk of being labelled :rolleyes: .. I was just wondering why people seem to consider it a good dancer's duty to dance with all the beginners?

Its your duty as anyone not to refuse a dance with someone else unless you have a good reason (ie. not because of their level), thats just manners.. But I think it is a bit rough to expect, nay, insist that teachers and advanced dancers (not taxi's) of a professional or "very good" level MUST dance with everyone.

Why do they have to dance with everyone? Why can't they just dance with their favourite dancers?

They're people too.. we all have favourite dance partners. As annoying as it is to the rest of us who aren't at their level and would KILL to dance with these people.. put yourself in their shoes for a minute.. how would you feel if every time you went out to a danceparty, club or freestyle you were automatically expected to dance with all the beginners? Where's the time for dancing with your dancepartner? Or with some of your friends? Or with anyone YOU want to dance with?

Let's say CerocBob is a dance teacher and he teaches a class every monday with a freestyle afterwards..
I agree, it IS his responsibility to be on call during the freestyle after that class.

However, if you go out on Friday night to an independant dance Club and you see CerocBob there, it is no longer his obligation to dance with you or to teach you anything. It doesn't mean that dance etiquette is no longer appropriate, he still shouldn't be rude, but there is actually no rule that says he has to dance with anyone. He could sit there on his orange CerocBob backside all night if he wanted to and there is nothing you can do about it to make him do anything.

And that's even more true with Advanced dancers who don't teach and aren't Taxi's. Those people do not "owe" the "masses" ANYTHING. And no, they don't have to dance with people of a lower level than them. I'm not saying they don't want to it's just that we all have the right to choose. A beginner doesn't get told who they have to dance with and I don't think anyone else should be either.

Apologies for the almost rant but the expectations that people seem to have for Teachers and Advanced is a little disconcerting and scary :sick:

David Franklin
4th-December-2005, 02:43 AM
There is only one rigid 'law' of dancing: don't cause harm. However there are several moral/ethical codes that exist where (MJ) dancers congregate.
amoung these are the codes of
- Accept every dance offer.
- Dance with new faces and new dancers.

Whether you agree or disagree with these codes does not matter - they are there.Sorry, but I think you're arguing by assertion - the whole reason the debate is continuing is that many people do not agree that those are part of the social code. In fact, I'm sure the majority would disagree with "Everyone should always accept every dance offer".

MartinHarper
4th-December-2005, 02:59 AM
Why can't (advanced dancers) just dance with their favourite dancers?

Suppose that everyone tries to just dance with their favourite dancers. Turns out that most people's favourite dancers are the same: advanced dancers. If that atmosphere takes hold, then advanced dancers get stalked, and are continually pounced on with requests for dances. This is not in the interests of anyone, and certainly not in the interests of the advanced dancers.

TheTramp
4th-December-2005, 03:24 AM
Sorry, but I think you're arguing by assertion - the whole reason the debate is continuing is that many people do not agree that those are part of the social code. In fact, I'm sure the majority would disagree with "Everyone should always accept every dance offer".
:yeah:

Sorry Gadget, but now you're starting to sound very dictorial. I've said that I prefer the mentality of dancing with everyone. But I can see that other people may not want to do that. And it's their choice. And there is no social stigma attached. They don't become lepers.

It's your choice not to do that. Which is also fine. I accept that. And I'm sorry, but you really need to chill out a bit. You're entitled to your view. Other people are entitled to theirs. They are no less valid.

And it isn't morally, or ethically wrong to turn down the request for a dance. It's morally and ethically wrong to kill someone. There are certainly no 'rules' that you have to accept every dance. Turning down a dance does not mean that you are breaking a rule.

PS. I'm sure that you'll all be pleased to know that this is my final post on this subject. I think that I've said all that there is to say as far as I'm concerned, and I'll probably just end up going round in circles now. Please feel free to carry on without me though! :flower:

Lou
4th-December-2005, 09:33 AM
I went to Gloucester last night. It's not my favourite venue, as I really need to be more pro-active than usual in asking for dances. Previously, I'd put it down to not being a regular there, and that there are always quite a few more ladies than men. However, I think I found out another reason when I was chatting with a friend at the end...

He's been dancing for about a year. I'd say he's of a reasonably good, early intermediate standard. He knows the basics, a couple of nice moves, dances on the beat, and certainly doesn't yank, perve or stink. As far as musicality goes, he's still learning. For instance, he hasn't yet got the confidence to hit the breaks himself - however, he's aware of the follower's position, and will let her do her thing. I really like dancing with him.

But he told me that earlier in the evening, he'd asked a lady to dance and she'd just replied, "No, I've been watching you, and you're not good enough!"

:eek:

It would seem that this lady certainly saw herself as "elite", and in the very worse sense of the word.

I think that on this thread (and on the many other similar ones), most of us agree that everyone has the night to say "no". However, should any of us choose to exercise that right, I'd hope we'd do it for better reasons, and with more grace, than this lady in question. Fortunately, as he's one of the kindest, nicest people I know, it's not in his nature to be bitter about these things, but I could see that her words had hurt him.

And is it any wonder that the men are more reluctant to ask unfamiliar ladies to dance at this venue, if this is the type of response that they get?

Lou
4th-December-2005, 09:50 AM
Suppose that everyone tries to just dance with their favourite dancers. Turns out that most people's favourite dancers are the same: advanced dancers. If that atmosphere takes hold, then advanced dancers get stalked, and are continually pounced on with requests for dances. This is not in the interests of anyone, and certainly not in the interests of the advanced dancers.
Funny you should say that. I met up with another friend in the car park last night. I told him that I was surprised to see him there, as I'd not seen him in the venue.

He's been learning Ceroc™ for about 6 months. However, he's one of those lucky people who has a natural aptitude for dance, and is already a very good leader. He's also a regular at Chelt & Glos, so is a familiar face in the area.

He told me that he'd hardly gotten off the dancefloor, and when he did, he'd spent the rest of it hiding, trying to avoid been pounced on, to try to catch his breath.

Again, he's a lovely chap, so he won't ever say no. But the preditory ladies of Gloucester just take advantage of his good nature. :rolleyes:

I can't help thinking that if they danced with perfectly reasonable dancers, like my friend in the post above, in the long term they'd gain a bigger pool of experienced dancers. That way, my other friend might get a moment's peace!

David Bailey
4th-December-2005, 10:39 AM
At the risk of being labelled :rolleyes: .. I was just wondering why people seem to consider it a good dancer's duty to dance with all the beginners?
Hmmm... I wouldn't go that far; "duty" is a bit too proscriptive for my tastes. There's a difference between "actively seeking out beginner dancers to help" and "not refusing to dance with beginner dancers".

The former is laudable, but certainly not compulsory. But as Lou's "No, you're not good enough" story illustrates, the latter is hurtful - and it leads to No-Rows and auditions, both of which are heinous crimes against humanity.


Why do they have to dance with everyone? Why can't they just dance with their favourite dancers?
See the 2,000 threads marked "clique", "hotshot", etc for details... :)

I don't disagree with your CerocBob analogy; but the fact is, everyone learns a lot from better dancers, and if you aren't prepared to dance with less experienced dancers than you, why should you expect better dancers to dance with you? Obey the Golden Rule, in other words, simply out of enlightened self-interest, to help promote a culture of mutual development.


Apologies for the almost rant but the expectations that people seem to have for Teachers and Advanced is a little disconcerting and scary :sick:
Don't worry about it, this is the Ranting Thread after all :)

And:

{ Gloucester stories }
Gloucester sounds a very scary place... :eek:

TA Guy
4th-December-2005, 11:36 AM
There's a world of difference between 'Not saying no' and 'Intermediates must ask beginners'.

With 'not saying no' there are two pressures, the pressure of the organisation who want to keep bodies coming thru the door, and social pressure which can otherwise be described in this case as 'just good manners'.

With 'Intermediates must ask beginners', there is, of course, pressure from the organisation again, but there is no social pressure whatsoever. I know of no social pressure that says you *must* ask complete strangers to dance whatever their standard.
Since it is only the organisation creating this pressure, this is why the 'arrangement' the organisation has between itself and it's customers becomes important. The current 'arrangement' is we pay XXX to get in and nothing in this arrangement requires anyone to dance with someone they do not wish to dance with.
Before somebody chimes in with 'theres nothing in that arrangement about not doing aerials in the middle of a crowded dance floor'.... your missing the point. There is something, social pressure again, lots of social pressure not to break other peoples legs.

The organisations know this, that's why they don't *force* (in the strongest sense of the word) intermediates to dance with beginners.... that's also part of the reason they have taxi dancers. If anyone thinks the current setup is not working, they'd be better off asking the organisations to recruit more taxi dancers rather than pressuring intermediates. (Since the whole rational behind this is presumably to help keep beginners, what's the point if the result is possibly losing intermediates by pressuring them to do something they do not wish to do? Likewise, if the reasoning is to make beginners 'happy', what's the point if it makes intermediates 'unhappy'?)

I completely refute this idea that somehow 'intermediates must ask beginners' is an unwritten social rule at MJ. Sure, you get intermediates who enjoy dancing with beginners for whatever reason, and maybe some of them do feel under pressure from the organisation to do this, and I am fully prepared for someone to pop up and say 'that rule works at so and so venue', but truthfully, in no venue I have ever attended have I ever seen that rule being generally observed by all, or even the majority of intermediates. To believe that rule is being observed throughout MJ. That's just fantasy, or if your completely cynical, propaganda from the organisations for the usual monetary gain purposes :)

Speaking generally, lessons are where you are forced (in the mildest sense of the word) to dance with whoever, freestyles are where you have freedom regarding who you dance with. That is the basic setup and it's served us well so far, I see no reason to change it.

bigdjiver
4th-December-2005, 12:09 PM
...Speaking generally, lessons are where you are forced (in the mildest sense of the word) to dance with whoever, freestyles are where you have freedom regarding who you dance with. That is the basic setup and it's served us well so far, I see no reason to change it.How about:- "Lessons are where it is custom to dance with whoever, providing they are behaving in an socially physically acceptable manner. Freestyles are where you have freedom regarding who you dance with."?

Gadget
4th-December-2005, 12:12 PM
Sorry, but I think you're arguing by assertion - the whole reason the debate is continuing is that many people do not agree that those are part of the social code. In fact, I'm sure the majority would disagree with "Everyone should always accept every dance offer".New dancers enter a venue. They learn {social rules} from what is said from the stage, what the taxi's impart and what they observe. Teachers and Taxis advocate the above rules. Most people in the venue follow these rules. The beginners become intermediates. These rules become the social "norm".

I think that the majority would agree with "Everyone should always accept a dance offer" as long as there was a "within reason" disclaimer. What we are arguing about is this reason and whether dancing with a dancer of lesser ability is an acceptable one.

Obviously this can only be qualified by the better dancers. And if they are seen to be going against the social teachings and ethical codes that are given from the management, then I think it's perfectly understandable that they be branded as "Hotshots" or "Elitist" by the dancers of lesser ability.


And it isn't morally, or ethically wrong to turn down the request for a dance. It's morally and ethically wrong to kill someone. There are certainly no 'rules' that you have to accept every dance. Turning down a dance does not mean that you are breaking a rule.If you were brought up in a civilisation that practiced pologamy or capital punishment, then it wouldn't seem morally or ethically wrong. It's just a different culture. The laws in America differ from the laws here. They differ from state to state. Slightly different cultures. There is a culture on the Modern Jive scene that differs from almost every other social interaction 'hobby'. It even differs from ballroom, salsa, club, tango, or any other form of dance.

When you step into a MJ venue, you are stepping into this culture. You may not like it, you may not agree with it, you may think that some of the social rules are wrong, you may not adhear to any of them. That is your choice. I'm not arguing about forcing anyone to adhear to any rules of social interaction: I'm just pointing out that by being aware of them and not following these rules, there is some justification in assigning a dancer the label of "Hotshot".


Since it is only the organisation creating this pressure, ... It may have initially been The Collective that created this "pressure", however once the majority of dancers accept it, it becomes part of the social structure.

bigdjiver
4th-December-2005, 12:12 PM
Some posts remind me of the quotation "To hell with posterity. What's posterity ever done for me?"

TA Guy
4th-December-2005, 12:21 PM
How about:- "Lessons are where it is custom to dance with whoever, providing they are behaving in an socially physically acceptable manner. Freestyles are where you have freedom regarding who you dance with."?

No arguments there. I could tell you the story of the local smelly guy, but that would be uncouth :)

David Franklin
4th-December-2005, 12:28 PM
I think that the majority would agree with "Everyone should always accept a dance offer" as long as there was a "within reason" disclaimer. What we are arguing about is this reason and whether dancing with a dancer of lesser ability is an acceptable one.
But in your previous post (that prompted my comment and Steve's), you said: (emphasis mine)

Whether you agree or disagree with these codes does not matter - they are there. It is part of the social dance scene. If you disregard them and can dance well, then it can be assumed that you know these rules and are snubbing them.
There may be a pefectly sound and acceptable reason - again, it does not matter - it is the action (or lack thereof) that goes against the dancer. Not the reasoning behind it.So which is it, Gadget? Is there a within reason disclaimer or not?

TheTramp
4th-December-2005, 12:51 PM
I think that the majority would agree with "Everyone should always accept a dance offer" as long as there was a "within reason" disclaimer. What we are arguing about is this reason and whether dancing with a dancer of lesser ability is an acceptable one.

Sorry. But that is NOT what you have been saying.

(Yes, I know that I posted I wouldn't post on this matter any more :whistle: But I'm not really posting on the matter, I'm posting on the change of tack!)

Up until now, you have been posting the absolute "You should never turn down a dance". You have never accepted that there may be a qualified reason. I quite agree that all dancers should not use the "You're not good enough" reason for rejecting the offer of a dance. (My usual response when I ask someone to dance, and they say "I'm not good enough" is, "Good, I like bad girls!").



On a personal level, one of the reasons that I don't like the "You can never, ever turn down a dance" thing. When I came back from Australia, I had a problem with my shoulder that required physio attention. At one of the venues I work* at, I was asked to dance right at the start of the evening by a lady that I don't really know that well, and have only danced with a couple of times previously to a fairly fast track. I explained to the lady that I had a problem with my shoulder shoulder, and probably wouldn't be dancing that night. At the end of the night, I had a couple of dances with ladies that I'd danced with plenty of times before, and trusted not to pull on my shoulder, to slow tracks. After the music had finished, the first lady gave me a lot of hassle about how I had turned her down, and wasn't allowed to turn her down, and then had danced with other ladies. Needless to say, I was quite put off and annoyed.


*worked at, so had no choice, I had to be there

MartinHarper
4th-December-2005, 01:19 PM
I know of no social pressure that says you *must* ask complete strangers to dance whatever their standard.

So, I asked a girl to dance, and she was a better dancer than me, and she graciously accepted. As we were finishing up, she asked - "would you ask my friend to dance? It's her first week". I was happy to oblige.

Must be a provincial thing.

Magic Hans
4th-December-2005, 03:38 PM
...
Ah; laws. But laws are guidelines.
...


What!!!:eek: :eek:

Good god no!!!! Laws are definitely NOT guidelines!!!

Break a law, and be prepared to suffer the consequences, the punishment inflicted by he (or those) imposing that law (prison, maybe)

Guidelines are hints and tips to help (or guide) me along my way, often pulled together by those who have been there before. Ignoring guidelines may lead to pitfalls that others, previously, have encountered. Alternatively, it may lead down a new path and to pitfalls not yet encountered.

As for Rules, personally I see rules being similar to Laws, but not quite so extreme

Whitebeard
4th-December-2005, 04:30 PM
Gloucester sounds a very scary place...
Well, one of my haunts innit ;-O oooooo oooooo

(But my cold bubbled up again so poor Lou was at least spared having to dance with me. Love to know who that lady (?) was. Native, or another visitor?)

bigdjiver
4th-December-2005, 06:07 PM
No arguments there. I could tell you the story of the local smelly guy, but that would be uncouth :)I assumed dancing in a socially and physically acceptable manner included things like body odour.

FWIW OT: I have seen reports that human beings have different body odours depending on their antibody make-up, and find people with the same anti-bodies have a less pleasant odour. The theory put forward was that this encouraged people to select mates with different antibodies so that their offspring would have the advantages of more disease resistance.

Lou
4th-December-2005, 07:03 PM
(But my cold bubbled up again so poor Lou was at least spared having to dance with me. Love to know who that lady (?) was. Native, or another visitor?)
I did look around for you, dearheart, as you know I very much enjoy our dances. Shame about your cold. :(

Wish I knew who she was, too. However, by the time he'd told me the tale and I'd asked him to point her out, it was right at the end of the evening and she'd already left. (Or at least he said she'd left. Thinking back, he was probably more worried about the consequences of the evil glare in my eye :devil: ).

Not all of Gloucester dancers are that scary. Lots of them are very lovely indeed. However, I'd say that there's a lot more predatory women than we get in Bristol. Maybe they need to be that way, though, as there always seems to be quite an imbalance of numbers.

Andy McGregor
4th-December-2005, 08:13 PM
Not all of Gloucester dancers are that scary. Lots of them are very lovely indeed. However, I'd say that there's a lot more predatory women than we get in Bristol. Maybe they need to be that way, though, as there always seems to be quite an imbalance of numbers.I quite like the sound of Gloucester in a masochistic sort of way:sick: I've no idea where Gloucester is or how they dance there - but I do like the challenge of scary women. I think we need to mount a forumites mission to their next dance. I will dress as a nurd as I usually do when visiting a new venue and suggest we all do the same. Pens in the outside top pocket, beige trousers or grey trousers, tweed tie, Hush Puppies, etc. Come on Lou where and when?

Gadget
4th-December-2005, 09:30 PM
So which is it, Gadget? Is there a within reason disclaimer or not?
Both. :D
When people apply it to themselves, it tends to be with the "within reason" disclaimer.
When they witness it for themselves or are on the receiving end, it tends to be without the disclaimer.

No-one is intentionally rude: The justification for refusal would always be "within reason" from anyone actually refusing. However it's the other side of the coin for the person being refused: They {normally} would need to be shown a good reason for being rejected...and it would have to seen to be upheld throught the whole night.

From the person being refused's point of view, I stand by the first comment:
There may be a pefectly sound and acceptable reason - again, it does not matter - it is the action (or lack thereof) that goes against the dancer. Not the reasoning behind it.

From the person doing the refusing, I stand by the other comment:

I think that the majority would agree with "Everyone should always accept a dance offer" as long as there was a "within reason" disclaimer.


Up until now, you have been posting the absolute "You should never turn down a dance". You have never accepted that there may be a qualified reason. I quite agree that all dancers should not use the "You're not good enough" reason for rejecting the offer of a dance.:rolleyes: yes... and no.... an absolute "you should never turn down a dance." Is an absolute with an escape clause. If it was a true absolte then it would be "you will never turn down a dance."

For the person being refused, there is seldom an accepted "qualified reason" It dosn't really matter what the reason is - the fact remains that they have been refused and the dancer refusing them was a better dancer. This rejection is furthered by the social ethos of not refusing.

Can someone put together a list of possable "Qualified Reasons" that a dancer may be refused? (remembering that beginners get a pass untill they embrace the social scene) I'm sure that there are flaws in all of them.

When I came back from Australia, I had a problem with my shoulder that required physio attention. At one of the venues I work* at, I was asked to dance right at the start of the evening by a lady that I don't really know that well, and have only danced with a couple of times previously to a fairly fast track. I explained to the lady that I had a problem with my shoulder shoulder, and probably wouldn't be dancing that night. At the end of the night, I had a couple of dances with ladies that I'd danced with plenty of times before, and trusted not to pull on my shoulder, to slow tracks. After the music had finished, the first lady gave me a lot of hassle about how I had turned her down, and wasn't allowed to turn her down, and then had danced with other ladies. Needless to say, I was quite put off and annoyed.I can understand her point: she approached, you said "no", then went and danced with someone else. Not just a personal rejection, but a public one.

Your descision may have been made with the self-preservation in mind and may have been delivered with tact. However you could have made the descision not to dance. I have seen you only dance a couple of times in an evening, limping off the floor after each. But if it pains that much, why risk further injury - no matter the quality of the dancer something may go wrong. You're employed to be there to DJ: the fact that you are an added 'top' dancer to an evening is a bonus - not part of the 'contract' that has to be fulfilled.
I am convinced that there could have been other ways to convince the said lady - "I have a sore shoulder and need to care for it: come back to me during a slower track". "I need to minimise the risk to my shoulder; can we take a rain-check untill next week?". "I've just finished physio and I'm not sure how my shoulder will hold up; I might have a gentle dance later, but this is too fast to risk it." ...etc. If you have to say "no" due to an inury, then IMHO it should just be an appologetic postponment.
Even if you did accept, if you make a point of explaining before-hand then stopping mid-way through for some feedback or even with an appologetic "Sorry; I can't carry on" then IMHO that is much better than a "No" and then dancing with someone else.

Andy McGregor
4th-December-2005, 10:39 PM
There is only one rigid 'law' of dancing: don't cause harm. However there are several moral/ethical codes that exist where (MJ) dancers congregate. It is these that make the social 'togetherness' of a venue/night/class/event:
- don't stand on the dance floor unless you are dancing.
- don't carry drinks accross a floor.
- don't walk through a floor with dancers on it.
- etc.
amoung these are the codes of
- Accept every dance offer.
- Dance with new faces and new dancers.
Whether you agree or disagree with these codes does not matter - they are there. It is part of the social dance scene. If you disregard them and can dance well, then it can be assumed that you know these rules and are snubbing them.
There may be a pefectly sound and acceptable reason - again, it does not matter - it is the action (or lack thereof) that goes against the dancer. Not the reasoning behind it.


Correct: their decision. And if they are an experienced dancer, then they will know the social expectations of them by turning up at a class. By refusing to live up to these, by refusing to follow the social guidelines, they run the risk of branding themselves outside of acceptable social guidelines. And since they have placed themselves there, self-centred and elitist.

Beginners don't yet know the social expectations and guidelines, so are therefore granted amnesty until they do.

So this is the problem related to not saying "no" rather than problems related to getting yankers to stop yanking, letches to stop letching and stinkers to stop stinking? :what:
If this is the concern about refusal, then I would suggest that it is not the ethos of accepting every dance that needs to be softened, but the non-acceptance of other anti-social behaviours that needs strengthening. If you are standing up for the rights of one form of anti-social behaviour (ie refusal) then what does that imply about other forms like those mentioned above?

And this is a problem with the social situation of "Must not refuse" and not one of "Confrontation"? If the dancer in question is unwilling to broach the subject to the problem partner, Taxis and Teachers are approachable about nuisance dancers. As are most experienced dancers.

With the 'must dance' ethos, there is also more likleyhood of people like this being found and rehabilitated.

There is no such thing as an unbreakable rule - even the "No harm" {I would inflict a small pain on my partner to avoid a larger pain} However I just hate the "It's OK to do what you want" and "I've paid; my money - I don't have to follow your rules."

Everyone is following these 'rules'. Then someone says "I know that rule, but I'm going to step over it." Combine this with the fact that they are a good dancer and you get the summary: "I am too good for these rules to apply to me." or even worse; "I have paid good money so that these rules don't apply to me." This is where the perspecitve of "Elitist" or "Hotshot" dancers comes from.
New dancers enter a venue. They learn {social rules} from what is said from the stage, what the taxi's impart and what they observe. Teachers and Taxis advocate the above rules. Most people in the venue follow these rules. The beginners become intermediates. These rules become the social "norm".

I think that the majority would agree with "Everyone should always accept a dance offer" as long as there was a "within reason" disclaimer. What we are arguing about is this reason and whether dancing with a dancer of lesser ability is an acceptable one.

Obviously this can only be qualified by the better dancers. And if they are seen to be going against the social teachings and ethical codes that are given from the management, then I think it's perfectly understandable that they be branded as "Hotshots" or "Elitist" by the dancers of lesser ability.

If you were brought up in a civilisation that practiced pologamy or capital punishment, then it wouldn't seem morally or ethically wrong. It's just a different culture. The laws in America differ from the laws here. They differ from state to state. Slightly different cultures. There is a culture on the Modern Jive scene that differs from almost every other social interaction 'hobby'. It even differs from ballroom, salsa, club, tango, or any other form of dance.

When you step into a MJ venue, you are stepping into this culture. You may not like it, you may not agree with it, you may think that some of the social rules are wrong, you may not adhear to any of them. That is your choice. I'm not arguing about forcing anyone to adhear to any rules of social interaction: I'm just pointing out that by being aware of them and not following these rules, there is some justification in assigning a dancer the label of "Hotshot".

It may have initially been The Collective that created this "pressure", however once the majority of dancers accept it, it becomes part of the social structure.
Both. :D
When people apply it to themselves, it tends to be with the "within reason" disclaimer.
When they witness it for themselves or are on the receiving end, it tends to be without the disclaimer.

No-one is intentionally rude: The justification for refusal would always be "within reason" from anyone actually refusing. However it's the other side of the coin for the person being refused: They {normally} would need to be shown a good reason for being rejected...and it would have to seen to be upheld throught the whole night.

From the person being refused's point of view, I stand by the first comment:

From the person doing the refusing, I stand by the other comment:


:rolleyes: yes... and no.... an absolute "you should never turn down a dance." Is an absolute with an escape clause. If it was a true absolte then it would be "you will never turn down a dance."

For the person being refused, there is seldom an accepted "qualified reason" It dosn't really matter what the reason is - the fact remains that they have been refused and the dancer refusing them was a better dancer. This rejection is furthered by the social ethos of not refusing.

Can someone put together a list of possable "Qualified Reasons" that a dancer may be refused? (remembering that beginners get a pass untill they embrace the social scene) I'm sure that there are flaws in all of them.
I can understand her point: she approached, you said "no", then went and danced with someone else. Not just a personal rejection, but a public one.

Your descision may have been made with the self-preservation in mind and may have been delivered with tact. However you could have made the descision not to dance. I have seen you only dance a couple of times in an evening, limping off the floor after each. But if it pains that much, why risk further injury - no matter the quality of the dancer something may go wrong. You're employed to be there to DJ: the fact that you are an added 'top' dancer to an evening is a bonus - not part of the 'contract' that has to be fulfilled.
I am convinced that there could have been other ways to convince the said lady - "I have a sore shoulder and need to care for it: come back to me during a slower track". "I need to minimise the risk to my shoulder; can we take a rain-check untill next week?". "I've just finished physio and I'm not sure how my shoulder will hold up; I might have a gentle dance later, but this is too fast to risk it." ...etc. If you have to say "no" due to an inury, then IMHO it should just be an appologetic postponment.
Even if you did accept, if you make a point of explaining before-hand then stopping mid-way through for some feedback or even with an appologetic "Sorry; I can't carry on" then IMHO that is much better than a "No" and then dancing with someone else.Ahh, the real Gadget returns. How well we all remember those long Gadget posts with affection - although I don't remember actually reading any of them :wink:

There is a theory about William Shakespeare that his works are written by a whole team of writers. I believe this is also true for Gadget ...

Perhaps Gadget should at least emulate the great Blaise Pascal (http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Pascal/RouseBall/RB_Pascal.html)who apologized to a reader for having written a long letter, arguing that he didn't have the time to write a short one.

David Franklin
4th-December-2005, 11:19 PM
Ahh, the real Gadget returns. How well we all remember those long Gadget posts with affection - although I don't remember actually reading any of them :wink:Well, at this point Gadget seems to be arguing for/against both sides of the debate simultaneously; at this point I'm confused as to whether it's unreasonable to provide a reasonable excuse if you are unwilling to accept an unreasonable dance offer from a willing partner. :whistle:

I think we'll just have to leave him to it - after all,

[Dirty Harry]

A man's got to know his limitations...
[/Dirty Harry]

Lou
5th-December-2005, 08:16 AM
I quite like the sound of Gloucester in a masochistic sort of way:sick:
....
Come on Lou where and when?

There's nothing in Glos until after Xmas, I'm afraid. They've got a freestyle on 28th Dec in Churchdown, but it might be more fun to wait until they're back at the Walls Club.

(Of course, if you can't wait that long, there's Cheltenham on Friday. Different franchise, but a large proportion of the same punters. :D (Although I gather that most masochists enjoy the wait & anticipation... ))

Let's hang on until the new year. Maybe we can have a MFG?

TA Guy
5th-December-2005, 10:39 AM
So, I asked a girl to dance, and she was a better dancer than me, and she graciously accepted. As we were finishing up, she asked - "would you ask my friend to dance? It's her first week". I was happy to oblige.

Must be a provincial thing.

No, it's not :)

That is social pressure for an intermediate to ask a beginner to dance, but it's created at the time by the interaction, it's not part of an all-pervasive 'rule' as championed by some on here.
I'm guessing without thinking too hard as no coffee yet, that there are plenty of 'situations' where (nice) pressure is applied to get intermediates to dance with beginners, or sometimes vice-versa. All I'm arguing against is this perceived rule that it is an intermediates 'duty' to dance with XXX number of beginners every night.

ChrisA
5th-December-2005, 11:03 AM
she asked - "would you ask my friend to dance? It's her first week". I was happy to oblige. Must be a provincial thing.
Course it isn't.


there are plenty of 'situations' where (nice) pressure is applied to get intermediates to dance with beginners, or sometimes vice-versa.
Exactly. It's invariably a lovely compliment when this happens. It's nice to be thought of by someone experienced, as someone that will give a beginner a nice dance. And the better dancer the asker is, the more of a compliment it is.


All I'm arguing against is this perceived rule that it is an intermediates 'duty' to dance with XXX number of beginners every night.
Quite. Not the same thing at all.

David Bailey
5th-December-2005, 11:46 AM
I quite like the sound of Gloucester in a masochistic sort of way:sick: I've no idea where Gloucester is or how they dance there - but I do like the challenge of scary women. I think we need to mount a forumites mission to their next dance. I will dress as a nurd as I usually do when visiting a new venue and suggest we all do the same. Pens in the outside top pocket, beige trousers or grey trousers, tweed tie, Hush Puppies, etc. Come on Lou where and when?
What, you mean that's not the way you're supposed to dress for a dance? :eek:

Yeah, sounds good to me, a Foumite Geek Outing (FGO - it's an essential component of such things to have a good TLA) :)