Exclusivity - surely this sucks? [Archive]

Andy McGregor

15th-December-2005, 07:05 AM

Hi Kiwichook,

Don't listen to ChrisA. He's the Forum "Grumpy Old Man". We love taking another look at our favourite topics. And as someone who's been involved in most of the debates on "Hotshot" behavior I'm delighted that the subject has been raised again.

One of the things about Hotshot behavior is that people don't realise when they're doing it - or even rationalise it along the lines of "I pay my money, I dance with who I like". They might even say "Please, this kind of thing has been discussed about a trillion times" in an attempt to stifle further debate on the subject :whistle:

You have raised a different aspect of "Hotshot" behavior. This "exclusivity" has not been debated to the same extent as standard "Hotshot" behavior. And you are right, it's antisocial. And as we do a social dance it must be "anti" our dance.

My advice is to ask one of the couple for a dance then next time they take a break. In my eperience they usually say 'yes' - although sometimes the other half of the partnership glares at you for the whole dance and then enters a heated debate with their partner when the dance is over :devil:

Usually I just ignore these couples who make it obvious they're 'together':kiss: . IMHO they're harming nobody and help keep the class going by giving the organiser two entry fees. On the other hand, too much of it will be detrimental and this is probably why ChrisA has jumped down your throat. A while ago a class we both attended had more fixed couples than rotating couples during the lesson. This made the rotating section of the class quite small and meant that there were often more than twice as many women rotating as men, which put the women off coming back, which put the men off coming back, which resulted in the eventual demise of the class. ChrisA vehemently defended his right to be a fixed couple in that class with his lovely partner - who wouldn't want to dance with her :flower: My lovely parner said she was never going back to the class as she was so often off during the lesson that it was a waste of time attenting :mad:

So, finally, don't let ChrisA put you off bringing up old topics. There's new people on here since the last time they were debated and those new people might bring something new to the debate. To say 'been there, done that' will stifle debate and should be ignored by those who have something to say on the subject. Those who think (or even say) 'been there, done that' can always stay out of the conversation/thread.

Keep posting and prosper.

Love and kisses.

Andy :hug: :kiss:

Andy McGregor

15th-December-2005, 07:45 AM

Please, this kind of thing has been discussed about a trillion times.

I know you're new on the forum, and you're very welcome, but please, do a little search on "hotshot", if you would, and spend a couple of months reading through all that's been posted on this subject.

Then, if there's really anything new to say, go ahead.

:flower:And now I've had a shower and brightened up I've realised the ChrisA isn't just wrong to stifle this particular debate. He's completely wrong!

These couples who stick together all night aren't Hotshots at all! Hotshots are all about sending the message that you only want to dance with the great and the good and that you are not good enough if you're not one of them. That's why we don't like them. Those couples who stick together are saying "we want to be together". They're not sending any messages about the rest of us not being good enough to dance with them. IMHO ChrisA is not a Hotshot. But occasionally he's been known to stick with the same partner for most of the night - and, apart from the one exception I've listed, I think there's nothing wrong with this particular behavior.

The thing that confuses me about going out to a busy dance or class and then sticking with the same partner is why people don't stay home and do it :confused:

Cruella

15th-December-2005, 09:20 AM

And now I've had a shower ................stuff:
As you've turned this thread towards Chris A, i feel i must jump to his defence (although i'm sure he's quite capable of defending himself) I am quite regularly at dance events that Chris and Jayne attend and have never noticed that they dance exclusively at all! In fact Chris A has a reputation for dancing with alot of not so experienced ladies and giving them helpful feedback.:worthy: Maybe the time you are talking about was when they were competing, which would be understandable that they would want to be practising together on a dancefloor rather than in their front room or kitchen!
I'm sure we'll hear the reasoning from Chris himself. Some of these couples may have just met, so are enjoying each other so why shouldn't they stay together? If i see a couple like this and i would realy like to dance with the guy i will approach the couple and ask both of them if i could borrow him for a dance. I've never had any nasty response to this request.
When i lived up north there wasn't a great MJ scene so we would occasionallly go to the local Rock and Roll club. It was the norm to just dance with your partner there and they thought it was quite a novelty when a group of us turned up and started asking them to dance. They were all keen if not a bit nervous but we always had fun. Things always look differently to someone outside looking in and sometimes jealousy may cloud our judgement. Wouldn't we all like a favourite dancer we could have there at our beck and call to dance with?

David Franklin

15th-December-2005, 09:27 AM

Those couples who stick together are saying "we want to be together". They're not sending any messages about the rest of us not being good enough to dance with them.Did you miss this bit of Kiwichook's posting?

especially when it's really good guys who use to dance with everyone and then no longer do because they think they are god's gift.

I think there's a clear message being implied there, at any rate. My comments, as ever, would be:

Unless you're blessed with more mind reading skills than the rest of us, you're making a big assumption about his motives. Maybe one of them has an injury, maybe they are practising for something, maybe he's shy. From personal experience, I've been surprised how shy some of the so-called 'hotshots' are in real life.

But suppose you're right. He thinks he's the greatest dancer on the planet and only his fixed partner is good enough for him. What is the point of worrying about it? Do you want to dance with someone like that? Just ignore them - attention is probably part of what they crave anyhow - do you want to give it to them?

The thing that confuses me about going out to a busy dance or class and then sticking with the same partner is why people don't stay home and do it :confused:Well, there's a whole lot of things to do with atmosphere, the DJ, etc. But even more inarguably, unless you have a very big place, there just isn't the room! That's why we (and many other couples) have to hire practice space when we're working on a routine.

David Bailey

15th-December-2005, 10:08 AM

I think there's an interesting debate on the whole "fixed partners" area; benefits and drawbacks, for the individuals and the scene as a whole.

For example, individual benefits could be:
- Both partners can practise a routine without any wasted time moving on / sitting out
- Mistakes can probably be fixed more easily
- You can experiment and alter the routine a bit more as required

Individual drawbacks could be:
- You get accustomed to your partner's idiocyncrasies
- You don't develop the "lead anyone" mentality so much
- You don't meet lots of people

Group benefits could be... hmmm, I can't think of many offhand....

But one group drawback in a class situation could be an increased "ratio" problem. For example, in a class of 100 people, 60 women, 40 men, and 20 men are in fixed couples, then there are effectively 40 women and 20 men in the "rotating bit of the class". So instead of dancing 2 out of 3 rotations, women only get to dance 1 in 2.

Don't listen to ChrisA. He's the Forum "Grumpy Old Man".
He is? :what: :tears:

So, finally, don't let ChrisA put you off bringing up old topics. There's new people on here since the last time they were debated and those new people might bring something new to the debate. To say 'been there, done that' will stifle debate and should be ignored by those who have something to say on the subject. Those who think (or even say) 'been there, done that' can always stay out of the conversation/thread.

:yeah:
Exactly - I'm sure the "we've already talked about that" argument will be raised more and more as the Forum matures, but so what? Society has talked about history quite a bit - should we stop now?

FWIW, I agree that the "God's Gift" thing is maybe an unwarranted assumption, however.

Msfab

15th-December-2005, 10:20 AM

LMC

15th-December-2005, 10:21 AM

Feelingpink

15th-December-2005, 10:31 AM

Couples who dance "exclusively" with one another - especially when it's really good guys who use to dance with everyone and then no longer do because they think they are god's gift.

Recognise anyone at your studio, like this?
Who needs them ?
And how do you go about shutting this anti-social behaviour down on a social level or perhaps even getting the message through that it looks bad and isn't productive to any studio.

Short of suggesting them to clear off and dance at home cos that's what it amounts to. :eek:
Any ideas?Actually, I know there aren't many people going to agree with me, but I've danced with a partner exclusively through one lesson and thoroughly enjoyed it. It avoided having my arm yanked off, I could give and got feedback which made the series of moves flow more easily, we tried a few variations on the move because we had time to play and I didn't spend half the lesson walking around the room counting as we moved on or sitting out. I know there are downsides for the lesson as a whole and for me not mixing with the rest of potential dance partners, but there are most certainly good reasons for doing it.

As far as people dancing exclusively throughout the freestyle, yes, it is frustrating when someone is seemingly 'taken' for 90% of the night, and it makes it very difficult to know if you can ask them to dance. But certainly that's their right and again, there can be wonderful up-sides to dancing a lot with one person. I wonder if your point of view depends on whether you are one part of the 'exclusive' couple or whether you're on the outside/the "studio".

Oh, and sometimes the "good guys" are dancing with one woman because they're trying to improve their dancing, enjoy that one partner especially or because they're loved up ... not necessarily because they are god's gift.

David Bailey

15th-December-2005, 10:34 AM

If I wanted to dance with just one guy for an evening (and he wanted to dance just with me) then I'm sure I'd change my mind about exclusivity being Evil - an emotional response based on jealousy and envy (being partnerless & all). If two people want to dance exclusively with each other then that's their right.
Whilst I'm a bit fence-sitty on the "Fixed Partners in a class" thing (I think it's got an even mix of benefits and drawbacks), I'm definitely not keen on the "Fixed partners in a freestyle" thing,

OK, there may occasionally be good reasons for doing this - for example, if one person has specific injuries, or if the couple are practicing for a competition. But mostly I think this is against the "dance with everyone" ethos of MJ. I'd hate to see lots of couples adopting this - the MJ social scene would start to become like the ballroom social scene :eek:

Actually, I know there aren't many people going to agree with me, but I've danced with a partner exclusively through one lesson and thoroughly enjoyed it.
In a class, sure - there are definite benefits for the individuals, as you've said.

I know there are downsides for the lesson as a whole and for me not mixing with the rest of potential dance partners, but there are most certainly good reasons for doing it.
Indeed, I imagine some of the "non-partnered" women probably won't love you for exclusive use of a good leader... :)

I wonder if your point of view depends on whether you are one part of the 'exclusive' couple or whether you're on the outside/the "studio".
Absolutely - there are always two points of view. Mine, and the wrong one :devil:

KatieR

15th-December-2005, 10:36 AM

Actually, I know there aren't many people going to agree with me, but I've danced with a partner exclusively through one lesson and thoroughly enjoyed it. It avoided having my arm yanked off, I could give and got feedback which made the series of moves flow more easily,

I actually have to say that in some instances exclusivity can work. I have on the odd occassion asked a particular person to go unrotational but not because I wanted to hog the men/be a hotshot etc, it is when I am perhaps a little nervous about a particular thing and didn't have the confidence to dance with the 'general public' yet.

For example when I was learning to lead (I still think I am quite disgraceful) it is just wrong to inflict that on anyone really.. Dizzy can vouch for that after a simply appaling dance the other night.. (still Im only dancing with the girls then so not stealing a man from someone) Does this still count in the whole exclusivity debate? Is it gender specific? :confused:

Lounge Lizard

15th-December-2005, 10:38 AM

I used to dance with as many ladies as possible throughout the night, it was great & I really enjoyed it.
Now apart from my own venue where I teach I tend to dance with my regular partner Evelyne.
Reason I just love dancing with her, I do not turn a lady down that asks me to dance, but I do not wander the floor looking for a new partner for each dance.

So kiwichook are you suggesting I clear off and dance at home?
If so why? Has MJ changed so much that it is compulsory to dance with everyone and if I do not do this I am either a hotshot or consider myself as god's gift.

Personally I consider myself as a pretty good dancer who enjoys himself in his own way when I go out, I no longer go to weekday classes (I work most nights) so only go to dance nights or weekenders, perhaps kiwichook was referring to class nights.

Peter

ducasi

15th-December-2005, 10:40 AM

I think it comes down to motivations, and as David F said, unless you're a mind reader (or ask them!) you won't really know why they are being exclusive.

You also have to think about your motivations... If the guy was really bad, used to dance with everyone though, but now only with his partner, would that be a problem?

If I particularly wanted to dance with one of them, I'd do what Andy and Cruella suggest and wait for a moment when they're on a break and then ask to borrow one of them for a dance.

If they refuse without a good reason, then you can start getting hot and bothered about hotshots...

LMC

15th-December-2005, 10:42 AM

As it happens I agree DJ - if I did have a regular partner then I'm sure the novelty of dancing with them the whole time would soon wear off - I like a bit of variety :D (well, in dancing anyway - and if they were a "life" partner not just a dance partner they would be in BIG trouble if they didn't save the last dance for me).

But I suspect the main reason for people being so anti-exclusivity is envy.

kiwichook

15th-December-2005, 10:58 AM

Blimey Guys - I need a few hours to comprehend all of this stuff I have unwittlingly unleashed ..... the only thing I do know is that I wouldn't have a foggiest wot "Hotshots" is, so any attempt to align my off the cuff comments were made not in reference to this thibng called hotshots, whatever that is? PS: Over here "hotshots" are some kind of lolly we buy from the local dairy!
Am I excused - ignorance is bliss ? :)

Missy D

15th-December-2005, 11:18 AM

I have had a regular dance partner now for 4 years and I do mainly dance with him. I only get to meet up with him 3 maybe 4 times a month and i do make the most of it. Of course, i do ask others to dance but, often get turned down as the men seem to think that have to dance like my dance partner. If someone else asks me to dance then of course I will dance with them despite their ability on the dance floor. The only men I turn down are the obvious pervs or stinkers mentioned in the previous threads.

David Bailey

15th-December-2005, 12:04 PM

So kiwichook are you suggesting I clear off and dance at home?
If so why? Has MJ changed so much that it is compulsory to dance with everyone and if I do not do this I am either a hotshot or consider myself as god's gift.
No, but you're not letting us dance with the lovely Evelyne...:tears:

Can't blame you, of course, I'd do exactly the same thing in your position (although I might feel a teensy bit guilty about it - not enough to change what I did, of course). :whistle:

I have had a regular dance partner now for 4 years and I do mainly dance with him.
Ah, that's The Kicker, yes :innocent:

(grudge, moi?)

Dorothy

15th-December-2005, 12:08 PM

Exclusivity: doesn't suck, it is a free dance floor, if you pay your entry fee it is up to you who you dance with. You could never enforce the social ethic anyway, you can't stop people dancing with their regular partner all night.

Gnome Luster

15th-December-2005, 12:22 PM

Does it really matter if any subject had been discussed a billion times? If you think it's old and stale then wouldn't it be better to ignore the thread completely?

Telling someone to search old threads, particularly a new member, is going to put them off posting completely in case they "mess up" and post something that's been discussed previously. Also, if they're just reading old threads they aren't participating on the forum because they aren't likely to reply.

Do you want to encourage new posters/dancers to participate or would you just like to keep talking to the same people all the time?

Missy D

15th-December-2005, 12:37 PM

Ah, that's The Kicker, yes :innocent:

(grudge, moi?)

Ah sorry David!:blush: He is usually very careful on the dancefloor but, at Camber we all suffered cuts and bruises. If it still hurts you can come over and i will rub it better.:innocent:

David Bailey

15th-December-2005, 12:42 PM

Ah sorry David!:blush: He is usually very careful on the dancefloor but, at Camber we all suffered cuts and bruises. If it still hurts you can come over and i will rub it better.:innocent:
:yum: :drool: Ouch! Ouch! No, a bit higher.... ahh, there... :innocent:

JonD

15th-December-2005, 12:50 PM

If a couple are desparately in love and want to dance together all the time who are we to complain? It's lovely! Dancing is about people having fun. Personally, I can't see myself ever wanting to dance with someone exclusively - meaning all the time, every time I go dancing - but I know some couples who enjoy that and I'll respect their choice.

On rare occasions I'll dance all night with one partner - normally when we're working on something and normally with Julie who I'm lucky enough to have as a regular dance partner. However I do remember one night, after a hell of a day at work, when I really just did not want to connect with anyone other than Julie. I was tired, frazzled, a little angry and rather tense; I needed the lift and relaxation that dancing gives me but with no pressure to "give" to my partner (poor Julie - she was very patient!). If anyone thinks that I should have stayed home and festered - well, all I can say is "Tough"!

The "MJ ethos" is wonderful, but it's a relaxed thing that allows many different interpretations. We're there to dance and socialise and smile; we all take pleasure from different elements of that complex mix. As long as the majority of us actively try and help others to have a good time then the ethos will survive (and I'll be able to unwind quickly and easily when I'm in "Mr Grouchbag" mode).

Lucy Locket

15th-December-2005, 01:30 PM

Chef

15th-December-2005, 01:31 PM

Dancing largely with one partner.

Different people dance largely with one partner for a number of different reasons, some of which have already been talked about. One couple I know dance with each other because they have no confidence in their own abilities and doubt anyone else would put up with them. Another couple tell me that they just prefer dancing with each other which is good really because she leads him outrageously and so he has never learnt to lead and she just doesn’t seem to have the personality to follow. If they didn’t dance together a lot of the time they would be making many more people unhappy.

My own reason for dancing largely with my life partner is to stave off boredom. My partner and I go together to weekenders and workshops, ballroom classes, west coast swing etc and so have a common experience. We can work on things together and discuss and iron out problems and practice things until they are smooth. We don’t have the problem where one of us is calling a move a “short back hander” and the other is calling the same move something else. We can practice drops together and know and trust each other to carry out our responsibilities, on time, and at the correct place. I know my partner will not be charging through breaks and ignoring my lead because we have developed that aspect of our dancing together. We give each other the opportunity and indulgence, to play, experiment, and develop our dance abilities both individually and as a partnership. I find it interesting to work on dance things together and this staves off boredom for me.

While we enjoy dancing with each other because we have a greater range of interpretative opportunities when dancing together we also take the skills that we have learnt together out to our social dancing with other people.

Now I know that a number of people won’t agree with this but….I have seen no evidence on the dance floor that social dancing with a large number of beginners trains anyone to do anything other than social dance with a large number of beginners.

I also hear a lot of complaints both here and out in the dance halls about poor followers and poor leaders. Neither appears magically out of a box. They have to be grown and nurtured both by the teachers and the more experienced dancers around them. Sometimes some experienced dancers get together to further develop their skills together, skills that they can then take out to their social dancing and their nurturing of newer dancers. However this nurturing of newer dancers by experienced dancers should not become such a consuming task that the experienced dancers have no time to hone their own skills or have an enjoyable evening of their own. This will only result in the experienced dancers seeking another venue and everyone will lose out.

I don’t get asked to dance these days as much as I used to. This is fine for me as I am older and need more rest than I used to and there are more tracks that I don’t enjoy dancing to now that I listen to the music rather than just going through moves. My partner and I still dance together a lot to tracks we find interesting but when we are sitting out a track we never refuse a request for a dance and often go hunting around the hall for someone else to dance with.

JamesGeary

15th-December-2005, 02:20 PM

Telling someone to search old threads, particularly a new member, is going to put them off posting completely in case they "mess up" and post something that's been discussed previously. Also, if they're just reading old threads they aren't participating on the forum because they aren't likely to reply.

Forum Hotshots

TiggsTours

15th-December-2005, 02:55 PM

Like Andy McGregor, I too don't think that a "hotshot" and and exclusive dancer are the same thing (are we agreeing on something :eek: ), but I don't like exclusivity personally, I think it breeds bad habits.

When you dance solely with one person, you end up knowing each other too well, you can read each others minds, and generally what happens is the follower follows a leaders lead, not necessarily because it was led properly, but because she just new what was expected. This doesn't mean she's not following her partner, but it doesn't mean she'd be able to follow anyone else either, and when he goes to lead someone else, she possibly won't follow the way he expected. When not dancing together, the follower will think nobody else can lead, the leader will think nobody else can follow. Somebody needs to tell them the horse philosphy:

If 1 person tells you you're a horse, they're mad
If 2 people tell you you're a horse, get worried
If 10 people tell you you're a horse, buy a stable!

You get 2 types of exclusive dancer (IMHO), the lovey dovey couple who just wanna be togevver, aah, how sweet, but what happens one night when they're not so "in love", come on, we all know it, even in the best relationships there are times we don't want to be anywhere near each other!

The other type is the couple who are dance partners, and only dance together, quite often do competitions, and only want to dance with their partner because their partner is the best. They always go though stages:

Stage 1, they're both good, they find each other and hey presto, they're a dance couple.
Stage 2, they practice together all the time, they become superb together, they win everything.
Stage 3, they start to over compensate by learning inside themselves how to cover their partners mistakes, this initially is superb, as nothing every goes wrong
Stage $, they become stale together, they stop winning everything, they're not so great together anymore

Exculsivity is, IMO, always a bad thing, much better to be a hotshot! :clap:

Gadget

15th-December-2005, 02:58 PM

Dancing exclusivly with one partner seems a bit strange to me: Isolating yourself from the rest of the people at the venue; but it's their choice to be a social lepper.:devil:
I don't think that people should maintain fixed partners during a class unless it's with the concent of the teacher and they are not in the way of the rest of the class. If someone wants to go over the routine being taught or work with that partner exclusivly, then spend the time outside of the class to do it where people like Taxis and Teachers are available to guide and help.

I found Chef's post very polarised about beginner and experianced dancers - rarely do people exclusivly dance (socially) with people who are all better than themselves or all poorer than themselves. Most "Average Dancers" I think* dance with familure faces, or people they rate as similar to their own level.

(*Based on nothin more than a hunch and folk I've danced with - not that I would care to define "Average Dancer" either :rolleyes: )

Is dancing exclusivly with one partner any worse than dancing exclusivly from a hareeme of four or five "good" dancers?

{BTW Chris: what would have been more constructive would have been providing links to similar threads where this has been discussed.}

Trish

15th-December-2005, 03:33 PM

Like Andy McGregor, I too don't think that a "hotshot" and and exclusive dancer are the same thing (are we agreeing on something :eek: ), but I don't like exclusivity personally, I think it breeds bad habits.

... good stuff ....

Exculsivity is, IMO, always a bad thing, much better to be a hotshot! :clap:

:yeah:

Personally I get fed up with the lovey dovey types, and especially the one or two I've come across who won't dance with other people at all. There is one guy I know who was in this situation, and said he prefered dancing with his partner because they were used to each other. Before he started going out with her he was a really good dancer and a nice bloke, so I liked dancing with him, but on the odd occasion she wasn't there, and I actually got to dance with him, I found his dancing had changed, and he wasn't nearly as easy to follow. He seems to be back on the circuit now and his dancing/chattiness is back to how it used to be :clap: . I can see that this could be jealousy on my part because she could dance with him and I couldn't and I have no objection to people dancing the last two and the odd special song with their life-partner, but I do find this complete exclusivity a shame. Firstly because it stops the girls having as many people to dance with (especially in the class :mad: ), secondly because you end up not socialising with these people, and thirdly because exclusivity in one couple seems to trigger off exclusivity in more and more couples.

As to the other scenario with "dance" partners, I can see this is important if you're competing, but then people should explain that (and often do) when they turn people down, and surely they're not competing ALL the time. I've personally spent a few dances in a row with guys trying to sort out some move or another, but again, not all the time, and please especially not if there's 17 women being moved on in the class!!

There's a world of difference between what Chef was describing, where he's quite happy to dance with others if asked, and those that give "go away I'm busy dancing with my partner" body language, for whatever reason - personally I wish they'd go away and do that somewhere else!

Chef

15th-December-2005, 03:40 PM

I found Chef's post very polarised about beginner and experianced dancers - rarely do people exclusivly dance (socially) with people who are all better than themselves or all poorer than themselves. Most "Average Dancers" I think* dance with familure faces, or people they rate as similar to their own level.

(*Based on nothin more than a hunch and folk I've danced with - not that I would care to define "Average Dancer" either :rolleyes: )

When not dancing with my partner I either rest, chat with friends, or get off my bottom for a dance. When I do get up for a dance I like to spread my time between old friends and new faces. When I go out for dances with new faces what you get is bit of a mixed bag level wise. Sometimes I find that I have an absolute delight on the other end of my arm and sometimes you just get someone that is not great but needs time and practice to develope. I do try to avoid the people that have been dancing ages but are still yanking and cranking and bouncing because I won't enjoy dancing with them and my experience of them is that they don't seem interested in trying to get better. You can't nurture someone that just doesn't give a damm.

When I get asked to dance then it is just complete pot luck. Like most of us I just try to give and get the best dance possible at the time with the person that I find myself with.

I also queue up to dance with the better ladies like everyone else but I didn't talk about them in my post above because they didn't seem relevant to my "experienced dancers as nurturers of less experienced dancers" line.

As to wether my mix of working and dancing with one partner and partly social dancing is proving a benefit or detriment to my dancing - watch me dance and dance with me and make up your own minds. Perhaps it is working to our detriment but I would not be the one to know.

MartinHarper

15th-December-2005, 05:41 PM

Recognise anyone at your studio, like this?

No.

I did once meet a woman at a MJ weekender who only danced with her husband. I thought that was slight antiquated, but not really any of my business. That couple are the only fully "exclusive" MJ dancers I've met.

Andy McGregor

17th-December-2005, 01:06 PM

I am quite regularly at dance events that Chris and Jayne attend and have never noticed that they dance exclusively at all! In fact Chris A has a reputation for dancing with alot of not so experienced ladies and giving them helpful feedback.:worthy: Maybe the time you are talking about was when they were competing, which would be understandable that they would want to be practising together on a dancefloor rather than in their front room or kitchen.Cruella is absolutely right about ChrisA in terms of his usual practice at a dance class. I only said I'd seen him stick with the same partner on some occasions. And those occasions were when he was practicing for competitions. As I've said, I don't think there's much wrong with sticking with the same partner in the freestyle - to everybody else it's as if you're not there. Which would be the same if that couple had stayed home. Either way, the rest of the dancers in the room are not lessened or insulted by this fixed couple activity.

On the subject of fixed couples in rotatiNG lessons. IT IS WRONG! You've attended a class where people rotate. At my classes I work under the premise that's what I'm offering. I actively discourage fixed couples to the extent that I will have a quiet word with them. Here is my logic. There is almost always an imbalance of sexes. This means that it would be impossible for everyone to be fixed couples in the lesson and some people would have to sit out :tears: And if everyone pays the same they should be offered the same product rather than expecting special treatment. Also, I have seen one class cross some sort of fixed couple horizon. This meant that the rotation was a joke situation where there were more than twice as many women as men. This killed the class and created animosity between the fixed and rotating couples - which is silly.

N.B. The only time I allow fixed couples is when people want to bring their children. I tell the parents that I will not charge their children but they MUST arrange for them to do the lesson with a fixed partner at the back and that they are completely responsible for their children for the whole night.

ChrisA

17th-December-2005, 03:10 PM

Now that this thread’s quietened down a bit, I thought I’d pick up some of the points raised. Firstly, going back to the beginning, of course, Andy is right when he says that

This "exclusivity" has not been debated to the same extent as standard "Hotshot" behaviour

… and I think it’s quite a good thing that this aspect has been brought up. Secondly, I can see how it might have seemed as if I was jumping down KWC’s throat in my initial response, and in a very friendly PM exchange with her, I’ve apologised for that.

However, I think a few things bear pointing out.

Firstly, although relatively new here, she’s been around since July – nearly six months - and made 30-odd posts, so she isn’t _that_ new.

In that context, I don’t think I was entirely unreasonable to respond in a slightly un-lovey way to language like:

"because they think they are god's gift."
"Who needs them ?"
"And how do you go about shutting this anti-social behaviour down "
"clear off and dance at home cos that's what it amounts to"

… which, when I read it, I thought was actually pretty aggressive. Having read a number of her other posts now, I can see that it’s not meant like that – she’s just a pretty in-your-face kinda girl, or so it seems to me.

Now I’m not having a go at KWC in saying this – as I say, I’ve had a friendly PM exchange with her – but I am intrigued that it was my case some of you got on, rather than the use of language like that.

I think it all boils down to the fact that there are really two camps on this and related subjects.

The first is the attitude that people that dance mostly with just a few people are lower than pond life. Anything such people do that thwarts someone else’s desire to dance with them is likely to get them a label for being, in one sense or another, a bad person. And the accusers, in my view, are far, far too quick to make up their minds about these people’s attitudes and motivations.

The second, which as you probably know I occupy, is a much more live and let live attitude. Where, if you want to dance with everyone, dance with everyone. If you don’t, don’t.

I’ll post separately on the exclusivity thing, since I think Andy has made some valuable points that deserve an answer.

David Bailey

17th-December-2005, 05:10 PM

On the subject of fixed couples in rotatiNG lessons. IT IS WRONG! You've attended a class where people rotate.
Errr, except when they don't.

"Fixed-partners" options have become more common, especially at weekenders; and I've seen and heard more people doing it over the past couple of years. Admittedly, not so much in regular classes, but it's something that's growing.

Here is my logic. There is almost always an imbalance of sexes. This means that it would be impossible for everyone to be fixed couples in the lesson and some people would have to sit out :tears: And if everyone pays the same they should be offered the same product rather than expecting special treatment.
I absolutely agree - fixed-couples are clearly always going to exacerbate any ratio imbalance. But surely that logic also applies to the freestyle part of an evening?

Fair enough, I guess you could argue that we shouldn't tell people who to choose to dance with socially. But then, we kind of do "tell" people that already, with the "dance with (almost) anyone" culture of MJ.

In fact, IMHO one of the benefits of a rotating class is that it gets people used to dancing with lots of different people, so they can then go into a freestyle with more confidence about asking people to dance. So to divorce the two completely seems simplistic.

Gadget

18th-December-2005, 12:05 AM

I think it all boils down to the fact that there are really two camps on this and related subjects.

The first is the attitude that people that dance mostly with just a few people are lower than pond life. ~

The second, is a much more live and let live attitude.~
Slight clarification: good dancers that dance mostly (exclusivly) with just a few select people are lower than pond life.
If you are going to draw a line in the sand to put everyone on side one or side two, please use a thinner brush.

I can understand beginners wanting to only dance with their friends or people that they have danced with in the class or revision class. I can understand the occasional couple who want to learn for a special occasion (like a wedding). Appart from this, what are the excuses?

- Practicing for a competition: You are entering into a social enviroment where the social rules {here we go again :rolleyes:} expect partners to be shared. You enter into this with the full knowledge that you may be, or will even be expected to dance with people other than your partner. You know this will be the case when you enter - it now boils down to attitude: Do you see this as a valid excuse to shun other dancers?

Can't find the space elsewhere? Doubtfull; I have hired dance studios and split the costs between us. There are bars and clubs with dance floors, church halls, theatres, ... many, many spaces that could be found.

Can't get the human resources elsewhere? Doubtfull; criteque from freinds can be done from camcorder. Teachers can be hired for private lessons.

- ??? ...erm I can't think on anything else that would be used as an excuse for exclusivity.

What it all boils down to is if you want to go to a class or freestyle to join in with the rest of the social scene and the rest of the people there, or whether you want to go and set yourself appart from this. If you fully acknowledge that you are going with the sole purpose of dancing exclusivly with a particular partner, then you should be willing to accept any accusations of exclusivity and/or hotshotism leveled at you and live with them or shrug them off.

El Salsero Gringo

18th-December-2005, 12:47 AM

If you fully acknowledge that you are going with the sole purpose of dancing exclusivly with a particular partner, then you should be willing to accept any accusations of exclusivity and/or hotshotism leveled at you and live with them or shrug them off.You know, I have a sneaky suspicion that those people who go exclusively to dance with a particular partner would take *exactly* that view of what they might read on the subject here.

ChrisA

18th-December-2005, 12:59 AM

I absolutely agree - fixed-couples are clearly always going to exacerbate any ratio imbalance.
This logic is, of course, unarguable.

But it’s a bit simplistic. As it always is, to imagine the extreme version of something that’s usually mild, and use the extreme as an argument for banning the mild situation that usually prevails. It always goes “Ooh you can’t do that… because if everyone did it, < insert unlikely bad situation here >".

But of course, not everyone does it, so the extreme very rarely happens. Most of the time, it simply doesn’t matter if a few couples decide to do the lesson non-rotating. Sometimes they might have a good reason to, and providing it doesn’t become a substantial proportion of the class, it’s of no consequence – so live and let live, I say.

When the extreme *does* happen, you can be sure that there’s another underlying reason for it.

In the case I recall that I think Andy’s referring to, Amir was teaching at Ealing on Wednesdays. It’s completely ridiculous to suggest that the non-rotating couples killed that class, so let me put a bit of background in. I suggest that those that aren't interested in a bit of obscure Hipsters history stop reading now.

It was a difficult class, and many of the people in it simply couldn’t hack it. After we’d been doing the class for some time, Jayne and I started to do it non-rotating – but it hadn’t always been like that. For a long time we rotated like everyone else, but it just became impossible.

One day she said to me, that she was just fed up with the way the majority of the blokes in the class didn’t pay enough attention to what was being taught, and, worse still, repeatedly yanked her about. And although she loved Amir’s teaching, she just didn’t want to do the classes if a) she got hurt all the time, and b) she never got anything out of it herself because of how dreadful the leads were.

The other thing that made it all a lot more difficult was that many people would drift in during the lesson. So time after time, I’d be there in the line, expected to lead ladies that had simply not been there for the first half of the class. And did they try and follow? Did they hell, for the most part. The typical situation was that they would breeze in, twenty minutes late, and do the same old, same old anticipation that they were used to. And I too got sick of being a) yanked about and b) prevented from learning most of what was being taught, by people that were too disrespectful of the teacher - and of the people that could be ar5ed to get there on time - to get any benefit from the teaching themselves.

So when Jayne said that she really didn’t want to do the class at all other than non-rotating, I wasn’t too upset. And despite all that, when the class was very small, we still quite often rotated anyway – for Amir’s sake, mostly, I have to say.

I give all this background, to point out that there are two sides to all of this.

On the one hand, there are those moaning about how awful it is to suffer at the hands of the dreadful selfish hotshot elitist non-rotators.

But in this case, the selfishness and disrespect from the alleged victims had to be seen to be believed. Not only did people insist on going to a class that was simply inappropriate for their level, they also didn’t have the common courtesy to turn up on time, and in many cases, pay attention to what was being taught.

Ideally, of course, I'd like to rotate. Like others, I agree it's an ideal to strive for - since then there's the chance to both give, and receive the benefit from learning with a number of different partners. But in cases where a class becomes predominantly non-rotating, there will be some underlying reason for it.

Which has nothing to do with hotshots.

Daisy

18th-December-2005, 10:51 AM

As long as I have ever known you Chris you have always joined in and rotated in the majority of classes that you have attended.:nice:

I don't see why you should have to justify yourself on here just because some people have a problem with various aspects of other peoples dancing. :whistle: Maybe people should stop being so judgmental......the Forum is becoming more & more so (maybe this is a reason why quite a lot of people are no longer posting):sad:

However, because of the natural turnover of forum members I don't see any harm in debating a topic that has been discussed by a previous group, but I do dislike it when a 'holier than thou' attitude is adopted.:sick:

Andy McGregor

18th-December-2005, 11:17 AM

I don't see why you should have to justify yourself on here just because some people have a problem with various aspects of other peoples dancing. :whistle: ChrisA felt the need to justify himself and I see no reason why Daisy should tell us he's wrong to do so. Maybe Daisy would not justify herself, but ChrisA is taking part in a debate and flelt the need to clarify his position - which he has done eloquently. WELL DONE CHRIS :clap:

Maybe people should stop being so judgmental......the Forum is becoming more & more Is Daisy saying that in her judgement people on the forum should be less judgemental?

In my opinion the Forum has become less judgemental than it used to be - although Daisy's last post has shifted it back a bit ...

(maybe this is a reason why quite a lot of people are no longer posting):sad:This is something I've frequently seen on the Forum. It's a post that says "I don't like what's being said/done and rather than argue logically I will say that this is one, or possibly one, of the reasons people are not posting". This is, of course, a sweeping statement with slight evidence in reality. People stop posting for as many reasons as they stop dancing. And just one of those reasons might be that they don't like the way the Forum is going. This argument is designed to make the person you disagree with seem like some ogre lurking under a bridge and it's weak and rude and devisive with no substance.

However, because of the natural turnover of forum members I don't see any harm in debating a topic that has been discussed by a previous group, Somethin we agree on - at last! :clap:

but I do dislike it when a 'holier than thou' attitude is adopted.:sick:And who is to say anybody adopting this behavior, is "holy" or going for sainthood - apart from St. Franck or course :wink:

Clive Long

18th-December-2005, 11:17 AM

Actually, I know there aren't many people going to agree with me, but I've danced with a partner exclusively through one lesson and thoroughly enjoyed it. << snip rest I pretty much agree with >>
I can only remember dancing exclusively with one woman during a lesson - that was a blues class at Southport.

I had wanted to dance blues but hadn't felt I had an "approach" that was "comfortable" for me. I reasoned to myself that in a blues class it might take time for my female partner to feel comfortable with me and for us to get physically close enough (I pressed against each other) for the blues moves to work. Conversely, changing partners every 2 minutes would make it difficult to build the "style" of the moves.

I was lucky, I found a partner quickly who I clicked with on a dance level and the class worked for us both. I think I made the right decision for me to go for exclusivity in that situation. I think it worked better for my partner too.

I'm happy (more than happy, am delighted) to rotate dance partners at all other times.

Clive

Daisy

18th-December-2005, 12:31 PM

it's weak and rude and devisive with no substance.

In that case I shall reserve any future posts to birthday greetings and the like. :rolleyes:

How dare I have an opinion:sick:

Gadget

18th-December-2005, 09:21 PM

But in this case, the selfishness and disrespect from the alleged victims had to be seen to be believed. Not only did people insist on going to a class that was simply inappropriate for their level, they also didn’t have the common courtesy to turn up on time, and in many cases, pay attention to what was being taught.
innapropriate for their level - Was there criteria laid out beforehand? Was there a method established to "drop out" if someone found it too hard? Who is to decide a dancer's level and what is inappropriate for them? Should the teacher either make it clear what is required of the students, or teach to accomodate their pupils? Was there any sort of "vetting" process to establish suitability for the classes/workshops? Should the people attending have known what to expect? Is it not good that they were challenged by topics?

common courtesy to turn up on time - did you actually ask anyone why they were late? Was the start time well advertised? Do other areas "start time" equate to the same "Teaching time"? Was it a different start time from most other classes in the area? What is traffic like at that time - could they have miss-judged it? They may have had other things that were more important than dancing {:what:} to attend to before allowing themselves the pleasure of your company.

pay attention to what was being taught - does everyone now learn in the same way at the same rate? Someone might still be trying to assimilate what was said on move 1 while you are doing move 3. They may have missinterpreted what was said, or heard it in a different way from yourself.
Again, isn't it the teacher's responsability to put concepts and motions into words and demonstrations that convey it to the class. If the majority of the class struggle to grasp what's being taught, is that not because of the teacher? If they are unatentive, shouldn't the teacher be holding and attracting their attention?
{BTW I think that Amir has some very nice tricks for doing this :wink:}

You obviously "Got it" and could understand what was being said and how it translated into your dancing. By maintaining a fixed partner, you are denying anyone else the benifit of your knowledge - the very people who you complain about and who could be improved by dancing with you will have one less example of "how it should be done" to compare against "how it shouldn't be done".
You're example of "Exclusitivity" in this case I can see as being of detriment to the class as a whole. As the title of the thread says - surley this sucks?

TheTramp

18th-December-2005, 09:34 PM

As I've said, I don't think there's much wrong with sticking with the same partner in the freestyle - to everybody else it's as if you're not there. Which would be the same if that couple had stayed home.

Here is my logic. There is almost always an imbalance of sexes. This means that it would be impossible for everyone to be fixed couples in the lesson and some people would have to sit out :tears: And if everyone pays the same they should be offered the same product rather than expecting special treatment.

Not making any comment on whether or not exclusivity is good or bad.

Just want clarification on this point Andy please....

What's the difference between the class, and freestyle please? Surely, if you do the class as a fixed couple, it works the same as the freestyle, namely "to everybody else it's as if you're not there. Which would be the same if that couple had stayed home".

Why is it that in your eyes this is fine in freestyle, but not acceptable in the class?? And if you tell someone that it's not acceptable for them to be a fixed couple while the class is on, and they stop coming because of it, you haven't gained anything - still have the same numbers in the class - and all you've done is lost their admission money.

(Apologies if someone else has already said this, but the posts were all way too long for me to actually read them! :flower: )

ChrisA

18th-December-2005, 11:07 PM

Should the people attending have known what to expect? Yes they should. Most of the people I'm talking about turned up most weeks.

Is it not good that they were challenged by topics?
Being challenged is great. But if you're going to rise to the challenge, and actually learn anything, you have to turn up, do the whole lesson, and try as hard as you can to absorb the material. You do not turn up half way through, and then in the lines, chat rather than listening to the teacher.

I'm not a brilliant dancer, by any means. But I've been around long enough to be able to tell the difference between people that try really hard in a class that's a bit too difficult for them (and still get something out of it), and people that just use it as a bit of a warm up before the freestyle.

common courtesy to turn up on time - did you actually ask anyone why they were late? Was the start time well advertised? Do other areas "start time" equate to the same "Teaching time"? Was it a different start time from most other classes in the area? What is traffic like at that time - could they have miss-judged it?
Oh puhlease....

This is the sort of theoretical claptrap that sounds fine in theory, but in the real world, inhabited by real people, it is perfectly possible to recognise someone that, once in a while, gets stuck in traffic and turns up late. It's happened to me a few times, and on occasion I've sat out the lesson rather than inflict my ineptitude on the people that were there from the start.

No. I'm talking about the same people, who, week after week, turned up 20 minutes into a 45 minute class, and expected to just slot in. It is rude and inconsiderate, and it makes things very difficult for the people already there. And don't give me this rubbish about "was the start time well advertised". Of course it was.

If the majority of the class struggle to grasp what's being taught, is that not because of the teacher?
... again, it's lovely to be able to take all responsibility away from the people that go to the lessons, but I don't buy it.

Amir is one of the best modern jive teachers in the country, he explains and demonstrates with a lucid clarity that is unmatched, in my opinion, and we are damn lucky to have him. If a load of people turn up late, don't do the simple versions of the difficult material that he teaches early in the class, but expect to do the difficult stuff later on, while nattering to people rather than listening and giving it their whole attention, then no, it damn well isn't because of the teacher.

Do you also think that if Ceroc beginners start doing intermediate classes after three weeks, it's the teachers' fault when they can't cope with the material? For ****s sake...

By maintaining a fixed partner, you are denying anyone else the benifit of your knowledge - the very people who you complain about and who could be improved by dancing with you will have one less example of "how it should be done" to compare against "how it shouldn't be done". ....
You're example of "Exclusitivity" in this case I can see as being of detriment to the class as a whole. As the title of the thread says - surley this sucks?

And here's the crux of it all. Let me put it this way:

I am not public property.

I go to a dance class, I pay my money. I am not the teacher. I do not go there to be yanked around by people that habitually can't be bothered to get there on time, and even react negatively to any suggestion of how they might do it better.

"Detriment of the class as a whole"??? What patronising nonsense is this? What planet do you live on where it's my duty to act as unpaid taxi dancer to people that can't even be bothered to turn up on time and pay attention, rather than chatting to their partners in the class? It's certainly not the same planet I live on.

It's great to help new dancers. I'd be prepared to bet that I've spent a damn sight more time than you have helping new dancers over the last six or seven years.

But if new - and not-so-new dancers - want to get on, they will not endear themselves to the people that want to help them by taking a "the world owes me a living", "get something for nothing" attitude.

The bizarre thing about this whole ridiculous debate is, it's not the actual beginners that have this attitude. Real beginners, and people that genuinely want to improve, are usually very prepared to work at it, put the effort in, and respond positively to feedback.

It's long-term intermediates, and like it or not, ones that often really aren't very good, that are the ones that go all huffy about it all.

They need to get over themselves.

David Franklin

18th-December-2005, 11:08 PM

innapropriate for their level - Was there criteria laid out beforehand? Well, it was fairly clearly established that it was an intermediate/advanced class. But to some extent, that's irrelevant - I don't think ChrisA would blame a newcomer who struggled. What was frustrating were the people who came every week without ever seeming to attempt to actually follow what Amir was teaching. It's not that they found it challenging - it's that they seemed to actively avoid acknowledging the challenge. When he would teach something that was "not normal Ceroc" - a sizeable number of people would just completely ignore what he was saying. (e.g. he'd start by drilling a footwork pattern he wanted people to use, and they wouldn't do it. Not "did it badly", or even "tried to do it but reverted to bad habits". They would just stand there waiting - and not do anything until he taught the subsequent move).

common courtesy to turn up on time - did you actually ask anyone why they were late? Was the start time well advertised? Yes, of course the start time was well advertised.

They may have had other things that were more important than dancing {:what:} to attend to before allowing themselves the pleasure of your company.:confused: I can only assume you would also consider it acceptable to turn up an hour late to the theater and then make your entrance inconvenicing all those attending. I dread to think what happens when you're invited to a wedding!

Yes, it's different at Ceroc. The main difference being that most people get to the stage where they figure "Oh, I can miss half the lesson and catch it up without annoying anyone". Which is fine (well, actually if I were the teacher I think I'd find it rude. But I always used to do it, so... :blush: ) But if you can't do that - if in fact, you are causing problems for everyone you dance with because you don't know how to do the moves you missed, then ChrisA is right - it is rude behaviour.

Here's an observation, and (IMHO) a perfectly valid reason for not rotating. When Bryony and I did these classes, sometimes we'd get there late. If we got there late, we would not rotate. Why? Because the classes were sufficiently difficult that we would be making a mess of the bits we'd been late for, and it wasn't fair to inflict that on the people who had managed to get there on time. To me, that is the courteous thing to do.

pay attention to what was being taught - does everyone now learn in the same way at the same rate?I don't see the connection. You may want to assume ChrisA is frustrated with the people who "couldn't get it", but that's not what he's actually saying. I agree with his comment - many did not pay attention. The attitude was "enough with the lead / follow instructions, or the style points, or the footwork - just show me the move". Ignoring the fact that "the move" was all about those details they didn't want to bother with.

As a comment on "hotshots": I will say this - I do think a big reason those classes at Hipsters were unsuccessful was because of hotshots. But the hotshots were not the people like ChrisA, who treated the class with respect, turned up on time, paid attention, and (as so many have commented) is always happy to help someone who wants to learn. The hotshots were the people who went to Hipsters because they were "advanced" - and in their mind, advanced meant too good to bother turning up on time, or to pay attention, or to persevere with anything they found difficult.

Andy McGregor

19th-December-2005, 08:29 AM

What's the difference between the class, and freestyle please? Surely, if you do the class as a fixed couple, it works the same as the freestyle, namely "to everybody else it's as if you're not there. Which would be the same if that couple had stayed home".My point is related to the fact that we can not have a class where everyone can be a fixed couple while there is an imbalance of leaders and followers. Well, I suppose you can, but you'd have some people who wanted to join in but couldn't because there would be no partners for them. It means they would miss the whole lesson rather than sit out for a few minutes and then get a new partner in the rotation.

If people stayed a fixed couples in the freestyle the result would be the same. However, this is unlikely to happen as people ask others to dance. Even those who seem to be joined at the hip. And they usually get their offer accepted.

And if you tell someone that it's not acceptable for them to be a fixed couple while the class is on, and they stop coming because of it, you haven't gained anything - still have the same numbers in the class - I encourage people who dance fixed couples to join in the rotation. However, if they insist on being fixed couples I would rather they didn't come. We all have a type of person we want at our classes. And the type that will not join in the rotation when asked are not the type I want at my classes. I want friendly dancers and being a fixed couple in a rotating class is not friendly enough IMHO.

and all you've done is lost their admission money.Yes I have. But it's not just about admission money: if it was I would follow the Ceroc model more closely :wink: I'm creating a class that I like to be at and a class that Sue wants to come to. Classes with many fixed couples are not ones we want to attend. People at our classes have mostly been dancing less than a year and may not be the best dancers (yet), but they are all friendly and welcoming. For example, I make sure they exchange names after each rotation. There's loads of hugging (and occasional kissing:kiss: ) of your new parner. Being a fixed couple is completely alien to this culture.

As I said earlier in this thread, we do a social dance. To be a fixed couple is a different dance altogether IMHO.

Andy McGregor

19th-December-2005, 09:41 AM

It's long-term intermediates, and like it or not, ones that often really aren't very good, that are the ones that go all huffy about it all.Ahh, now I know my level :wink:

Ditto everything ChrisA said about Amir's lessons. My dancing was changed completely by attending Hipsters lessons and I base my teaching on a mix of what I learnt from Amir and Nigel Anderson. I used to drive up from Brighton to get to those Amir classes for 8pm. The journey is 1hr 30mins and I'd add one hour for delays. I was almost always on time for the lesson. I often arrived an hour early and spent my time drinking latte over the road.

I remember Amir telling people off for getting to the lessons late and joining in. If only I was brave enough to do the same :tears:

ChrisA's logic for becoming fixed partners is irrefutable and it was tempting to join him and the other hordes of fixed couples at the back of the room. The problem this created was that the good girls and guys who really cared about their dancing were all fixed couples and the "others" were concentrated in the rotation to not get the lesson and yank and tug at everybody - and THAT is IMHO what killed off the class :tears:

David Franklin

19th-December-2005, 10:40 AM

ChrisA's logic for becoming fixed partners is irrefutable and it was tempting to join him and the other hordes of fixed couples at the back of the room. The problem this created was that the good girls and guys who really cared about their dancing were all fixed couples and the "others" were concentrated in the rotation to not get the lesson and yank and tug at everybody - and THAT is IMHO what killed off the class :tears:Well, it seems you rotated, and Bryony and I rotated, and at least a few other serious dancers did. But funnily it seems the yankers and pullers never got any better. [Waits for the smart alecs to point out a possible explanation... :tears: ]

At this point in history, it will probably do no harm to say I never really believed in the whole "Hipsters" mystique. I do think a lot of people went specifically because they thought "it's where advanced dancers (like me!) go". But the reality I saw was a lot of people saying "It's going to be great! Nigel and Viktor teaching advanced classes" - and then not turning up for those classes. (Or turning up, but not participating - because it was "cooler" and more "advanced" to sit and chat at the tables. After all, advanced dancers don't actually do classes, do they? Much better to watch condescendingly from the sidelines).

LMC

19th-December-2005, 10:55 AM

I won't ever do another blues class without a fixed (i.e. non-rotational partner) - tried it twice, never again.

For the "normal" beginners/intermediate classes I agree that everyone should rotate. Although I agree that people who join a class late are hideously annoying :mad:

When I'm in line, I try to swop places so I don't end up being rotated round the same people all the time, which helps.

Andy McGregor

19th-December-2005, 10:59 AM

Well, it seems you rotated, and Bryony and I rotated, and at least a few other serious dancers did. But funnily it seems the yankers and pullers never got any better. [Waits for the smart alecs to point out a possible explanation... :tears: ]

At this point in history, it will probably do no harm to say I never really believed in the whole "Hipsters" mystique. I do think a lot of people went specifically because they thought "it's where advanced dancers (like me!) go". But the reality I saw was a lot of people saying "It's going to be great! Nigel and Viktor teaching advanced classes" - and then not turning up for those classes. (Or turning up, but not participating - because it was "cooler" and more "advanced" to sit and chat at the tables. After all, advanced dancers don't actually do classes, do they? Much better to watch condescendingly from the sidelines).I agree with everything above. We're so much alike. Are you sure we're not twins separated a birth?*

Those 'cool' dancers sitting and chatting during the lesson are surely hotshots - who, according to ChrisA, don't even exist :confused:

*I'm obviously the pretty one though:innocent:

David Bailey

19th-December-2005, 11:03 AM

Not making any comment on whether or not exclusivity is good or bad.
It's bad :)

Just want clarification on this point Andy please....

What's the difference between the class, and freestyle please? Surely, if you do the class as a fixed couple, it works the same as the freestyle, namely "to everybody else it's as if you're not there. Which would be the same if that couple had stayed home".
This is an interesting question. I guess the practical answer is because the teacher can tell people what to do in a class, but no-one tells you what do in a freestyle, so the level of control is different. But morally, yeah, I'd think the pros and cons of both sections should be pretty similar.

So if you adopt a "it's OK in one section but not in the other", then I think you need to explain why they're different... (and don't expect me to be consistent either, I'm sure I've adopted several positions already :) )

As a comment on "hotshots": I will say this - I do think a big reason those classes at Hipsters were unsuccessful was because of hotshots. But the hotshots were not the people like ChrisA, who treated the class with respect, turned up on time, paid attention, and (as so many have commented) is always happy to help someone who wants to learn. The hotshots were the people who went to Hipsters because they were "advanced" - and in their mind, advanced meant too good to bother turning up on time, or to pay attention, or to persevere with anything they found difficult.
I went to one of the Wednesday classes - I enjoyed it, and I got a lot out of it. But I didn't enjoy the freestyle - too quiet - so I didn't go back.

How dare I have an opinion:sick:
You're allowed yo have any opinion you like, as long as you agree with Andy :whistle:

ChrisA

19th-December-2005, 11:44 AM

But I didn't enjoy the freestyle - too quiet - so I didn't go back.
But don't you see.... not going back because it's too quiet just means that it's more likely to be quiet next week...

... which is to the detriment of the freestyle as a whole. :devil::whistle:

Chef

19th-December-2005, 11:44 AM

I won't ever do another blues class without a fixed (i.e. non-rotational partner) - tried it twice, never again.

The big question is WHY you decided, on this occasion, to have a fixed partner? I am not having a go at LMC or anyone else for that matter. It just shows that people like LMC (who is a taxi dancer and a very social dancer) sometimes feels compelled to say enough is enough and seek a exclusive dance partner. The big question is why.

I know that some women feel uncomfortable about blues classes because of the UCP nature of the dance and will seek male partners that they feel comfortable with and not threatened by. I also know that some dancers seek the company of other dancers that have the same commitment to improve as they have themselves.

So if you see an exclusive (or largely exclusive partnership) perhaps a moment of reflection is in order as you ask yourself why they want to be that way.

Are they just plain anti social? (all the couples I have spoken to seem not to be so).

Do they just lack the self confidence to ask others to dance?

Are they with their life partner and actually like this person so much that they want to spend a lot of time dancing with this person that they like so much? I think I might be in big trouble with with my life partner if I went to a dance and didn't give her preferential treatment over all the other dancers.

Are they exclusiive because they want refuge from the yankers and crankers who turn up late, take no notice of the lessons, and continue to yank and crank year after year?

There seems to be this idea that the mere act of dancing with and "advanced dancer" will make you better. That has never been my interpretation of my experiences with what I regard as "advanced" dancers. It has always left me feeling that I have had a spotllight shone on the deficiencies in my abilities, and their expectations and how I have failed to deliver on them. As a result of this I have sought out the advice of teachers, gone to specific lessons, worked on things on my own and with my partner, and gone to private lessons. I have then taken the fruits of those efforts onto the dance floor and little by little I feel I have improved. The mere act of dancing with me will not pass on those skills by osmosis anymore than my dancing with an advanced dancer will transfer their skills through their fingertips to me.

The lessons and your own personal practice are where the skills are learnt. The dance floor is where they are refined. And if you are a Fiona Phillips it won't matter how many Brendon Coles or Len Goodmans you train or dance with (why does she dance like she has no muscles in her body, like a half inflated air bed).

Andy McGregor

19th-December-2005, 12:11 PM

You're allowed yo have any opinion you like, as long as you agree with Andy :whistle:I'm not sure I agree with that:innocent:

LMC

19th-December-2005, 12:14 PM

Happy to answer the blues Q, although I know it wasn't particularly directed at me :nice: I've never done a blues class fixed - which means that if I can't get a fixed partner for the next one, I shall sit out, due to:

a) the discomfort (physical and mental) of dancing blues with a guy who is significantly shorter and cannot compensate for the height difference - which makes your knee end up in his groin rather than against the inside of his knee
b) lack of frame - I'm conscious that mine still needs (a lot of) work, but it's still better than that of the guys who end up b****y LEANING on me :mad: (I read somewhere on here - sorry can't remember who to credit or which thread - that blues is close (well, obviously), but there should still be space between you and your partner - even if it's only sufficient for tissue paper - if I've got that wrong, then maybe blues just isn't for me :( ).

Being in a lesson is a bit different from freestyle. In a lesson, you're quite often "holding" a particular position while the teacher is talking - and not doing so can upset/offend your partner. Which is just too bad for them, IMO, if I want to let go of an UCP move, I will - but it's easier and more appropriate to move away or sabotage in freestyle.

Getting back to the original question (sorry :blush: ) - I haven't seen anything posted here which makes me change my mind from my original post - which is that if people want to dance exclusively with one other person then it is their right to do so:

So if you see an exclusive (or largely exclusive partnership) perhaps a moment of reflection is in order as you ask yourself why they want to be that way.

And perhaps ask yourself why it should bother you so much...

Andy McGregor

19th-December-2005, 12:19 PM

And perhaps ask yourself why it should bother you so much...And when did you stop beating your wife?

LMC

19th-December-2005, 12:24 PM

As it happens, I believe in variety - even if I had a dance partner/life partner who dances then I'd try to work my way round as many partners as possible and hope they would feel the same (although they would be in dead trouble if we didn't get special songs/the last dance). I also agree that dancing with as many different people as possible is the way to improving your own dancing - dancing with one person all the time will "set" errors in your muscle memory. But if people don't want to share, why should they? Beating your spouse was illegal last time I checked. Dancing with someone wasn't.

Chef

19th-December-2005, 01:18 PM

And perhaps ask yourself why it should bother you so much...

Very well put LMC. I have seen two couples who danced together exclusivly (one couple were off duty taxi dancers) who were positively awful. I can't imagine anyone yearning for them to be available for social dancing since they could do much less damage if they DID stick together.

The yearning seems to be that some people look at dance partnerships where one or both of the dancers are very good and people want access to them in order to benefit from thier skills. If you are the one doing the yearning for the access to the good dancer in the partnerships then I can see that the situation sucks for you.

If you are on the other side of the situation then a partnership can be anything from a place to play and experiment with someone indulgent that will give you contructive feedback, a haven from the pervs, stinkers, yankers and crankers, or just a place where two people who love each other can grow closer doing something they love together.

I really enjoy dancing with my partner because I think she is really good to dance with and becuase I love her. I am not just saying that because if I said anything else (she is on the forum) I would be wearing my Bo***cks as earrings by tomorrow morning, I really do mean it.

So if someone does turn up and tell me that I must stop dancing with the woman that I love because my dance skills are needed by all and sundry I am not really sure if my repsonse would be polite or violent.

At least I now know that Dawn and I would not be welcome at one of Andy McGregors (Rocsters) events. Any other organiser out there that don't want Dawn and I (or any other dance couples) at their events?

This thread seems to about people not in dance partnerships wanting access to good dancers who are in dance partnerships. All I can say is turn up on time for the lessons, pay attention in the classes, listen to the teachers, practice your own foundation skills so that when you do get access to these good dancers you have something to bring to the party. This is what I try to do.

Nobody knocks someone who tries (especially me). What does p!ss me off is those people that say they want to dance with me and then try to tear my arm off and beat me with the soggy end - year after year!! When faced with that sort of persistant assault it just make my partner look even more like a safe refuge. There are many times when I have had to massage my partners arm after she has been tugged and yanked around the floor before she can dance again.

ducasi

19th-December-2005, 01:32 PM

And when did you stop beating your wife?
Meaningless retort to a serious point.

You, as a teacher/organiser can at least give a reason why fixed, exclusive couples upset you. Many other people can't.

LMC

19th-December-2005, 01:38 PM

The yearning seems to be that some people look at dance partnerships where one or both of the dancers are very good and people want access to them in order to benefit from thier skills. If you are the one doing the yearning for the access to the good dancer in the partnerships then I can see that the situation sucks for you.
:yeah: - in spades - but constantly sitting on the fence often gives me a good view of the other side of the story (even if it does make it impossible to keep my feet out of the s**t on either side :rolleyes: )

As Chef says, the best way round being without a regular partner seems to be to become a person that good dancers want to dance with - not all the good dancers are in partnerships.

frodo

20th-December-2005, 03:07 AM

One additional argument against any exclusivity, might be that if a venue has a degree of exclusivity:-

It may be that one ( in some circumstances perhaps even both ) of the exclusive couples would actually prefer not to be exclusive, but because there is some exclusivity ( and maybe an imbalance ), they feel they should dance only with their partner for the night. The question wouldn't arise if there wasn't any exclusivity.

I think Andy is right in Andy McGregor is right in that exclusivity may have a detrimental effect on a venue.

I'm trying to think of the right analogy - thinking of cancer or infection but haven't come up with anything quite right but as far as it goes:-

* If there is no exclusivity there is no cancer or infection no problem.

* If there is a strong immune system - teachers strongly encouraging non exclusivity - strong tradition of non-exclusivity - friendly committed non exclusive crowd there is a strong immune system, and the infection is held in check

* If the immune system is not strong enough ( even for a temporary period ), the class may pass the point of no return ( or very difficult to return ), where it either goes fully exclusive, or dies off because not enough new blood / couples may be more likely to quit because if either cannot make it both cannot. People must find a partner in order to start.

- So essentially it might look much like Ballroom.

Just some thoughts.

Andy McGregor

20th-December-2005, 08:47 AM

I think Andy McGregor is right in that exclusivity may have a detrimental effect on a venue.Please think of me as a T-cell rather than a macrophage :confused:

under par

20th-December-2005, 09:12 AM

Please think of me as a T-cell rather than a macrophage :confused:

Second time tonight I have had to search google for hi-filuting words:angry:

David Bailey

20th-December-2005, 10:40 AM

But don't you see.... not going back because it's too quiet just means that it's more likely to be quiet next week...

... which is to the detriment of the freestyle as a whole. :devil::whistle:
I do see, yes. And without getting drawn into the post-mortems, IMO the reason it didn't work was because of a lack of critical mass in the freestyle rather than anything to do with the classes.

But, being callous about it, it's not up to me to subsidise a venue in which I have no investment (emotionally or otherwise) - it's up to that venue to be attractive enough for a lazy so-and-so like me to want to go out of my way to get there. And for me, it wasn't - I didn't fancy schlepping back across London (I work in West London) just to do a class, I wanted a good freestyle.

David Franklin

20th-December-2005, 10:48 AM

Being callous about it, it's not up to me to subsidise a venue in which I have no investment (emotionally or otherwise) - it's up to that venue to be attractive enough for a lazy so-and-so like me to want to go out of my way to get there.
Being callous about it, it's not up to me to subsidise dancers in which I have no investment (emotionally or otherwise) - it's up to those dancers to be good enough for a lazy so-and-so like me to want to go out of my way to dance with them.

Yes, I know it's not an exact parallel, but it's interesting how we see one statement as acceptable and another as hotshotism... (or maybe not).

LMC

20th-December-2005, 11:00 AM

... it's up to those dancers to be good enough for a lazy so-and-so like me to want to go out of my way to dance with them.
Or even just plentiful enough, whatever their standard?

My local venue was just b****y hard work last Wednesday due to insufficient men - "full stop". I stayed until about 10.30 out of sheer stubbornness - at any other venue I would have given up and gone home far earlier.

David Bailey

20th-December-2005, 11:06 AM

Being callous about it, it's not up to me to subsidise dancers in which I have no investment (emotionally or otherwise) - it's up to those dancers to be good enough for a lazy so-and-so like me to want to go out of my way to dance with them.

Yes, I know it's not an exact parallel, but it's interesting how we see one statement as acceptable and another as hotshotism... (or maybe not).
Ooh, a new category, I'm a Venue Hotshot :)

Hmmm, taking it further, we could say, for example:

Being callous about it, it's not up to me to subsidise DJs in which I have no investment (emotionally or otherwise) - it's up to the music to be good enough for a lazy so-and-so like me to want to go out of my way to dance to it

So we also have the Music Hotshot :whistle:

Seriously, it's not the same - helping your fellow punters is one thing, and very laudable. But as a paying punter, I'm going to ruthlessly choose to spend my lazily-earned cash on places I want to go to, and not spend it on those I don't. Call me crazy, I don't care...

But at least I've found a use for the indent tag :innocent:

Chef

20th-December-2005, 11:39 AM

And for me, it wasn't - I didn't fancy schlepping back across London (I work in West London) just to do a class, I wanted a good freestyle.

Just to do a class? Are we talking about an Amir class here? Have I found someone out there who is so supremely talented that they gain no benefit from an Amir class?

:worthy: :worthy: :worthy: I so want to meet you.

Do you give private lessons?

Please excuse my awe and envy but I am a lad from the sticks (mid Kent) and although the local scene is OK I have always been impressed by the insight and clarity of Amirs lessons (and Nigel and Nina too). I am so in awe of someone that feels they have nothing to gain by going to one of Amirs lessons and envious that you have a local dance scene of such quality that can get you to that standard.

Lynn

20th-December-2005, 11:57 AM

I don't have a regular dance partner so I can't really make a comment on things from that perspective. But if I had, at a regular night I would definitely rotate and I would still want to dance with as many different people as I could at a freestyle. Dancing with lots of different people is one of the great things about MJ IMO. And even if I had a wonderful dancer who did want to dance lots with me (not that that's ever going to happen!) I would prefer to take some time and find a venue to practice on our own and still mix with everyone else in freestyle.

However for a more specialist class, or if really wanted to focus on something in a weekender class with one person, I'm not saying I wouldn't on occasion do a class with a fixed partner and I wouldn't beat myself up with guilt if I did either.

David Franklin

20th-December-2005, 12:47 PM

Seriously, it's not the same - helping your fellow punters is one thing, and very laudable. But as a paying punter, I'm going to ruthlessly choose to spend my lazily-earned cash on places I want to go to, and not spend it on those I don't. Call me crazy, I don't care...Shall we carry on playing? :wink:

But as a paying punter, I'm going to ruthlessly choose to spend my limited dance time on people I want to dance with, and not spend it on those I don't.
I think there are two interesting comparisons here:

Time v.s. money: It's funny how some people are so concerned about what they get for their money, and yet how little about what they get for their time. Including travel, I might spend 6 hours visiting a venue. That time is worth far more to me than the entrance fee.

Helping/supporting our fellows: I do actually think you're right that improving dancers deserve support, and that it's different to, say, DJs. But I don't think they deserve a completely blank cheque, and I think they have to put in their own effort. In the same way I'd be more likely to support a struggling venue where the teacher and DJ are trying their hardest and it felt things would improve other time. If it seemed they were just going through the motions I probably wouldn't bother.

TiggsTours

20th-December-2005, 01:06 PM

But as a paying punter, I'm going to ruthlessly choose to spend my limited dance time on people I want to dance with, and not spend it on those I don't.
Ah, the problem with falling into that trap is, what happens one night when you go somewhere, and the people you usually like to dance with aren't there, just a room full of people you have turned down in the past. Also, by not dancing with someone you don't know, you never have the fantastic joy of discovering someone new!

David Franklin

20th-December-2005, 01:28 PM

But as a paying punter, I'm going to ruthlessly choose to spend my limited dance time on people I want to dance with, and not spend it on those I don't.
Fscking quote system! Although I said that, it was clearly (from formatting) supposed to be illustrative rather than what I actually thought. It looks a bit different when quoted like that... :tears:

[N.B. To make it clear, I blame the quoting system, not Tiggs Tours]

JonD

20th-December-2005, 01:51 PM

I was worried that "moving round" would detract from some AT workshops I did over the weekend and went expecting to dance exclusively with Julie. As it turned out, the teacher dealt with a very mixed group incredibly well and took care to ensure that everyone got the maximum benefit.

The workshops were with Eric Jeurissen - one of the best AT teachers in Europe who had come over from Holland. The cost was £48 for six hours, which is enough to make me concerned about getting value for money. There aren't too many AT dancers down here in exotic Devon so, to make the workshops viable, everyone was welcome to participate whatever their experience or ability. I'd guess there were 16 couples in total, ranging in experience from 3 months to 5 years plus. The first 90 minutes each day was spent "divorced" - Eric deconstructed the Tango embrace and then we spent some time dancing leaders with leaders and followers with followers before reconstructing the embrace (fascinating). The next 90 minutes were spent working on different elements of the dance (rhythm and expression in vals and milonga on day 1, rhythm and expression in tango on day 2).

If I'd spent a lot of time dancing with people who are still, quite literally, finding their balance then I wouldn't have got a huge amount from the workshops. As it was, Eric asked us to change partners for certain exercises but also asked us to return to our original partners for sections of the workshops. That enabled the more experienced to assist when covering a topic with which we were familiar and yet get maximum benefit when the subject matter was new or really demanding. It worked very well, although I have to admit to trying to pair up with the better leaders when we were working leader with leader - I'm not a very experienced follower and one of the newish guys was a bit seedy!

If Eric hadn't managed things so well then I'm afraid that I would have been selfish and danced "fixed couple" with Julie. I think I'd have been justified in doing that.

At MJ classes or workshops I'm happy to rotate in a most classes. I normally stick to fixed partner for UCP stuff (I'm not shy but some partners are and that can make it difficult to learn), aerials and advanced drops/seducers. If the teacher used Eric's technique of moving people back to their original partners for critical bits of the workshop then I'd happily consider moving in those workshops as well.

David Bailey

20th-December-2005, 04:37 PM

Just to do a class? Are we talking about an Amir class here? Have I found someone out there who is so supremely talented that they gain no benefit from an Amir class?
Well, obviously it depends if I have to rotate to dance with ChrisA or not; if not, it just wouldn't be worth going.

I am so in awe of someone that feels they have nothing to gain by going to one of Amirs lessons and envious that you have a local dance scene of such quality that can get you to that standard.
To quote from my original post which started all this off:

I went to one of the Wednesday classes - I enjoyed it, and I got a lot out of it. But I didnt enjoy the freestyle - too quiet - so I didn't go back.

In case you missed it, let me repeat the salient point:

I enjoyed it, and I got a lot out of it.
Clear?

But that doesn't mean I suddenly felt an overwhelming urge to follow any teacher around for any class; if I'm going to get off my backside to drive more than 20 minutes, I want a good freestyle as well. That's just me, I'm lazy, ask anyone.

LMC

20th-December-2005, 04:44 PM

Oooh, the machismo... sends shivers down my spine...

David Bailey

20th-December-2005, 04:45 PM

Shall we carry on playing?
Nah, it's more fun fooling with this clever new indent tag...

Time v.s. money:
To me, my time is worth much more than my money. I can always get more money, I can never get more time.

Helping/supporting our fellows: I do actually think you're right that improving dancers deserve support, and that it's different to, say, DJs. But I don't think they deserve a completely blank cheque, and I think they have to put in their own effort. In the same way I'd be more likely to support a struggling venue where the teacher and DJ are trying their hardest and it felt things would improve other time. If it seemed they were just going through the motions I probably wouldn't bother.
Yeah, it's probably not quite so black-and-white as I painted it - if it's your local venue, it's only good self-interest to support it, including dancers, teachers, DJs etc., simply because it's nicer to have a good local venue than a good venue 50 miles away.

But on the other hand, most venue organisers are in it to run a business; I'm the customer and I reserve the right to put my money wherever I want. Or nowhere, if I'm just feeling tight :)