In that case, any serious entrants to the comp, need to be prepared to be in positions 1, 2 or 3.
There do seem to be a few flavours of blues. This is the style that I've come to associate with Lindy-based blues:
And this style seems more popular in MJ-based blues:
MJ can (should?) have all the elements described, depending on the music being played. To me, this definition could apply to almost any style of partner dance (ie tango, salsa, etc.); it is the connection and spark between partners and dancing to the music - it dosn't really define the 'bluses' bit.
That's usefull, but only in eliminating the 'swing' style dances, but the bit before is completley contradictory with what you say you are looking for...We also know what it's not ~ it's not spare arms and big gestures of showmanship, ~in Blues you spend more of your time stepping in towards them.
Serious about the competition? Actually, if you were serious about the competition, you may wear scruffy jeans and a crumpled T-shirt - part of competing is providing contrast so the judges notice you - everyone else will be spotless, ironed and gleaming~create more of an impact of you dress the same, or compliment each other rather than just turning up in a pair of jeans and a t shirt. It also shows that your serious about the competition.
This bit destroys it as a "blues competition" for me: it no longer becomes soley about the music and your partner, but presenting moves and showing off to an audience. Blues to me is about [iFeel rather than Look.So to sum up: the judges will be looking for... ~snip~ Finally, we will be looking at presentation and that means how you look, how you move, how you interact and how you present all of those elements to the judges and the audience.
Not on it's own, but with all the other criteria I've listed it does help to form the overall 'style'
In what way?
Look at it this way; if you have two sets of couples that you simply cannot seperate from a judging point of view, who do you think would win? Those that have just turned up like they've stepped in off the street or those that look like they've put some thought into what they are wearing? As I've said dressing the part can't hurt, but if it's the only thing that sepeartes two couples it could help... The other thing is that dressing up can also help to put you in the right frame of mind and give you more confidence. When people are interpreting the music they can be a little shy if they are not used to it and hiding behind a costume to create an alternate 'blues' persona is a useful tool.
I think we all agree (as I've stated) that Blues is not the easiest dance to showcase in a competition format. However, I don't see any reason why it can't feel great and look good too.
But, as (presumably) you can't judge based on how something feels, you're always judging on how it looks.
So a dance that looks good but feels bad would presumably beat a dance that feels wonderful but doesn't look like anything special. I can imagine a marvellous-feeling blues dance that just looks like "shuffling around" to a viewer.
So competitors have to externalise their feelings, I guess. But if they do that, is that in the spirit of a dance which is mainly about feeling not showing?
Don't get me wrong - this problem clearly applies to all blues competitions. And looking at it, I think Ceroc have put a lot of effort into framing this, more so than the other blues comps it seems.
But I just think the name "blues dancing" is silly, it's just a marketing ploy - amazingly, not a Ceroc marketing ploy - to make it sound cool.
This is probably the only way that judges can do their job. It applies to all dancing competitions, not just blues.
Experienced competitors can thus "fool" the judges by faking the "react to each other" bit and the "expressions" bit. They obviously cannot fake the body coordination bit but what with the distraction with pretty costumes and big smiles etc. the real thing gets diluted.
It is a very tough job for a judge. I would say that the last two criteria also fall under the "how it looks" category.
On a slightly contentious note, aren't competitions primarily as a PR exercise and to promote the dance to new and existing punters? If so, should the winners not be the ones who are the best dancing externally (to the judges and the viewers)? To me, competitions select the best external dancers. Dancing socially is a different matter and most of the dancers i know prefer to dance with someone for how the dance feels.
Last edited by Raul; 7th-September-2007 at 04:29 PM.
Sorry .. have to totally disagree with you on this. They could be doing many forms of dance they are not necessarily swing derived. Also, take StokieBlokes comment not so long back .."Blues is just slow Ceroc" He's far from alone in that opinion.
Maybe ... but if you've been taught 'Blues; by the plethora of 'Blues' instructors who don't follow the 'source' (i.e. Nigel an dNina) ... how do they know what they are feeling in genuine Blues' of just 'fake'.
Some kind of example video on YouTube would be usefull?
Don't get me wrong, I'm looking forward to this event ... but think there cuold be some room for latitude in the judging, especially given the very different dance styles between the sets of judges.
Given that whether something is Blues or not tends to have some shades of grey, I like the idea of giving marks for "Blues aesthetic" or similar, rather than having the judges make the hard choice of disqualifying couple. So the couple who are dancing in a way that is very obviously Blues get several points, the couple who seem to be dancing Ceroc with Cuddles get a few points, and the couple who are blatantly dancing West Coast don't get any (in that category).
Swing dancing was formed from an amalgam of moves from other dances and styles from many different dancers. All of these met in competitions, at first impromptu ones, long before the dance styles were defined, and those helped to spread ideas and define the styles.
In my opinion those in jeans and T-shirt would look more comfortable than those in a tux and ballgown. Those that are there in 'street' clothes I would say care more about the dance than the apperance of the dance. I would prefer that couple to win.
The same argument could be made for could comfortable, familure clothes. Clothes you're used to dancing in.The other thing is that dressing up can also help to put you in the right frame of mind and give you more confidence. When people are interpreting the music they can be a little shy if they are not used to it and hiding behind a costume to create an alternate 'blues' persona is a useful tool.
I agree: It can look great. But with putting it into a competition and specifying that one of the primary criteria is presentation, then the focus of the dance changes from internal to external. And the core of "blues" dancing is the internal focus.I think we all agree (as I've stated) that Blues is not the easiest dance to showcase in a competition format. However, I don't see any reason why it can't feel great and look good too.
I used to make that same argument - but if I'm being painfully honest, that was simply because I was too lazy to dress up, and any old excuse would do....
Spot on about the core of blues - but that's certainly not the only thing to consider. These days, if I'm going to a blues night, I'm inclined to make more of an effort on the clothes front than for a regular dance event. Reasons:
1) Looking good helps one to feel good. Feeling good helps ones dancing.
2) Less aerobic dance means I don't have to focus so much on lighter clothing - so a nice jacket is an option, for example.
3) Useful thing about a nice jacket: if one does get sweaty, the jacket keeps that from your partner (or, in a very few cases, keeps your partner's sweat from you). In a potentially ucp dance like blues, that's a desireable thing.
4) On a good evening, I'll be having some potentially intense dances with some lovely ladies - most of whom will have made a serious effort to look good. Only good manners to try and look good myself.
5) Nicely tailored clothes make me look thinner. Or less well ... padded..., anyway.
But there's dressing up and *Dressing up*
Nice shirt, pair of trousers; smart but casual. Full dinner-wear with spats and fake tan; OTT. Smart is fine - I like smart. Smart is dressing for your partner, not an audence. Obviously contrived to be matching or excessivly glitzy I think would be against the whole spirit of the thing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks