I agrre Gus,
If we are going to have "Blues" style and "Blues" Comptitions here in Uk they need to be defined. and if the "Godparents" (God, they'll kill me...) of Blues dancing (especially from a performance perspective) in uk are Nigel & Nina and then explored/developed by the Rockovs from the ceroc sceen then maybe they should be the ones to take the lead with clear definition of a uk Blues style not only to prospective dancers & competitors, but to the dance community in general (here?) and judges specifically.
I imagine they have gone some way to doing this already but evidence from the Breeze comp was confusing and the debate here reiterates this.
So; Can I propose msrs. Nigel, Nina, David & Val pick up the guantlet and define what they think is uk blues? I'm sure we will all support their input. This neednt be an exclusive debate and input from all interested parties should be considered.
I would like to see Blues defined away from sleasyMJ/blues?/lindyhop/tango/ucp/blues,blues? mish mash that is easily (yeah, yeah, I know..) understood and accepted by all.
eh hem... I'll get back to you with my definition.....
To be fair, it wasn't known that I would be judging until the week-end had already begun and Lucky and I have a different perspective than other judges on the panel. From a contestant's perspective, it would definitely be nice to read a judge's criteria in advance. It certainly is done in the parliamentary debate world, at least on the US side... big tournaments publish a judge's philosophy in advance, (and philosophies tend to vary massively).
I tried to adjust my own criteria for this community... had I been judging in the US, I would be more demanding in certain areas.
Yes... this point is important. This was a problem for me, seeing as how few couples adhered to my idea of blues. The other winning couples were certainly closer to the mark than the non-winning couples- meaning they had other winning elements. I felt that Tom's style was closer to a slow Ceroc... but given that this is a Ceroc event, what are we going to do... declare only one winner? The second and third placers still used elements of blues dance, even if they didn't totally fit my mold.
In the states, at some of the all-blues events we'll have several contests... one might focus on the Jukin' aspect of blues, the others on Ballroomin'... to nod to the fact that there are indeed so many flavors of blues.
In the end, I tried to select the best couples on the floor and as long as they weren't totally outside the genre (doing just slow Ceroc, West Coast or Tango), they placed.
I would have liked to have disqualify a couple of the couples for the repeated use of the "giving head" move that was used during the last song, which was "Sweat" ("a blow-job's better than no job...") because I don't think that's appropriate for such a dance competition, but- there were enough other elements in their performance to keep them at the top... and we only said we would disqualify for the use of more than one aerial.
Nah... I think contestants should dance to the judges on the panel. All of the judges on this panel have "published" their opinion either in classes or video or on the dance floor what we value in dance. By this time next year, blues dance will have evolved. Maybe Dale and Sarah's performance will shape the way other couples dance, or maybe a new form of blues will emerge. Sure... we all engage in emulation... Lucky and I watch old blues clips and study their style, but we also innovate, and so innovation should not be discouraged by forcing people to adhere strictly to one couple's style.
Which is why I disagree with Fusioneer:
I think that the joint effort of the judging at this last competition was in essence, one form of creating a defintion by consensus... if even three disparate definitions. If Nigel and Nina are at an event and judging and teaching, then their definition is going to matter to contestants, but if they're not, you can't expect other judges to adhere to their criteria. That said, not having seen Nigel and Nina, I'm very curious about their interpretation of Blues.
I do however agree with the sentiment from Fusioneer that
I do think blues is its own dance and can be defined away from other social forms beyond just "slow Ceroc" or "slow Lindy." To me, there are clear elements that should be present to call it blues dance. At the very least, these include:
1) Connection through the upper body
2) A "pulse" that reflects the music.
3) Face to face positioning (whether it's body-contact or an open-closed position)
The problem is... these terms are broad and can apply to a lot of styles. If you are going to take vintage blues into account, I would definitely say that "smooth" or "no bounce" is NOT going to be part of that definition. What I've read from other posters on this forum in terms of a proposed definition sounds to me like slow West Coast Swing. It's interesting to note that WCS has really smoothed out over the decades, but back in the day, it was done to blues music and had a lot more of a pulse than it does now.
I think these discussions are important, but what happens on the dance floor is what people see and interpret. No amount of sitting in a room (or a forum) with other experts is going to define blues dancing because as a culture, Blues dance is largely decentralized and practiced in "non-sanctioned" environments, i.e. house-parties and late-night venues. To focus too much on defining it would create a ballroom dance or ballet style structure that is too inflexible. I'm having visions from Strictly Ballroom of Barry Fife announcing, "There will be NO NEW STEPS!"
What is my point? All of us have to contend, on some level with the idea that the tighter we squeeze Blues Dance, the faster it will slip through our fingers. Even though Lucky and I take a stab at defining blues dance for ourselves, it is not the only way.
Regardless... Kudos to all those who make an effort to understand what makes Blues different from Ceroc or Swing. I respect curiosity and a willingness to question and debate such things.
Great post Ruby, thanks for taking the time to share your insights.
Very interesting. I guess they would consider it to be valid musical interpretation (for an adult audience) which was stated as one of the key criteria that the judges were looking for.
Maybe, but I think Dale's a very hard act to follow since he makes it look so effortless.
I think this is very interesting. I expect a lot of the people who competed at Brean have a view of Blues as a pretty smoothed out dance based on their experience of the Rokovs (Forseys ) or N n N teaching. Likewise a 'blues room' for most MJers simply means a place playing slower music so the assumption for many is that dancing more slowly (with a dash of bump and a sprinkle of grind) equates to dancing blues. I don't think that many people on this forum would equate slow WCS with their vision of blues but I could be wrong.
Rob
For me, the main elements of what we've come to know as blues dancing would encompass: musicality, connection, smoothness (although, not in a WCS way) and (depending on the song) attitude. Also, again depending on the song, an element of playfulness - although, I guess that could also be encompassed within musicality.
I guess in a way, it could be described as slow ceroc, but only if the above elements were present, which for me would be the difference between blues, and what most people doing slow ceroc to the music would be doing.
There's 2 key elements of WCS and Blues that differentiate them in my mind and they are, WCS is slotted and Blues isn't and WCS rarely has any 'lingering' close holds, Blues does.
I think this is very interesting. I expect a lot of the people who competed at Brean have a view of Blues as a pretty smoothed out dance based on their experience of the Rokovs (Forseys ) or N n N teaching. Likewise a 'blues room' for most MJers simply means a place playing slower music so the assumption for many is that dancing more slowly (with a dash of bump and a sprinkle of grind) equates to dancing blues. I don't think that many people on this forum would equate slow WCS with their vision of blues but I could be wrong.
to all of that.
MODERATOR AT YOUR SERVICE
"If you're going to do something tonight, that you know you'll be sorry for in the morning, plan a lie in." Lorraine
Yeah, I was wondering why people were comparing Blues to WCS myself
To me, Blues looks much closer to AT than to WCS - at least, judging by the clips shown so far.
From what I've seen, if you add "pulsing" to AT, combined with more "playing" and separation / turns, and I think you get a very very rough approximation of Blues dancing.
Or, putting it another way, if you dance Blues in permanent hold, with less body movement, it might be pretty close to AT.
Either way, this thread is clarifying to me that there is a Blues dance style, but it's still not clarifying to me what that style means to the MJ world...
As with many things, I think it is far easier to say what blues isn't, as opposed to what it is. Dance, being the irritatingly organic thing that it is, often seems to get defined just as it is on the cusp of change and development. It's a moving target! I feel this is because it is born from the minds of creative people who have no inclination to stay still for too long.
Twirlie Bird and I are currently helping a dyed-in-the-wool Ceroc'er to dance blues. He really wants to dance the blues but has spent a little too long dancing in..... let's just say... less inspiring Ceroc venues. It is real easy to give general rules of thumb like... NO PRETZELS, don't bounce your hand and stuff like that... far harder is to fill the void that these "don'ts" leave. Blues to me is about feeling the music, connection and musicality between two people... how do you define that, let alone teach it?
Respect to those who can teach 'it', and even more respect to those who stick their heads over the parapet to judge 'it'.
Last edited by StokeBloke; 22nd-October-2007 at 03:13 PM. Reason: Added some comma sense.
I can see the resemblance in some clips - although having done a lot of blues, and spent a reasonable amount of time failing to get to grips with AT, to me they feel completely different to do, and I'd class AT as being considerably harder.
I think it's clarifying to me that if you ask a dozen different people from the MJ world what Blues is, you'll get two dozen different answers. In fact, one might well be able to strike the words 'from the MJ world' from that sentance...
The interesting thing I've got from this thread is that it's probably a bit silly to think of Blues as a variant of MJ - which is, unfortunately the way it's marketed. In the same way as it's silly to think of WCS or AT as a variant of MJ.
So it seems that blues dancing needs to be clearly defined and promoted as a distinct dance.
Especially since WCS is actually a variant of Lindy
But yes - I fully agree.
But to play Devil's Advocate (and speaking as a Blues addict) - is it really enough of a defined dance to make it possible to do this? I think Ruby makes some excellent points above to the effect that this might not be as easy (or desireable) as one might think. (post 124)
If "blues" is a seperate dance completley from MJ, then what about the opposite end of the scale? the funky dancers with body rolls, pops, isolations, etc? Can they have their own dance style too?
The competition was run at a MJ event, therefore the criteria should be for a MJ based blues. :shrug: Dancing is dancing is dancing - you dance to the music being played - if it's smootchy music, you dance smoochily... or 'blues' in other words.
I think the face-to-face requirement Ruby mentioned was interesting, given the propensity of Modern Jive "blues" instructors to teach shadow/tandem grinding. It matches my experience in Atlanta.
(it was nice to have a "move" that none of the Blues dancers around me used, but I wasn't sure how to build a Blues style of connection from that position, so sadly I couldn't do much with it)
Good Modern Jive aims to be musical, connected, and smooth. Attitude I would consider part of musicality. Accordingly I don't think this is a good way to distinguish Blues from Modern Jive (or indeed West Coast, Lindy, etc). Equally, if this is the only distinction between the "chillout room" and the "main room" at a Modern Jive event, it'd be simpler to describe the lot as Modern Jive. After all, there's more musicality and connection in the main room at Southport than in LeRocAndJiveUk's beginner freestyle, but we don't claim that those are different dances.
On the other hand, I think we could meaningfully discuss how musicality and connection differ between Modern Jive and other dance forms.
I don't think this follows. If there was a West Coast competition at a Modern Jive event, I would expect the criteria to be for actual West Coast, not "Coasters" or "West Coast Jive" or what have you. The standards might not be as high as at a West Coast event, but I wouldn't expect the fundamental style of dance to change. Obviously the competitors will be influenced by the other dances they know, but the judges shouldn't be.
And if it's "Sweat"?
Hip-hop? I assume that's at least a recognised dance style, although I know nothing about it...
From here:
http://www.ceroc.com/escape/brean/br...ueschamps.php:
(emphasis mine)Whilst it will be acceptable for people to interpret the music to adopt fusion styles of Blues (Swing Blues, Jive Blues, West Coast Blues) dancing an outright non blues style will result in disqualification. This is not a West Coast Swing or Modern Jive competition
I agree with Steve.
And if I could add my twopence worth, Blues dancing to me is how inspired I feel when the track plays. I let the music dictate my movements not necessarily big ones and I am usually quite close to my partner.
The more relaxed my partner the easier to get them to respond to the music that is playing. I usually say to whom ever I am dancing with just to feel 'the music 'off me. That's exactly what I told Sarah and to be honest, Sarah's eyes were closed most of the time and she told me that it was easier to feel my lead than actually see it.
We both had great fun and was really excited when we partnered up because when you think that the last time we actually danced together was at Southport in June.
Dale
Indeed, and in the states you do not have MJ / Ceroc aspects of blues.
In fact all I saw from the USA clips were Lindy and AT based blues - do we call this "blues blues" ? And in the UK should we care?
Most people do MJ / Ceroc based blues in both the UK, NZ and Aussie.
Was this used to fit the words of the song, or maybe used at other times that was not fitting the words of the song, coz, good to match words, as well as music IMHO. When "that phrase" came on, for the fun aspect I would have the ladies head at hip height... just for the humour of the song...
I would have gone for 2 mins 25 sec "undid the buttons on your jeans and drive them to the floor" also 2 mins 35 sec "a blow job is better than no job"
On from that other opertunities being at 4 mins 15 sec "pulled a pistol from his pants" and 4 mins 47 sec "like a $20 whore"
Did you see the words and the English humour?
No way, I cannot see any "blues" clips that has not got another dance form attached.
I do respect what you do, but I am starting to lose respect in the posts now... come on, you like blues in the way it was taught to you, with the dance style attached,,, I like the same ... in a different dance base...
Big hug for what you do, but think about, blues .... with a dance style attached...
Blues on it's own I have not yet seen
Last edited by Martin; 23rd-October-2007 at 03:18 AM.
Mmmm - no - Lindy uses a lot of Charleston, but IIRC the main one it drew from originally was called the Breakaway. Then, like everything else, it drew from everything else.
Now there's a question. What's so amazing about the future that everyone's in such a hurry to get there? You go on ahead - I want to check out the present a bit more. I'll catch up with you later
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks