NOOOOOOOOOOriginally Posted by ChrisA
Have you seen my brother dance ? I cant think of a worse dancer, the buck has to stop somewhere ??
I see no contradiction here.Originally Posted by Feelingpink
All three are true:
... is about our responsibility as a less good dancer (and applies to all of us, since there are always people better than ourselves).We should try to learn from the better dancers, not bemoan them
... is about their responsibility as a better dancer (and also applies to all of us, since there are always people less good than ourselves).but, at the same time, they should be willing to teach, and to help those not as good by dancing with everyone too."
... just says that when dancers aren't either learning from better ones, or giving to less good ones, they can have some time of their own to dance with whom they please.Accept that good dancers deserve the opportunity to dance with similar and better dancers without being classed as Elitist
There's no contradiction, it's just three true things that apply at different times.
I agree... I think using hard words like "obligatory" makes it more of a religious debate than it needs to be. It's nice if they do when it's appropriate (and it often isn't), and it oils the wheels and makes everyone feel good.Personally, I don't believe everyone SHOULD HAVE TO BE willing to teach others. Many of us make the decision to do so, but I object to it being thought of as obligatory.
It's not obligatory, but it is desirable.
NOOOOOOOOOOriginally Posted by ChrisA
Have you seen my brother dance ? I cant think of a worse dancer, the buck has to stop somewhere ??
When I go dancing I arrive at about 9pm, and the average night lasts till 10:45, so that's 105 minutes, take, say 20 mins for announcements, gaps, another say 15 mins for breaks, leaves 70 mins of dancing. The average track is 3 mins long, so that's an average of about 24 dances a night. Say I spend (being generous) 8 of those dancing with beginners (when not taxiing) that leaves me 16 dances to spend dancing with the "good" dancers, the ones I want to dance with.Originally Posted by Feelingpink
Taking all this into consideration, can I not agree with all that Gus said, and still state that I think better dancers should spend some time dancing with people at a lower standard? The beginners of today are the champions of tomorrow, I'm sorry, but yes I do think the advanced dancer owes it to them to dance with them, but they can still spend 2 thirds of their night dancing with people they really want to! I think 2 thirds of the night counts as an opportunity.
Like I said, I don't know about you, but when I started there were no taxi dancers, without people who were willing to dance with me, I'd never have improved, and probably given up!
We always say to our beginners in class, ask anyone to dance, if they say no, remember their face. When, in a years time, they are queuing up to dance with you after you've won the National title, say no to them!
Wow...Originally Posted by TiggsTours
The music must be fab then....but it's included in the dancing, really...
Not really. It would be an onerous restriction and would keep out people that had been been dancing only 3 months and gained great ability and insight while allowing in people who had been dancing for 8 years and learnt nothing. It is just like being in a job for 20 years. The big question is have you had 20 years experince once or just one years experience 20 times.Originally Posted by stewart38
Some people are hugely proud of the sheer number of moves that they know but can't do any of them well. All the women that I have had these converstaions with on this subject have expressed the view that they would rather a man know about 10 moves but be able to do them extremely well rather than 100s done badly.
For me, the current situation is fine. Everybody welcome to post. People on the whole are able to sort out the wheat from the chaff and decide which opinions they give more attention to.
So Tim Henman should spend a third of his practice time with beginner tennis players?Originally Posted by TiggsTours
It would explain a lot if it turned out that he did...Originally Posted by Feelingpink
Who said only beginners? There are lots of people who are of a lower standard than Tim Henman (who are far from novices.) I'd be surprised if it was remotely feasible for Henman *not* to spend the majority of his playing time with players of a lesser standard.Originally Posted by Feelingpink
Tim Henman is a full-time professional at the top (well nearly) of a highly-competitive sport.Originally Posted by Feelingpink
I don't think there's any sort of realistic comparison there with MJ...
I was joking and I assume you know I was jokingOriginally Posted by Chef
My point exactly, very well put.Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
Feeling Pink was referring to one of my posts. I was making this comparison using professional tennis players as I don't know any just really good ones.Originally Posted by DavidJames
The comparison is purely between people who are really good at something against people who are not so good, regardless of whether or not they ever will be, and the sharing of talents and experience of those that are better, in order to improve those who could be one day.
I believe the Children are Our Future, and any other soppy song title or quote that may come to mind!
I hate quoting myself but couldn't be bothered to retype this from the Funky Lush thread.Originally Posted by JonD
In the same way that someone saying they will only dance with 'better' dancers surely means that they are dancing with people they prefer to dance with. To someone else these may not be better dancers!Originally Posted by Cruella
The following is not so much bout the views put forward, but the language used in putting them forward....
So by implication, you don't want to dance with those 8 dancers of lesser ability. You feel you have to. An obligation to be fulfilled so you can justify selecting the good dancers you want to dance with. What happens with the nineth? "Sorry, I've had my quota of poor dancers this evening..."Originally Posted by TiggsTours
owes it to them? People are there to dance. No matter their ability to 'hear' the music, interperate it, make a connection, hold a frame, or do moves. To have "People you really want to" dance with, implys to me that there are people you really don't want to dance with. And these people are beginners and people of a lesser ability....I do think the advanced dancer owes it to them to dance with them, but they can still spend 2 thirds of their night dancing with people they really want to! I think 2 thirds of the night counts as an opportunity.
The term "Hot Shot" or "Elitist" to me is about attitude. This attitude. The "I suppose I will come down to your level and dance with you if I must" attitude. The "I will dance with you, but I really don't want to" attitude.
I think it must be something about the mentality: "Willing" to dance with you? Dancing should not be a chore. Not even with partners who are challenging.Like I said, I don't know about you, but when I started there were no taxi dancers, without people who were willing to dance with me, I'd never have improved, and probably given up!
Ablility only comes into the equation if you think that the only challenge is one of music. Dancing is a three way connection - you, your partner and the music. Each one has it's own set of difficulties to overcome and it's own techniques to learn.
They have done it to you, so you should just do it back. Revenge. Rubbing salt in the wounds. Cruel, unforgiving and simply nasty.We always say to our beginners in class, ask anyone to dance, if they say no, remember their face. When, in a years time, they are queuing up to dance with you after you've won the National title, say no to them!
If they say no, then that's their loss. Move on. Ask them again next week.
Couldn`t have put it better myselfOriginally Posted by TiggsTours
Are 'Better' dancers an 'Elite' ??
Rant mode on a bit.....
Having perused this thread I feel a certain sinking in my heart as we are trying to put labels on individuals and groups of individuals based on no particular ?
What are dancers?
They are people who pay their good hard earned money as customers at events put on by organisers (who mainly attempt to run their events for profit)
The important point is they are paying customers who have made their choice to attend that event.
Why are they dancing?
I hope they are dancing for fun/pleasure. That is why I dance. I hope I am not transferring my own dillusional misconceptions onto others here.
Having paid my money where does it say anywhere in the contract of entry to any venue that any dancer has to dance with anyone else?
You pay your money you dance or don't dance as you see fit.
Dancing is seen as a social enterprise and it is customary for social interaction to take place.
Many dancers elect to dance with many and varied partners. This is their choice they have made and to be honest it is a choice many make.
I have to say though there is nothing wrong with one dancer dancing solely with another individual dancer all evening. They have paid their money as customers and have decided they would like to dance together.
There is no obligation on anyone to dance with anyone else at all at any venue at any time. This is particularly relevant to pervs yankers and smelly ones but it need not be the only set of criteria. It is purely down to individual choice. In fact some people do pay entry money and sit and watch the dancing.
If I dance for fun why should I dance with people I do not enjoy dancing with?
The answer is I do not need to. I may choose to though.
This perception of obligation is a myth.
Where does this leave the initial thread question?
Are 'Better' dancers an 'Elite'
Why should they be considered elite?
They are dancers of better standard who
1. pay their entry fee and
2. dance with other dancers of their choice
3. who agree mutally to dance with them.
If they choose to dance with only one or only ten partners...well thats life.
why do some people percieve those dancers as elite? I do not know ! It's they that want to enjoy their dances with those one or ten!
why do some complain of not being part of the scene/group? i do not know!
what entitles anyone to be part of any scene/group?
why do some individuals think they have a right to dance with others? no idea
why do some individuals feel the need to complain that some other groups appear to be enjoying each others company / dancing
and almost be demanding to be allowed to be part of it
why do we keep hearing "I went to this/that venue where they were not very friendly. or they were cliquey" if most people where known to each other and were having fun dancing join in as best you can! once you get to know them and it may take some time you will also be part of the clique you percieve
Do these people think their entry money entitles them to instant gratification?....... to be party to and involved at the centre of whatever else anybody might be doing?
Are the complainers really aware of how social interaction amongst us really works?
Sometimes I find it very difficult to imagine a more charitable, friendly, humerous, easy going cross section of society than we have in the modern jive community. With rare exceptions that you are bound to get in any walk of life, the modern jive community is exceptionally friendly.
So the difficulty I have is anyone being labelled as anything at all because they are having fun dancing.
So I do have difficulty within the forum sometimes (which is not strictly representative of the general MJ community )because there appears to be a certain lack of tolerance and maybe respect.
"Good dancers", "A list dancers", "advanced dancers" can hardly get discussed now before the tiresome link to "hotshot" "clique" "elitism"
What have these people done to keep getting these snipes all the time.
They are good/great dancers who like dancing and having paid their money dance. FULL STOP! PERIOD!
There have been numerous threads that have detereorated into elite/hotshot/elitism debates and to be absolutely honest I get really fed up with it.
Now we have a thread dedicted to the topic.
A hotshot/elitist/clique is someones elses poor perception of another.
Why don't you keep your poor perceptions to yourself ....just for change!
All people are at different levels of dance and in Utopia we would have a Viktor, Amir and David Barker available to dance the night away with every beginner follower that comes to a venue. And for every intermediate leader we will have Nina Daines, Kate Hargreaves and Lily Barker as personal dance slaves... but in the real world you have to dance with those who will dance with you.
That is life.
Live and let live ...sometime life is good sometimes its sh*t but thats LIFE
Are 'Better' dancers an 'Elite'
I forgot to answer the question IMHO NO
They are just dancers who dance better.
Have some rep UP. I totally agree with this post.Originally Posted by under par
Originally Posted by under par
WOW what a post!
Good for you Boyo , have some rep
exactly what I would have written if I had the time!
what a bore it all is, this bleating.
It's a fiscal thing? I've paid good money for this, therefore I can do what I like with it.Originally Posted by under par
!bzzzzzt! incorrect answer. It's a social thing. The money you pay at the door is a contribution to ensure that the venue keeps it's doors open, the teachers keep teaching and the DJs keep playing tunes. It's irrelevant to the dancing or the night in general: It's the people that matter and the interaction between them that make a night. Just because a night's dancing may be free or cost £50 does not make one of a better quality than the other or guarantee a better night than the other.
Again incorrect. It's a social gathering. It has it's own sub-set of social rules and etequette.You pay your money you dance or don't dance as you see fit.
Dancing is seen as a social enterprise and it is customary for social interaction to take place.
~
There is no obligation on anyone to dance with anyone else at all at any venue at any time.
I could take a novice to a busy venue, barge into the middle of the floor and start doing aerials out of time with the music, and when not cavorting, simply stand there with drink in hand... if I wanted to. {well, if I could do aerials } There is no obligation to be courteous to fellow dancers. There is no obligation to get off the floor when not dancing. There is no obligation to dance with anyone/everyone.
Myth. Fable? Fantasy? Story? Made-up? Sure. But aren't all social rules {/religions } based on the same quality of myth?This perception of obligation is a myth.
Nothing except being good. It's not these people that are the cause of this, and it's not these people that are the "hotshots" "elite" or "clique" - It's the people that think that the only way to get there is to soley dance with them."Good dancers", "A list dancers", "advanced dancers" can hardly get discussed now before the tiresome link to "hotshot" "clique" "elitism"
What have these people done to keep getting these snipes all the time.
why don't you keep your perceptions of what is "poor perception" to yourself... just for a change!Why don't you keep your poor perceptions to yourself ....just for change!
People have perceptions - it's how they perceive the world. Hence the word. People convey them. If you don't like it, argue against it and debate it: don't just tell them to shut up because it dosn't tie in with how you perceive the world.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks