Are 'Better' dancers an 'Elite'

[El Salsero Gringo]

ESG and I are just indulging a little bit of light banter and mild character assasination in the absence of anything of substance to argue about.

No boss - the only one doing any character assasination is you.

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

[Gadget]

IMO UP's suberbly expressed post is quite right, if his argument is directed at dancers at a dance. If there is a lesson it is a dance class...

Do you mean just through out the actual "class", or the whole night following a class?

At the Ceroc classes I go to the Taxi Dancers have the last half hour off. I think that it is fair to assume that that half-hour is not aimed at beginners, and the dancers have a right to make demands on that time.

It's my right to demand a dance?

Putting words in to my mouth, somewhat, aren't we?

As I said at the start of that reply- I understand the sentiment and mentality behind it; however the words used to convey it seem to reflect a different view.

Would I rather dance with someone who's been dancing 3 weeks & will do the same 4 moves over and over again, badly, and not in time to the music, whilst struggling to remember what else he's learnt, or, would I prefer to dance with someone who is going to lead me smoothly in such a way that I don't even know what moves he's doing, while I glide effortlessly around the floor as if dancing on air?

I think that there is a massive difference between leads and followers on this argument: Followers have to subject themselves to whatever lead. Leads impose their leading onto followers.

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

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

There are other threads that explore this

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

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

Hmmm .. I'd always assumed it was a business thing ... since when did Ceroc(tm) become a charity?

From the punter's point of view, what difference does it make? The money 'donated' is mostly used for a good cause, to spread the influence, and get better services.

[Lou]

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

Sounds like a plan. When are you going to learn move number 5? (I'm not sure there's much hope on the beat thing).

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

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

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

[under par]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Live and let live and enjoy your dancing

[TheTramp]

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

I've been saying that all along.

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

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

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

[Gadget]

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

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

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

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

[tsh]

I think that there is a massive difference between leads and followers on this argument: Followers have to subject themselves to whatever lead. Leads impose their leading onto followers.

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

Sean

[Chef]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[stewart38]

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

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

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

Cant see the connection with dance setting and homosexuality ?

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

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

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

[Mary]

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

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

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

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

M

[Chef]

Cant see the connection with dance setting and homosexuality ?

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

I love the way you can answer your own questions.

[LMC]

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

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

[TheTramp]

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

TAXI for LMC please.....

[Gadget]

They have all paid their money - does that entitle them to do as they please?

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

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

But that's the point: by refusing and being excessivly narrow minded about selecting dance partners you are impinging on the enjoyment of others.

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


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

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

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

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

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

[Rose]

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

[Magic Hans]

But that's the point: by refusing and being excessivly narrow minded about selecting dance partners you are impinging on the enjoyment of others.
...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Daisy]

I've been saying that all along.

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

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

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

Completely agree with this Steve

[Ghost]

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

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

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

Take care,
Christopher

[Ghost]

but ignoring beginners is allowed)

Sorry,
Christopher

[bigdjiver]

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