Quoted from "David_D"

Quoted from "Marcelo"
LA and NYC are weird. They're very similar in many ways, yet so different in others. LA's priorities are different - here it's more about the history and the lifestyle, going to the historical ballrooms, listening to the right music, doing the dance accurately, wearing the clothes, etc. It always has been. I remember in 1999 when you'd go out dancing everyone would be in vintage clothes - they would actually be looking at old Sears catalogues and photos for examples of what to get.

How did LindyGroove fit into that whole dynamic? It seemed like it had a completely different focus the one time I was there (back in 2004). Dave

Lemme just take a quick aside to answer this question. As I recall, LG started in 2000 or 2001, right as the whole vintage thing was dying down. Back then the big debate was vintage lindy hop vs. modern "groove dancing," or as it was called insultingly, "wiggly-hop." LindyGroove came out of the rise of that, and was more a precursor of things to come. Which is why, I suspect, it has remained so steadfastly popular. It capitalized on the rise of a certain kind of dancer in the marketplace. By 2004, when you arrived the whole vintage/history/recreation stuff was pretty much dormant, save Camp Hollywood and the occasional one-time-only big event.

LA is a big enough place that you don't really have to rely on other venues to support yours. It definitely helps, but there's a huge disconnect between some of the people that go to LindyGroove every week and whether or not they go anywhere else. Rusty's Rhythm Club in El Segundo is the same way - they have their own group of loyal attendees who don't really branch out much. LindyGroove is less like that, but there are quite a few people who don't go to big band events and things like that but who will be found every week at LG - and that's fine, LA is big enough to support that behavior.

It also helps that Lance, who runs LindyGroove, is literally one of the nicest most apolitical people ever. He has managed to run a huge venue without getting involved in the really destructive politics that decimated LA's once-dominant scene. LG is known as a really nice and welcoming place, and a lot of that is due to him and the culture he creates there.

Quoted from "billy bakelite"
By that I mean, 2 roommates sitting around drinking beer look at each other and say, "Hey Titus, we could put some music on, call ourselves blues instructors, and invite some hot chicks over to grind against and we'd be "the blues brothers who all the chicks want to be around!"

Wait, am I getting dragged into yet another Yehoodi "blues" thread? What gives? :dunno:

Quoted from "Titus"

Quoted from "billy bakelite"
By that I mean, 2 roommates sitting around drinking beer look at each other and say, "Hey Titus, we could put some music on, call ourselves blues instructors, and invite some hot chicks over to grind against and we'd be "the blues brothers who all the chicks want to be around!"

Wait, am I getting dragged into yet another Yehoodi "blues" thread? What gives? :dunno:

It's the matching pants and hair. 8)

Quoted from "Chivalrous"
While I have no problem with anything Keither said, it doesn't sound like an explanation for America's post, which frankly sounds like a ridiculously outdated puritanical indictment of sexuality, period. Which is about the last thing our world, community or culture needs. Among other things, if it wasn't for sex, we wouldn't be here to bitch about sex. I will allow for the possibility that that's not what she meant, but it sure reads that way.

Sorry if it read that way Chiv... didn't mean it that way.

I was just trying to give a perspective on the situation in a colelge scene that's huge on blues right now. As James said, I have more creepers-per-capita in my little scene than I'd like to admit.

James, I am persueing DJ slots. But sadly I don't have the guts for it quite yet. I've only ever DJed twice, and both times were lindy based at CSU swing... I'm getting there as long as my computer doesn't crash completely like I think it's about to.

I wouldn't call it puritanical, but rather, sick of getting humped when I'm not asking for it. I'm afraid that's a reality for many experienced dancers in college scenes. :) Sorry if I gave off that vibe, and thanks James and Tommy for vouching for my normality.

Um, I think that this is a dangerous line of discussion, and probably needs to end here. I don't feel that people's religion today or prudishness or any of that has anything do with blues dance.

As an event promoter and a friend of lots of the people who make the larger blues events happen, I can tell you that the intent is to desexualize the instruction of the dance and leave the history of the dance unedited. What consenting adults do outside of class is their business.

Did people originally go out dancing to get with someone? Do people still go dancing (even in the swing scene) to get with someone? Yes and yes. Do we teach people sex ed along with a swing out? Nope. Do we teach it with a slow drag? Nope.

Sadly, there are some people who have specifically told me (I've got it in writing) that they feel it's necessary to teach about sexuality within the dance. That's too bad, since it's attitudes like those that directly cause threads like this.

Quoted from "Marcelo"
I just want to note something one of my favorite dancers ever, Christian Thompson, told a workshop back in 2000 when teaching a class on a newfangled dance called "The Balboa" - he said that swing dancing, in all of its glories, was not a "sexy" dance. Tango was a "sexy" dance. Swing (at that time basically defined as Lindy Hop, with Shag and Balboa on the side) was a "goofy" dance, a dance for cartoon characters. That always struck me. "Goofy, not sexy." Anyhoo, it doesn't really have anything to do with the discussion, but this talk about whether blues dancing is inherently sexual reminded me of that.

I agree. I love Swing/Lindy... but it sure is goofy. I don't know of too many other partner dances where the lady's legs are always so open -- spraying the world like a cat. lol

Quoted from "brynbryn"
We are a scene that's committed to hosting quality events with top notch instructors and music. In my three years at Oberlin, we have hosted workshops that have brought in some of the top lindy, balboa and charleston instructors in the country including Peter Loggins, Nina Gilkenson, Mike Faltesek, Marty Klempner and Val Salstrom among others. ... We hoped to bring in the same level of instruction and music in terms of quality to our scene.

If that's the case, you should have hired instructors who can lay claim to the same level of credentials as Peter Loggins, Nina Gilkenson, Mike Faltesek, Marty Klempner, and Val Salstrom. In the Blues world, that would include people like Damon Stone, Heidi Fite (shameless plug, these two are coming to teach here in a couple of weeks -- Ottawa Blues Blast), Ogden & Amanda, Jerry & Kathy, and even the previously mentioned Mike Faltesek. It does not include people in the category of the instructors you hired.

I don't mean this as an attack on your attempts to run a great event. On the contrary, it just makes me a little sad. It's really not your fault if you think these people are reputable Blues instructors... they've managed to sell themselves as such, very effectively. But the reality is that they're selling a different product by the same name. A product which is not only very loosely defined but also still very much in the experimental phases and, as a result, is substandard. Trying to fight against that is a steep uphill battle.

Which is why I understand the frustrations that are so often expressed by key players in the Blues community. It's really hard to watch your passion and your hard work being misrepresented and slandered. It can become a deeply personal thing, and sometimes it's hard to figure out the best way to handle it.

Despite the been-there-done-that-got-so-many-tshirts-I-can-clothe-a-small-country-in-Africa nature of this thread, I just read this whole thread from start to finish in one sitting. The reason I did that, aside from having nothing better to do today, is because I think some really great insights and suggestions can be recovered from the rubble.

Lead by example Be a mover and a shaker in the way of creating and supporting events that represent what you want to see more of in the Blues community (I believe all of the Blues supporters in this thread already do this, most of them to a great extent).

Responding defensively will only dig you a deeper hole When you want to minimize attention to a particular facet that is representing itself as Blues, don't contribute to the fire. No such thing as bad publicity.

Non-judgmental education and expressing hopes for what the Blues scene will one day look like are perfectly viable and acceptable alternatives

Sex sells It's a reality, and I think we're doing ourselves a disservice the moment we refuse to acknowledge that. The extent to and the method with which it is used as a marketing tool depends heavily on the target market for the event. Most of you have acknowledged that this is a college scene event with appropriately-targetted college humour. It's also been pointed out that involving sexuality in our dancing and related parties seems to be funny, cool, and appropriate when we're among friends. So let's be honest here. Because the way it stands right now, an outsider is likely to see the Blues scene as being composed of two groups: - The group that does whatever it wants, from body rolls to tango to jello wrestling, and calls it Blues - The group that is either too puritanical, too naive, or too dishonest to admit that sexuality can or should have any place whatsoever in Blues Dance, and are rabidly fanatical in this opinion

Sexiness is an attribute that has been embraced by other dance communities (latin, WCS, etc.), to their great benefit Once again, sex sells. People like to indulge in sexy, flirtatious behaviour. But as Zenin pointed out, there's a very big difference between sexy and sleazy or creepy. It takes a certain degree of maturity and confidence to pull off sexy. Harnessing the power of that is a valuable asset. Throwing it away will only work against you.

As for feeling the need to over-emphasize or teach sexuality, that just speaks volumes about how socially-inept swing and blues dancers really are.

Just sayin'.

Quoted from "Beckto"
I agree. I love Swing/Lindy... but it sure is goofy. I don't know of too many other partner dances where the lady's legs are always so open -- spraying the world like a cat. lol

That's fantastic! :lol: Thanks for my new .Sig ;)

Quoted from "Chivalrous"

Quoted from "Marcelo"
Swing (at that time basically defined as Lindy Hop, with Shag and Balboa on the side) was a "goofy" dance, a dance for cartoon characters. That always struck me. "Goofy, not sexy."

Holy crap, you mean I've actually been doing it RIGHT all these years? :o :dunno:

Ben Yau tells a story to his students about how he was always a goofy dancer...but in hip hop and club dancing the goofier you dance...the goofier you look...and all the girls laugh at you. But in Swing, the goofier you dance the cooler you look, and all the girls adore you! ;-) He's right of course, and it's a great way to get students new and old to loosen up and just go for it.

I'm just repeating the quip. It might not always be true, but it's a great reminder of something we tend to forget a lot.

Quoted from "Chivalrous"

Quoted from "Marcelo"
I'm just repeating the quip. It might not always be true, but it's a great reminder of something we tend to forget a lot.

Yeah, but if we didn't take ourselves so seriously, this dumb thread would only have 2 posts in it. And what would be the fun in that?

A to-the-mudder-fuggin men!

Meh, if I can't connect with someone I'm dancing with at some level (need not be sensual/sexual, but it needs to be something), I'm not likely to make a point of asking them to dance again. Much of the time this comes down to personalities and I believe everyone can't help but to dance their personality. This results in in a few fantastic follows that I just don't enjoy dancing with because we simply have nothing to say to each other dancewise, and some very inexperienced follows whom I adore dancing with.

So yes, for me I do have an expectation to connect in some way with every partner I dance with.

If nothing else, you should at least connect to the music. Otherwise, why bother to dance?

I think you guys are being unfairly harsh on Lucky. He's a really creative, fun dancer with a lot to teach, in blues and everything else. I can only imagine that the college kids at Oberlin will love his style and teaching.

Just because he hasn't competed at BluesSHOUT, or whatever event you dancers deem important this week, doesn't mean he isn't a great dancer.

Gawd, that really pisses me off -- dancing, especially blues dancing specifically, doesn't exactly lend itself to a fruitful career, no matter how talented you are. There are lots of amazing dancers out there who don't get to spend their lives traveling and teaching, who would probably be waayy better than the teachers out there now.

This is how the whole damn Rock-Star thing builds up and out of control.

Quoted from "pocotell"
I think you guys are being unfairly harsh on Lucky. He's a really creative, fun dancer with a lot to teach, in blues and everything else.

Just b/c someone has a lot to teach, doesn't mean they should be teaching, especially group love micro-blues (ha!). And who cares if Lucky hasn't competed at BluesShout. Chris Ransdell competed there and that didn't raise my opinion of his dancing.

Quote
Gawd, that really pisses me off -- dancing, especially blues dancing specifically, doesn't exactly lend itself to a fruitful career, no matter how talented you are. There are lots of amazing dancers out there who don't get to spend their lives traveling and teaching, who would probably be waayy better than the teachers out there now.

And this cracks me up. I know many dancers that are way better dancers than some of the blues instructors that are getting lots of gigs. Unfortunately, these better dancers are a)not promoting themselves as well b)not prostituting themselves to small scenes (there's still a ponytail bounty, America) c)or spending their time nurturing their home scenes. Frankly, I think the blues scene would have a healthier image, if some people were forced into "early retirement".