Originally posted Monday, April 21, 2008 (4 years ago)
Quoted from "Swingboy"
Quoted from "Marcelo"
I only point all this out to show that this is a historical cycle.
Yeah, what do you all think Shorty George said to his friends about Frankie Manning's "Lindy Hop"?
I'd say all this discussion is SOOO '99, but it's probably SOOO '29.
Originally posted Monday, April 21, 2008 (4 years ago)
Quoted from "Marcelo" I agree, but I don't think it's the die hard lindy hoppers who started that us vs. them mentality. I think it was the blues dancers, and I think that's very clear considering the utter defensiveness that nearly every single blues enthusiast on Yehoodi shows the moment their dance is criticized in any way.
Can you cite some posts or is this just hyperbole. I happen to know that several people on here have been perfectly reasonable and not at all defensive when honest critiques about blues dancing have been brought up... the truth is most of the criticism about blues dancing has not been fair nor balanced, and is often times pretty misinformed. Defensiveness usually comes from repeated attacks, numerous attacks, or unfair attacks.
Quote Y'all don't listen to us or take our opinions into consideration the way you claim that your community does, you call us haters and you say the only reason we have that opinion is because we don't go out to all these events. You don't trust that we could have looked at fair and balanced information (blues scenes in our hometowns, videos on youtube, personal experiences you may not have considered) and come to a different opinion. We're just the haters.
The problem here is that what we call blues and what you call blues may not (and by examples given to date pretty much aren't) the same thing. So when you say blues is X and when challenged cite dance Y as your example, we are going to say something along the lines of "No it isn't. It is Y that is like that blues is like A or sometimes B, but not Y." Your next comment is going to determine whether we are having a real discussion or if we are going to devolve into generalizations and general internet flaming. The more honest response would be something like, "what is the difference between A and Y? Why do they say it is Blues then? Why is that Blues and not Y?" But what we usually end up with is what you have above, "I've been to Blues dances and didn't see A, or saw some A but it was mostly Y, or you can say it is A but Y is all I ever see."
When you tell someone they are wrong about their own dance, one they have put a lot of time working on , studying, refining, and sharing with others (be it teaching, dj'ing, or promoting), especially when it is one you rarely if ever do, or have never really experienced what they are talking about, you are going to get defensiveness. If someone started spouting off random and totally untrue crap about Balboa, and lots of people were jumping in to do the same, I'm willing to bet you'd get a little annoyed (frustrated, mad, whatever), and would either seek to correct them, or at least do some damage control, or right them off as the clueless people they have revealed themselves to be.
Yet, you and several others seem to believe that their very limited experience trumps that of those who have been doing this for years (and in some cases decades). Now experience is not the end all be all of deciding who is right, but when the blues dancers point out things to be considered, rather than objectivity, it is met with dismissal, "that is not what I've seen, done etc."
Lack of judgment and critical thinking ends any chance of a civil conversation.
Now I have painted the "ABHC" with a broad brush, there will be the occasional exception, there always is. There are also self-identified blues dancers who do the same thing on the other side. It is unfortunate, and does not help. They are either so defensive (usually because it is not the 5th or 6th time they've had this argument but the 15th or 16th) that no conversation can happen and they are immediately dismissive, not even trying to provide counter examples.
Then you have people Beckto (God bless her, I find her so damn funny on a number of topics, but she is too often the death of any real conversation in threads like this), who want to fan the flames. IF you want to have an open and honest conversation about Blues, boards like GBB is where they will happen. Everyone there is at least interested in discussing it, rather than trying to be Johnny Storm. You may get negative responses, but how you phrase things and how you respond to any initial negativity based on your last interactions with people about Blues is going to determine how productive that conversation is going to be.
Originally posted Monday, April 21, 2008 (4 years ago)
Quoted from "Marcelo"
Quoted from "Marcelo, earlier in this thread," Back when neoswing was huge you'd hear all the lindy hoppers saying that zoot suits and BBVD weren't "representative" of the swing community either, and they were wrong then because it WAS representative and real lindy hoppers were a minority. They managed to change the representation enough to make themselves right over time, though.
Perhaps in your neck of the woods that's still not the case, in which case I would be fine arguing that those east coasters are representative of your swing community. Whether or not it's lindy is a different argument, but they certainly belong in the general realm of "swing dancing," much like the humpers might belong in the general realm of "blues dancing" even if they're not doing the same steps.
There is a difference here that I don't know if you are doing purposefully. Seldemer is pointing out that ECS was not equated with Lindy Hop, and you are saying it was equated with Swing Dancing. Blues is a genre of dancing, of which the body-rolling, crapper-using, twitch-n-grope does not fall into. Just like someone doing a American ballroom foxtrot while you are doing swing-dancing does not fall into the same category despite both of you dancing to the same music.
Humpers do NOT belong in the same realm as blues dancers. The two are entirely different. That you believe that they aren't says more about you than it does about blues. And THAT is the point most blues dancers in this thread have been making over and over, for the last six to eight years.
Originally posted Monday, April 21, 2008 (4 years ago)
Quoted from "dormouse" There is a difference here that I don't know if you are doing purposefully. Seldemer is pointing out that ECS was not equated with Lindy Hop, and you are saying it was equated with Swing Dancing. Blues is a genre of dancing, of which the body-rolling, crapper-using, twitch-n-grope does not fall into. Just like someone doing a American ballroom foxtrot while you are doing swing-dancing does not fall into the same category despite both of you dancing to the same music.
Humpers do NOT belong in the same realm as blues dancers. The two are entirely different. That you believe that they aren't says more about you than it does about blues. And THAT is the point most blues dancers in this thread have been making over and over, for the last six to eight years.
Hmm...
So a swing band plays at a dance venue. Half the crowd is does nothing but Fox Trot, the other half Lindy.
"Hey Mr Lindy Hopper, is Fox Trot part of your scene?"
"No, it's not at all because Fox Trot isn't Lindy Hop!"
Er, wait...the question answered was not the question asked. Yes, actually in this case Fox Trot is a huge part of this Lindy Hopper's dance scene...like it or not, completely different dance or not. It's just as nonsensical as claiming Balboa isn't part of your dance scene despite a significant percentage dancing it.
So someone throws a "Blues" dance. Half the crowd has been taking classes from Damon since before they could walk and dances the most perfect example of real Blues dancing ever seen. The other half of the crowd brings bottles of canola oil to the dance to spice up their 'dancing'.
Is the Crisco Crowd blues dancing? No more then the Fox Trotters are Lindy Hopping.
Is the Crisco Crowd at least partly representative of this example's dance scene? Of course they are and to try and claim otherwise just makes you appear foolish.
Originally posted Monday, April 21, 2008 (4 years ago)
Quoted from "Marcelo" I'm not so sure the dedicated blues dancers can define the humpers out of "blues dancing." It might be even more difficult, because "blues dancing," as Damon has said, is a broad term like "swing dancing."
I am.
Quote So while you can absolutely say that the humpers aren't "jookin" or whatever, you can't really deny that the humpers are "blues dancing,"
Yes I can.
Quote The most you'll be able to say is "these groups do two different dances, both of which are called blues dancing" - and even then there's enough crossover between people in these scenes and enough musical and stylistic similarities that most people are gonna lump them all together anyways.
Actually there isn't a lot of musical or stylistic cross-over... and depending on who you are lumping into the "humpers" crowd I even say there is no significant number of people who cross-over.
There is a difference between people swaying back and forth caressing each others necks and such, and those who are doing a dance that is just not related to the blues genre.
I'd say every dance scene that plays music that is slow will have some people who will try to get their swerve on in the middle of a dance. That is just part of being human at a social gathering with low lights and attractive (to someone) people. No one thinks the couple canoodling at the Grad in Davis, Ca on a Monday night is doing Country Western dancing, despite that is what music is being played. No one thinks a couple doing that at hip-hop club in LA, or a Latin Club in NYC. Why do people assume that it is indicative of Blues dancing as a genre? Tose music styling have their share of double and even single entendres, the dancing can be close and suggestive if the dancers choose. Yet, those dance genres aren't forced to accept or be identified by that couple. A house party of any music by a bunch of horney HS and college kids (and sadly yes, some 30-somethings as well) is going to often end up being mostly about hooking up and testing boundaries as it is going to be about the music being played and the kind of dance(s) associated with it.
Why isn't Blues afforded the same leeway?
Quote To me the most interesting thing about it is that a LOT of the people who argue against the humpers are former (or even current) groove dancers who were once on the opposite side of the argument - that dance shouldn't have strict definitions, that creativity and evolution of dance are unavoidable, and that people who try to strictly define dances to a certain time period or aesthetic are stifling creativity and musicality. They were once told "You're not lindy hopping," and now they're turned around, ready to tell others that "you're not blues dancing."
You've said this before... who are you talking about? I know some of those who cried the "whatever I want is lindy hop" war cry who identify as blues dancers... and they are also the same crowd saying the same thing about Blues. I was always of the opinion that a number of the "That's not Lindy Hop" crowd were too narrow with their definition (must be indicative of what was being done pre-1945 and have film evidence to back it up), because it completely ignored the fact that Lindy Hop was still being danced in the 50's by the same dancers from the 30's and they said it was the samde dance and could point out why. My definition for what was Lindy Hop was taking a look at the asthetic of the dance in the late 20's all the way up to the early 50's finding the same elements and using that. So some of what wqas being called groove, was certainly Lindy Hop. Some of it was definitely not though related (in the same way as WCS, Hand Dancing, Stepping, and ECS), and some of it was unrelated and really was just straight personal improvisational partner dancing.
As to the connection between them, most groove dancers were lindy hoppers, who morphed into groove. Most humpers morphed from Lindy Hop (or Groove) into humpers. There was no passing through Blues along the way. In that regards a lot of what is being laid at the feet of Blues dancers... is actually lindy hoppers child.
IOW, the paternity test came back negative for Blues. Thanks Maury.
Originally posted Monday, April 21, 2008 (4 years ago)
Quoted from "Zenin" Is the Crisco Crowd at least partly representative of this example's dance scene? Of course they are and to try and claim otherwise just makes you appear foolish.
This is where we have to be very clear, several things have been argued in this thread often interchangeably -
part of a scene
representative of a scene
part of a community
representative of a community
part of a dance
representative of a dace
IF a dance venue/event is roughly 50/50 I would say it is both part of a scene and representative of scene. Being in the same place does not make one part of the same community though. There are Hip-Hop clubs in LA where krumpers and breakers both gather, same scene as in venue, but outside of that particular establishment on that particular night, do not run in the same circles, go to the same battles, etc.
As to whether any two moves or movements are part of the same dance or genre or are representative of the same dance or genre, is determined by what the definition of that dance and genre is.
I'm not saying bad ECS is not a part of the DC swing scene (it is), I'm questioning whether saying it is part or representative of the DC Lindy community is a true statement. To me it is not. Different dances.
If Marcelo, or anyone else wants to lump "humpers" into blues dancing they are going to need to define Blues and show how humping fits in it. That is a conversation I'd love to have. I'd also ask that they define humping, so we know whether it is in fact just the overly suggestive rub up against someone dance that is done regardless of music in dozens of clubs in damn near every city in America, or if they are referring instead to the Nuevo Blues stuff that is mostly lindy hoppers or those who learned from (by lesson, watching or dancing with ) lindy hoppers mixing freestyle movement, and other dances they have studied. OR do they make no distinction between them.
The lack of the people on here for providing definitions or even meaningful descriptions by those who have been talking about blues in a more negative light, makes it extremely difficult to have a real conversation. They say one thing about blues which people on the pro side say either is not true about blues, or is present by only a small number of dancers who are not good at blues... yet, and then they say we are wrong.
Originally posted Monday, April 21, 2008 (4 years ago)
Quoted from "dormouse"
Quoted from "Marcelo" I agree, but I don't think it's the die hard lindy hoppers who started that us vs. them mentality. I think it was the blues dancers, and I think that's very clear considering the utter defensiveness that nearly every single blues enthusiast on Yehoodi shows the moment their dance is criticized in any way.
Can you cite some posts or is this just hyperbole. I happen to know that several people on here have been perfectly reasonable and not at all defensive when honest critiques about blues dancing have been brought up... the truth is most of the criticism about blues dancing has not been fair nor balanced, and is often times pretty misinformed. Defensiveness usually comes from repeated attacks, numerous attacks, or unfair attacks.
It's all perspective. You see it as correcting misinformed people, I see it as a bunch of blues dancers pouncing on anyone who says anything negative about the concept of blues dancing. In every thread about blues dancing I see the same 5-6 people constantly trying to tell us that we're misinformed and don't know what we're talking about. You don't attack the argument, you attack the messenger. The strategy of attacking the messenger's qualifications rather than the argument itself (see your wife's lovely dismissal of my posts below) is a surefire sign to me that you guys are on a mission rather than merely responding to critique. I also note the tribal behavior of people like Martin, who scolds me for my tone while completely neglecting to talk about the tone of any of his blues dancing friends, when that tone was just as nasty if not moreso. I would ALSO note Keither, on a thread about being a lighter follow, joking about how people needed to lighten up in general. Beckto then made a blues dancing joke and got a PM about it from him. Lighten up, indeed.
From my point of view, if anyone so much as makes a freaking joke about blues dancing someone is there, ready to pounce on it. It's happened in this thread, in other threads, it's especially true when it's a joke made by me, Swifty, or another one of the established non-blues dancing people. I get IM's from people who are like "I went to that thread because I heard people were insulting blues" - it's like there's an Action Item or something on the internets, and along come the troops. Feel free to disagree with my analysis of the way y'all behave, but it has NOTHING to do with me being misformed about anything. It has to do with what I've observed as a regular poster on Yehoodi.
Quote The problem here is that what we call blues and what you call blues may not (and by examples given to date pretty much aren't) the same thing.
No one has ever said otherwise. The argument we've all made (and Zenin just nailed) is that it all falls under the common umbrella of "blues dancing," like it or not. That's the reputation. There are things that counter the reputation and things that reinforce it. Swifty's original post was about an event name that reinforced the reputation.
Quote So when you say blues is X and when challenged cite dance Y as your example, we are going to say something along the lines of "No it isn't. It is Y that is like that blues is like A or sometimes B, but not Y."
That's an extremely polite paraphrasing of a response that usually includes a personal attack about how we don't know what we're talking about and are unqualified to talk about it, a tactic you use a LOT, but okay.
Quote Your next comment is going to determine whether we are having a real discussion or if we are going to devolve into generalizations and general internet flaming. The more honest response would be something like, "what is the difference between A and Y? Why do they say it is Blues then? Why is that Blues and not Y?"
So wait - the only response is to ask you questions? I can't disagree with you the way you disagreed with me?
Quote But what we usually end up with is what you have above, "I've been to Blues dances and didn't see A, or saw some A but it was mostly Y, or you can say it is A but Y is all I ever see."
How is that a bad response? It's someone sharing their personal experience.
Quote When you tell someone they are wrong about their own dance, one they have put a lot of time working on , studying, refining, and sharing with others (be it teaching, dj'ing, or promoting), especially when it is one you rarely if ever do, or have never really experienced what they are talking about, you are going to get defensiveness.
"have never really experienced" is a MASSIVE assumption, but whatever. And are you admitting that people get defensive? Because earlier you said everyone is polite and rational. I've never said you're wrong about your dance - when have I critiqued the way you dance, or said that you specifically, Damon Stone, danced like a humper, or that you specifically were making incorrect statements about the dance you do, "jookin"? Saying "there are humpers in the blues dance scene and that's why they have that reputation" is not a critique about you.
Quote If someone started spouting off random and totally untrue crap about Balboa, and lots of people were jumping in to do the same, I'm willing to bet you'd get a little annoyed (frustrated, mad, whatever), and would either seek to correct them, or at least do some damage control, or right them off as the clueless people they have revealed themselves to be.
Yet, you and several others seem to believe that their very limited experience trumps that of those who have been doing this for years (and in some cases decades). Now experience is not the end all be all of deciding who is right, but when the blues dancers point out things to be considered, rather than objectivity, it is met with dismissal, "that is not what I've seen, done etc."
Lack of judgment and critical thinking ends any chance of a civil conversation.
There you go again - you attack the person making the argument for lack of critical thinking and judgment instead of the argument itself. And you do this a LOT - I remember something like 4 years ago on Yehoodi you told me that I was unqualified to talk about counterbalance in dancing without a degree in kinesiology. Instead of disagreeing with my argument you chose to attack my knowledge and qualifications.
Look, I've seen what I've seen, I have my opinions on it, you've seen what you've seen, you have your opinions. Why can't you just say "I don't think you're correct for reasons A B C and D?" Why can't we agree to disagree? Why is it important for you to tear me down as someone who is not only incorrect, but additionally unqualified (or your word, "clueless") to talk about the dance? I may not be the teacher and scholar you are, but I have eyes and ears and experience, I talk to people and make judgments about the world just like any other human being. I don't form my opinions in some sort of uninformed vacuum.
Quote Now I have painted the "ABHC" with a broad brush, there will be the occasional exception, there always is. There are also self-identified blues dancers who do the same thing on the other side. It is unfortunate, and does not help. They are either so defensive (usually because it is not the 5th or 6th time they've had this argument but the 15th or 16th) that no conversation can happen and they are immediately dismissive, not even trying to provide counter examples.
So wait, are people defensive or are they not defensive?
Quote Then you have people Beckto (God bless her, I find her so damn funny on a number of topics, but she is too often the death of any real conversation in threads like this), who want to fan the flames. IF you want to have an open and honest conversation about Blues, boards like GBB is where they will happen. Everyone there is at least interested in discussing it, rather than trying to be Johnny Storm. You may get negative responses, but how you phrase things and how you respond to any initial negativity based on your last interactions with people about Blues is going to determine how productive that conversation is going to be.
Not everyone on Yehoodi is Beckto. You act like Yehoodi is full of people who are specifically out to denigrate blues dancing and fan flames. It's people stating opinions, opinions based on their personal experiences. And frankly, the way you guys tense up the moment anyone talks about blues on here, the way you avoid the arguments and instead attack the qualifications of the messenger, it contributes a LOT to these hostile discussions. You don't like people telling you you're wrong about the dance you study. Well I don't like people telling me that I'm wrong about the dancing I see on the floor with my two eyes. Like I said, we don't make this stuff up just to piss you off and slam blues. There's no agenda here.
You act like it is incorrect to disagree with you about blues dancing. If I'm saying "X is representative of the scene," and you think it isn't, those aren't facts, those are judgments, and it's fine for reasonable people to disagree about things given the same information. You can tell me all about your historical research and educate me about how amazing blues dancing can be, and heck, I'll grant you all that. None of it's not going to change my argument that there are quite a few humpers in your scene and that you have an uphill battle to change that. Which is all this conversation was ever about to begin with.
Originally posted Monday, April 21, 2008 (4 years ago)
Quoted from "dormouse"
Quoted from "Marcelo" I'm not so sure the dedicated blues dancers can define the humpers out of "blues dancing." It might be even more difficult, because "blues dancing," as Damon has said, is a broad term like "swing dancing."
I am.
Quote So while you can absolutely say that the humpers aren't "jookin" or whatever, you can't really deny that the humpers are "blues dancing,"
Yes I can.
And therein lies the fundamental disagreement. Good luck defining blues dancing. I'm sure you'll have just as much luck as the folks who wanted to define lindy hop over the years.
Originally posted Monday, April 21, 2008 (4 years ago)
Attacking the arguer versus argument... the argument is without merit, as has been pointed out. You have yet to demonstrate that you know what you are talking about when it comes to blues... I'm not denying that what you see is what you see, just that what you see is not what you think it is.
If you someone rubbing a girls nipples in the middle of a dance floor at a blues dance, you are going to say that is blues. I'm going to say that is some undersexed person with no concept of boundaries or what is an appropriate amount of PDA. The fact that person is an international lindy hopper does not in anyway influence my judgment, because the judgment is confined to the dancer, not broadened out in an attempt to condemn or define those who had no part in it.
And there in lies the difference. The argument is flawed and the lack of relative background on the part of the person bringing it up makes pointing out the inherent flaws in the argument pretty impossible. This is why nearly every conversation on the topic of blues ends up with the parties talking past each other.
Your camp says something. My camp points out the flaws in the statement. Your camp says there are no flaws you can't deny what we've seen/experienced. We say the flaw is there and your lack of knowledge is why you can't see the flaw. Your camp then assumes we are defensive and attacking the arguer rather than the argument, when in fact pointing out your ignorance on the subject is not an attack but pretty much a verifiable truth.
IF we reversed this and we were talking about Balboa, I could only make the most general statements about the dance, its history, proper form and such, and most of it would be me repeating things I had been told many years ago much more informed than I. If you said something was wrong, I'd probably say so-and-so said this, or something very much like it, to me X years ago. What part is wrong and how do you know. If it sounded like your info was better than mine, your opinions more informed, and the logic behind the statements reasonably sound I'd either capitulate or ask if I misunderstood what had been originally said. I'd seek to find the flaw in my understanding in what had been said and it resonates with what you were saying no.
We don't see that in Blues conversations because everyone automatically assumes they are experts on the matter. I call shennanigans.
Originally posted Monday, April 21, 2008 (4 years ago)
Just saying my argument is without merit doesn't make it so, dude. I've made several observations on this thread, most of which I think have plenty of merit:
There are humpers in the blues scene
Blues dancers can be extremely defensive about their scene
Blues dancers can be just as negative as lindy hoppers
Just saying something isn't part of your scene doesn't make it so
This is all somewhat parallel to older discussions about other styles
Many of these observations you haven't even touched, only to say that my posts are without merit. The only thing you specify as being without merit is the assertion that the humpers are blues dancers.
Now it would certainly be misinformed of me if I said it was the ONLY kind of blues dancing around. Acknowledging A does not mean B doesn't exist. What's misinformed about going to a blues dance, seeing certain behaviors and vibes, and drawing a conclusion from that data? It's an open-ended conclusion, ready to be changed with the addition of new data. I never said that there aren't any people who dance differently than that, I've merely said that A exists. You say I'm taking part in a broad condemnation of a group of dancers. Well that group doesn't include you. I've never condemned your dancing. I'm sorry that the dancers I do condemn use the same name as your dancing, as unfair as that is.
If I go in a blues dance and I see a guy rubbing a girl's nipple, and then I see something else, and something else, and I get a vibe from the place, it's not unreasonable nor misinformed of me to consider that that's at least part of "blues dancing," especially if I acknowledge that there are folks who don't do that. My conclusion allows for a broad definition of terms that changes over time. A can exist as well as B. Maybe you think that my opinion about the definition of blues dancing needs to change, but you can't FORCE my opinion to change by waving your credentials and denigrating mine.
But hey, you apparently own the term "blues dance" and are thus able to force your definition of it down everyone's throats, so whatever, right?
side note: Balboa is a bad example for all of this, because if you go to ten different old timers they'll all tell you different things. It's totally possible for two people to have access to the same information and yet come to totally different conclusions. So even if you said random stuff about Balboa and attributed it to old timers, my response wouldn't be "You don't know what you're talking about," it would be "I heard something different from this person, but they all change their stories anyway." And I bet if I said you didn't know you were talking about, if I just went out and dismissed you like you're dismissing me, you wouldn't be so high and mighty about expanding your knowledge. You'd be insulted and argue your experiences.
I would also argue that it's possible for two blues dancing experts (or non experts) to have access to the same data and completely disagree as well. But that's the nature of people.
Originally posted Tuesday, April 22, 2008 (4 years ago)
Quoted from "dormouse" the Nuevo Blues stuff that is mostly lindy hoppers or those who learned from (by lesson, watching or dancing with ) lindy hoppers mixing freestyle movement, and other dances they have studied.
As an aside, I recall going round and round with you about what this stuff should be called (if anything), and that beats the heck out of whatever I was arguing for.
Originally posted Tuesday, April 22, 2008 (4 years ago)
If that's what those dancers want to call their dancing, more power to 'em. History has taught us that those who try to externally impose a new label upon a group of dancers have failed miserably - again, see "groove dancers" in the lindy hop world. Back then many of those groove dancers argued that until they themselves naturally organically evolved a name for their dancing, there was no name given by others that would stick.
Until those guys decide on their own to stop calling their dancing "blues dancing," that label isn't going ANYWHERE.
Originally posted Tuesday, April 22, 2008 (4 years ago)
Rather going tit-for-tat with this, I'm just going to bow out of the blues part of this until you or someone else is willing to actually make clear defining statements that substantiate your points. It isn't worth it, nothing anyone is going to say is going to convince you that your opinion is incorrect and you refuse to provide any details that let anyone know what all your generalizations are really about. Nothing anyone says is going to convince you that what you think is a matter of opinion is really a matter of fact, that you just happen to not be aware of it. So I'm not going to try.
I do have a few points to address and then I'll just let you believe what you are going to believe.
Since when is pointing out someone's ignorance and truthful lack of experience a personal attack? My telling someone who has never studied cubism that the water color they did as taught at the local learning annex is NOT cubism is not a personal attack. When that person tries to argue that it is because they say so, and they have been to art museums, my pointing out that going to a museum that only has Italian renaissance artwork and so does not make their case at all, is STILL not a personal attack. The problem seems more like you don't like having your knowledge about something disregarded or called into question. No one does... but not liking it, or even getting cheezed off by it does not make it a personal attack.
I do attack the argument. I show to anyone with understanding and knowledge in the subject that the argument is wrong. If someone didn't like that and continued their statements, but without attacking the argument I had laid out, just saying I was wrong, I'm going to say they don't know enough to have a discussion about it... and I'd be right. You may not like it, you may consider it rude... but that does not mean it is not correct. You do the same thing in any number of threads. You just don't like it being done to you. shrug Not my problem. You've done it to me. I have no issue with there being people who know things I don't, or knowing more about a subject than I do. This is just the way the world is.
Quote You act like it is incorrect to disagree with you about blues dancing. If I'm saying "X is representative of the scene," and you think it isn't, those aren't facts, those are judgments,
Why is it so many people seem trapped in this? Having qualified a statement as saying it is your opinion/judgment does not somehow magically protect you from being wrong. I think the sky is plaid with pink paisley swirls, it's my opinion. It is also ridiculously wrong.
I have not defined Blues dancing, that definition was around well before I started teaching this stuff. I have been one of the people that made the existing definition more known, and more accessible by demonstration.
Your sampling size is too small to make definitive statements about the Blues "scene" (as if there were only one, another fault in the argument but no need to go into it). If we were talking about nearly anything else you'd realize this.
Originally posted Tuesday, April 22, 2008 (4 years ago)
Quoted from "CafeSavoy"
Quoted from "Swingboy" [...I wonder if the Salsa scene has imploded over all the scandalous sexual and stylistic dance behavior over there...? No, but I bet there are more than a few people arguing about it online somewhere...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salsa_(dance)
Strangely, even the ballroom people are starting in that direction but in a much more public place:
Quote Now Darius gestures in the vicinity of my midsection and says, "Availability means your core is active; it's engaged. And this allows the rest of the body--the arms, legs, neck, shoulders and hips--to be soft and fluid, not rigid. So the whole picture of our dancing can be really juicy." Sounds good to me.
I'm trying to be available, with my core engaged, and I notice little things like how my thighs press against his--this is critical because it's mostly through the thighs that he detects where I am and can move me around and take us to our next dance figure. And there's a benefit to me: I am steady enough for the bigger stretch through my whole upper body--no teeter-tottering on my tippy toes.
Originally posted Tuesday, April 22, 2008 (4 years ago)
Quoted from "Marcelo" I would ALSO note Keither, on a thread about being a lighter follow, joking about how people needed to lighten up in general. Beckto then made a blues dancing joke and got a PM about it from him. Lighten up, indeed.
Sorry, dude. Since that was a conversation you weren't privy to, you don't get to use it in your example. All you know is that I sent Beckto a PM - she's sent me plenty. It's not germane to this discussion, and you don't know the content, therefore, I take exception to your characterization.
Originally posted Tuesday, April 22, 2008 (4 years ago)
Quoted from "Keither"
Quoted from "Marcelo" I would ALSO note Keither, on a thread about being a lighter follow, joking about how people needed to lighten up in general. Beckto then made a blues dancing joke and got a PM about it from him. Lighten up, indeed.
Sorry, dude. Since that was a conversation you weren't privy to, you don't get to use it in your example. All you know is that I sent Beckto a PM - she's sent me plenty. It's not germane to this discussion, and you don't know the content, therefore, I take exception to your characterization.
And I can't tell him what you said? Didn't know that was a rule on here...
Originally posted Tuesday, April 22, 2008 (4 years ago)
Since when have "rules" had anything to do with you, darlin'? chuckle
Here's what I said, which I stand by:
Quoted from "Keither to Beckto in PM" you know how when you make a joke too many times it stops being funny?
you got there about a week ago.
if you'd like to be funny, by all means, be funny, but right now, you're doing it wrong.
So, Beckto, if you'd like to be funny, please.. do. I'm just trying to help you out in your quest to actually entertain as opposed to just being the entertainment. You read me incorrectly if you think that I get terribly upset about any of this.
So, even now, I'm curious as to how this post or anything about lightening up has anything to do with blues dance...
Originally posted Tuesday, April 22, 2008 (4 years ago)
OK- I'm going to take a risk- and post my personal opinion about Blues and Lindy. You are welcome to critique it if you like, but here goes.
I feel Lindy really doesn't have any rules. Some guiding principles-not really rules. There are several great teachers -who dance very well. I like to take lessons from all of them and steal a little here and there from the ones I like to watch. I take everything I get told in a lesson with a grain of salt- and never treat it as the end all be all of the dance. It's a good tip that I will likely try to apply and see if it works for me.
I consider the East coast Swingers at the back of Fram just as much a part of our Dance community as the lindy hoppers and balboa dancers and Soul dancers and Groovy lindy hoppers, and people dancing to blues.
I know that I can take one class from teacher x-and the next class from teacher y and they are likely to disagree on something. That is OK. I recognize that each instructor is just teaching me-what it is that they do. That's why I chose to take there class in the first place. I do not feel that anyone needs to be the authority on the dance.
I feel that Blues as a dance genre also has no rules. There are also some guiding principles that do give the dance a recognizable aesthetic-but still not rules. There are some great teachers that teach it very well- and actually do not dance it all that well. There are others who dance very well and do not teach at all. I enjoy learning from both! I do not count anyones opinion, way of teaching, or style, as the definition of what is blues! I just take a little of what I like from each instructor- flavor it with my own natural body movement, and have a great time dancing. The music is riveting and makes me want to dance. It empowers me. It even make me feel a little uninhibited-and that's OK! I consider the humpers just as much a part of our community as those who seek out an education in the dance.
I also feel thedance shouldn't be called blues dance-because it is often danced to music that isn't blues- but that opens up a whole new thread topic.
We are all out on the floor doing the dances we love-whatever level we may be at- and however we may choose to do them.
If a couple people hate blues as they see it. That's OK. If a couple of people hate balboa- that's Ok too. If someone wants to hate the ECS crowd go for it. We live in America where we are free to have opinions and voice them. This is wonderful!
Originally posted Tuesday, April 22, 2008 (4 years ago)
Quoted from "Keither" Since when have "rules" had anything to do with you, darlin'? chuckle
Here's what I said, which I stand by:
Quoted from "Keither to Beckto in PM" you know how when you make a joke too many times it stops being funny?
you got there about a week ago.
if you'd like to be funny, by all means, be funny, but right now, you're doing it wrong.
So, Beckto, if you'd like to be funny, please.. do. I'm just trying to help you out in your quest to actually entertain as opposed to just being the entertainment. You read me incorrectly if you think that I get terribly upset about any of this.
So, even now, I'm curious as to how this post or anything about lightening up has anything to do with blues dance...
shrug
I still find Beckto's blues humor incredibly amusing. The cat pictures especially. Keither, I might suggest that the jokes stopped being funny for you, but that's your issue...not Beckto's and not Yehoodi's.
To SHORTYJOY's post, I couldn't agree more.
On other notes, I agree with Marcelo and do feel Damon uses his resume pissing contest debating tactic far too frequently. Personally I consider such tactics a sure sign of weakness: If your argument can't stand on its own, if it needs such pissing contest crutches to support it, either the point itself is weak or the presentation skills of the one making the argument is weak.
Either way it basically is a signal that you've lost the debate, for if your resume really represents something real and meaningful, if it has real value, then you'd have the knowledge and presentation skills to easily make your points without having to resort to comparing resume penis sizes.
Originally posted Tuesday, April 22, 2008 (4 years ago)
Quoted from "Zenin"
Quoted from "Keither" Since when have "rules" had anything to do with you, darlin'? chuckle
Here's what I said, which I stand by:
Quoted from "Keither to Beckto in PM" you know how when you make a joke too many times it stops being funny?
you got there about a week ago.
if you'd like to be funny, by all means, be funny, but right now, you're doing it wrong.
So, Beckto, if you'd like to be funny, please.. do. I'm just trying to help you out in your quest to actually entertain as opposed to just being the entertainment. You read me incorrectly if you think that I get terribly upset about any of this.
So, even now, I'm curious as to how this post or anything about lightening up has anything to do with blues dance...
shrug
I still find Beckto's blues humor incredibly amusing. The cat pictures especially. Keither, I might suggest that the jokes stopped being funny for you, but that's your issue...not Beckto's and not Yehoodi's.
WHY DO YOU HAVE TO SPELL IT OUT!?!?!?
Now Yehoodi isn't going to be fun for me anymore...
Why Blues Dancers get such great respect
Big Outstanding Oberlin Blues Spectacular Seriously, what the [bleep!]?
Page(s): < Previous 1 2 ... 24 25 26 27 28 ... 30 31 Next > (927 items total)
That's an excellent point. :)
I'm sure she'll find some other excuse for weaseling out on her deal. :roll:
Martinis do not contain vodka. —Rachel Maddow
Can you cite some posts or is this just hyperbole. I happen to know that several people on here have been perfectly reasonable and not at all defensive when honest critiques about blues dancing have been brought up... the truth is most of the criticism about blues dancing has not been fair nor balanced, and is often times pretty misinformed. Defensiveness usually comes from repeated attacks, numerous attacks, or unfair attacks.
The problem here is that what we call blues and what you call blues may not (and by examples given to date pretty much aren't) the same thing. So when you say blues is X and when challenged cite dance Y as your example, we are going to say something along the lines of "No it isn't. It is Y that is like that blues is like A or sometimes B, but not Y." Your next comment is going to determine whether we are having a real discussion or if we are going to devolve into generalizations and general internet flaming. The more honest response would be something like, "what is the difference between A and Y? Why do they say it is Blues then? Why is that Blues and not Y?" But what we usually end up with is what you have above, "I've been to Blues dances and didn't see A, or saw some A but it was mostly Y, or you can say it is A but Y is all I ever see."
When you tell someone they are wrong about their own dance, one they have put a lot of time working on , studying, refining, and sharing with others (be it teaching, dj'ing, or promoting), especially when it is one you rarely if ever do, or have never really experienced what they are talking about, you are going to get defensiveness. If someone started spouting off random and totally untrue crap about Balboa, and lots of people were jumping in to do the same, I'm willing to bet you'd get a little annoyed (frustrated, mad, whatever), and would either seek to correct them, or at least do some damage control, or right them off as the clueless people they have revealed themselves to be.
Yet, you and several others seem to believe that their very limited experience trumps that of those who have been doing this for years (and in some cases decades). Now experience is not the end all be all of deciding who is right, but when the blues dancers point out things to be considered, rather than objectivity, it is met with dismissal, "that is not what I've seen, done etc."
Lack of judgment and critical thinking ends any chance of a civil conversation.
Now I have painted the "ABHC" with a broad brush, there will be the occasional exception, there always is. There are also self-identified blues dancers who do the same thing on the other side. It is unfortunate, and does not help. They are either so defensive (usually because it is not the 5th or 6th time they've had this argument but the 15th or 16th) that no conversation can happen and they are immediately dismissive, not even trying to provide counter examples.
Then you have people Beckto (God bless her, I find her so damn funny on a number of topics, but she is too often the death of any real conversation in threads like this), who want to fan the flames. IF you want to have an open and honest conversation about Blues, boards like GBB is where they will happen. Everyone there is at least interested in discussing it, rather than trying to be Johnny Storm. You may get negative responses, but how you phrase things and how you respond to any initial negativity based on your last interactions with people about Blues is going to determine how productive that conversation is going to be.
And seldemer is my hero.
There is a difference here that I don't know if you are doing purposefully. Seldemer is pointing out that ECS was not equated with Lindy Hop, and you are saying it was equated with Swing Dancing. Blues is a genre of dancing, of which the body-rolling, crapper-using, twitch-n-grope does not fall into. Just like someone doing a American ballroom foxtrot while you are doing swing-dancing does not fall into the same category despite both of you dancing to the same music.
Humpers do NOT belong in the same realm as blues dancers. The two are entirely different. That you believe that they aren't says more about you than it does about blues. And THAT is the point most blues dancers in this thread have been making over and over, for the last six to eight years.
Hmm...
So a swing band plays at a dance venue. Half the crowd is does nothing but Fox Trot, the other half Lindy.
"Hey Mr Lindy Hopper, is Fox Trot part of your scene?" "No, it's not at all because Fox Trot isn't Lindy Hop!"
Er, wait...the question answered was not the question asked. Yes, actually in this case Fox Trot is a huge part of this Lindy Hopper's dance scene...like it or not, completely different dance or not. It's just as nonsensical as claiming Balboa isn't part of your dance scene despite a significant percentage dancing it.
So someone throws a "Blues" dance. Half the crowd has been taking classes from Damon since before they could walk and dances the most perfect example of real Blues dancing ever seen. The other half of the crowd brings bottles of canola oil to the dance to spice up their 'dancing'.
Is the Crisco Crowd blues dancing? No more then the Fox Trotters are Lindy Hopping.
Is the Crisco Crowd at least partly representative of this example's dance scene? Of course they are and to try and claim otherwise just makes you appear foolish.
As much as I like- Damon- Zenin just won!
I am.
Yes I can.
Actually there isn't a lot of musical or stylistic cross-over... and depending on who you are lumping into the "humpers" crowd I even say there is no significant number of people who cross-over.
There is a difference between people swaying back and forth caressing each others necks and such, and those who are doing a dance that is just not related to the blues genre.
I'd say every dance scene that plays music that is slow will have some people who will try to get their swerve on in the middle of a dance. That is just part of being human at a social gathering with low lights and attractive (to someone) people. No one thinks the couple canoodling at the Grad in Davis, Ca on a Monday night is doing Country Western dancing, despite that is what music is being played. No one thinks a couple doing that at hip-hop club in LA, or a Latin Club in NYC. Why do people assume that it is indicative of Blues dancing as a genre? Tose music styling have their share of double and even single entendres, the dancing can be close and suggestive if the dancers choose. Yet, those dance genres aren't forced to accept or be identified by that couple. A house party of any music by a bunch of horney HS and college kids (and sadly yes, some 30-somethings as well) is going to often end up being mostly about hooking up and testing boundaries as it is going to be about the music being played and the kind of dance(s) associated with it.
Why isn't Blues afforded the same leeway?
You've said this before... who are you talking about? I know some of those who cried the "whatever I want is lindy hop" war cry who identify as blues dancers... and they are also the same crowd saying the same thing about Blues. I was always of the opinion that a number of the "That's not Lindy Hop" crowd were too narrow with their definition (must be indicative of what was being done pre-1945 and have film evidence to back it up), because it completely ignored the fact that Lindy Hop was still being danced in the 50's by the same dancers from the 30's and they said it was the samde dance and could point out why. My definition for what was Lindy Hop was taking a look at the asthetic of the dance in the late 20's all the way up to the early 50's finding the same elements and using that. So some of what wqas being called groove, was certainly Lindy Hop. Some of it was definitely not though related (in the same way as WCS, Hand Dancing, Stepping, and ECS), and some of it was unrelated and really was just straight personal improvisational partner dancing.
As to the connection between them, most groove dancers were lindy hoppers, who morphed into groove. Most humpers morphed from Lindy Hop (or Groove) into humpers. There was no passing through Blues along the way. In that regards a lot of what is being laid at the feet of Blues dancers... is actually lindy hoppers child.
IOW, the paternity test came back negative for Blues. Thanks Maury.
This is where we have to be very clear, several things have been argued in this thread often interchangeably -
IF a dance venue/event is roughly 50/50 I would say it is both part of a scene and representative of scene. Being in the same place does not make one part of the same community though. There are Hip-Hop clubs in LA where krumpers and breakers both gather, same scene as in venue, but outside of that particular establishment on that particular night, do not run in the same circles, go to the same battles, etc.
As to whether any two moves or movements are part of the same dance or genre or are representative of the same dance or genre, is determined by what the definition of that dance and genre is.
I'm not saying bad ECS is not a part of the DC swing scene (it is), I'm questioning whether saying it is part or representative of the DC Lindy community is a true statement. To me it is not. Different dances.
If Marcelo, or anyone else wants to lump "humpers" into blues dancing they are going to need to define Blues and show how humping fits in it. That is a conversation I'd love to have. I'd also ask that they define humping, so we know whether it is in fact just the overly suggestive rub up against someone dance that is done regardless of music in dozens of clubs in damn near every city in America, or if they are referring instead to the Nuevo Blues stuff that is mostly lindy hoppers or those who learned from (by lesson, watching or dancing with ) lindy hoppers mixing freestyle movement, and other dances they have studied. OR do they make no distinction between them.
The lack of the people on here for providing definitions or even meaningful descriptions by those who have been talking about blues in a more negative light, makes it extremely difficult to have a real conversation. They say one thing about blues which people on the pro side say either is not true about blues, or is present by only a small number of dancers who are not good at blues... yet, and then they say we are wrong.
It's all perspective. You see it as correcting misinformed people, I see it as a bunch of blues dancers pouncing on anyone who says anything negative about the concept of blues dancing. In every thread about blues dancing I see the same 5-6 people constantly trying to tell us that we're misinformed and don't know what we're talking about. You don't attack the argument, you attack the messenger. The strategy of attacking the messenger's qualifications rather than the argument itself (see your wife's lovely dismissal of my posts below) is a surefire sign to me that you guys are on a mission rather than merely responding to critique. I also note the tribal behavior of people like Martin, who scolds me for my tone while completely neglecting to talk about the tone of any of his blues dancing friends, when that tone was just as nasty if not moreso. I would ALSO note Keither, on a thread about being a lighter follow, joking about how people needed to lighten up in general. Beckto then made a blues dancing joke and got a PM about it from him. Lighten up, indeed.
From my point of view, if anyone so much as makes a freaking joke about blues dancing someone is there, ready to pounce on it. It's happened in this thread, in other threads, it's especially true when it's a joke made by me, Swifty, or another one of the established non-blues dancing people. I get IM's from people who are like "I went to that thread because I heard people were insulting blues" - it's like there's an Action Item or something on the internets, and along come the troops. Feel free to disagree with my analysis of the way y'all behave, but it has NOTHING to do with me being misformed about anything. It has to do with what I've observed as a regular poster on Yehoodi.
No one has ever said otherwise. The argument we've all made (and Zenin just nailed) is that it all falls under the common umbrella of "blues dancing," like it or not. That's the reputation. There are things that counter the reputation and things that reinforce it. Swifty's original post was about an event name that reinforced the reputation.
That's an extremely polite paraphrasing of a response that usually includes a personal attack about how we don't know what we're talking about and are unqualified to talk about it, a tactic you use a LOT, but okay.
So wait - the only response is to ask you questions? I can't disagree with you the way you disagreed with me?
How is that a bad response? It's someone sharing their personal experience.
"have never really experienced" is a MASSIVE assumption, but whatever. And are you admitting that people get defensive? Because earlier you said everyone is polite and rational. I've never said you're wrong about your dance - when have I critiqued the way you dance, or said that you specifically, Damon Stone, danced like a humper, or that you specifically were making incorrect statements about the dance you do, "jookin"? Saying "there are humpers in the blues dance scene and that's why they have that reputation" is not a critique about you.
There you go again - you attack the person making the argument for lack of critical thinking and judgment instead of the argument itself. And you do this a LOT - I remember something like 4 years ago on Yehoodi you told me that I was unqualified to talk about counterbalance in dancing without a degree in kinesiology. Instead of disagreeing with my argument you chose to attack my knowledge and qualifications.
Look, I've seen what I've seen, I have my opinions on it, you've seen what you've seen, you have your opinions. Why can't you just say "I don't think you're correct for reasons A B C and D?" Why can't we agree to disagree? Why is it important for you to tear me down as someone who is not only incorrect, but additionally unqualified (or your word, "clueless") to talk about the dance? I may not be the teacher and scholar you are, but I have eyes and ears and experience, I talk to people and make judgments about the world just like any other human being. I don't form my opinions in some sort of uninformed vacuum.
So wait, are people defensive or are they not defensive?
Not everyone on Yehoodi is Beckto. You act like Yehoodi is full of people who are specifically out to denigrate blues dancing and fan flames. It's people stating opinions, opinions based on their personal experiences. And frankly, the way you guys tense up the moment anyone talks about blues on here, the way you avoid the arguments and instead attack the qualifications of the messenger, it contributes a LOT to these hostile discussions. You don't like people telling you you're wrong about the dance you study. Well I don't like people telling me that I'm wrong about the dancing I see on the floor with my two eyes. Like I said, we don't make this stuff up just to piss you off and slam blues. There's no agenda here.
You act like it is incorrect to disagree with you about blues dancing. If I'm saying "X is representative of the scene," and you think it isn't, those aren't facts, those are judgments, and it's fine for reasonable people to disagree about things given the same information. You can tell me all about your historical research and educate me about how amazing blues dancing can be, and heck, I'll grant you all that. None of it's not going to change my argument that there are quite a few humpers in your scene and that you have an uphill battle to change that. Which is all this conversation was ever about to begin with.
And therein lies the fundamental disagreement. Good luck defining blues dancing. I'm sure you'll have just as much luck as the folks who wanted to define lindy hop over the years.
Attacking the arguer versus argument... the argument is without merit, as has been pointed out. You have yet to demonstrate that you know what you are talking about when it comes to blues... I'm not denying that what you see is what you see, just that what you see is not what you think it is.
If you someone rubbing a girls nipples in the middle of a dance floor at a blues dance, you are going to say that is blues. I'm going to say that is some undersexed person with no concept of boundaries or what is an appropriate amount of PDA. The fact that person is an international lindy hopper does not in anyway influence my judgment, because the judgment is confined to the dancer, not broadened out in an attempt to condemn or define those who had no part in it.
And there in lies the difference. The argument is flawed and the lack of relative background on the part of the person bringing it up makes pointing out the inherent flaws in the argument pretty impossible. This is why nearly every conversation on the topic of blues ends up with the parties talking past each other.
Your camp says something. My camp points out the flaws in the statement. Your camp says there are no flaws you can't deny what we've seen/experienced. We say the flaw is there and your lack of knowledge is why you can't see the flaw. Your camp then assumes we are defensive and attacking the arguer rather than the argument, when in fact pointing out your ignorance on the subject is not an attack but pretty much a verifiable truth.
IF we reversed this and we were talking about Balboa, I could only make the most general statements about the dance, its history, proper form and such, and most of it would be me repeating things I had been told many years ago much more informed than I. If you said something was wrong, I'd probably say so-and-so said this, or something very much like it, to me X years ago. What part is wrong and how do you know. If it sounded like your info was better than mine, your opinions more informed, and the logic behind the statements reasonably sound I'd either capitulate or ask if I misunderstood what had been originally said. I'd seek to find the flaw in my understanding in what had been said and it resonates with what you were saying no.
We don't see that in Blues conversations because everyone automatically assumes they are experts on the matter. I call shennanigans.
Just saying my argument is without merit doesn't make it so, dude. I've made several observations on this thread, most of which I think have plenty of merit:
Many of these observations you haven't even touched, only to say that my posts are without merit. The only thing you specify as being without merit is the assertion that the humpers are blues dancers.
Now it would certainly be misinformed of me if I said it was the ONLY kind of blues dancing around. Acknowledging A does not mean B doesn't exist. What's misinformed about going to a blues dance, seeing certain behaviors and vibes, and drawing a conclusion from that data? It's an open-ended conclusion, ready to be changed with the addition of new data. I never said that there aren't any people who dance differently than that, I've merely said that A exists. You say I'm taking part in a broad condemnation of a group of dancers. Well that group doesn't include you. I've never condemned your dancing. I'm sorry that the dancers I do condemn use the same name as your dancing, as unfair as that is.
If I go in a blues dance and I see a guy rubbing a girl's nipple, and then I see something else, and something else, and I get a vibe from the place, it's not unreasonable nor misinformed of me to consider that that's at least part of "blues dancing," especially if I acknowledge that there are folks who don't do that. My conclusion allows for a broad definition of terms that changes over time. A can exist as well as B. Maybe you think that my opinion about the definition of blues dancing needs to change, but you can't FORCE my opinion to change by waving your credentials and denigrating mine.
But hey, you apparently own the term "blues dance" and are thus able to force your definition of it down everyone's throats, so whatever, right?
side note: Balboa is a bad example for all of this, because if you go to ten different old timers they'll all tell you different things. It's totally possible for two people to have access to the same information and yet come to totally different conclusions. So even if you said random stuff about Balboa and attributed it to old timers, my response wouldn't be "You don't know what you're talking about," it would be "I heard something different from this person, but they all change their stories anyway." And I bet if I said you didn't know you were talking about, if I just went out and dismissed you like you're dismissing me, you wouldn't be so high and mighty about expanding your knowledge. You'd be insulted and argue your experiences.
I would also argue that it's possible for two blues dancing experts (or non experts) to have access to the same data and completely disagree as well. But that's the nature of people.
As an aside, I recall going round and round with you about what this stuff should be called (if anything), and that beats the heck out of whatever I was arguing for.
Dave
If that's what those dancers want to call their dancing, more power to 'em. History has taught us that those who try to externally impose a new label upon a group of dancers have failed miserably - again, see "groove dancers" in the lindy hop world. Back then many of those groove dancers argued that until they themselves naturally organically evolved a name for their dancing, there was no name given by others that would stick.
Until those guys decide on their own to stop calling their dancing "blues dancing," that label isn't going ANYWHERE.
Rather going tit-for-tat with this, I'm just going to bow out of the blues part of this until you or someone else is willing to actually make clear defining statements that substantiate your points. It isn't worth it, nothing anyone is going to say is going to convince you that your opinion is incorrect and you refuse to provide any details that let anyone know what all your generalizations are really about. Nothing anyone says is going to convince you that what you think is a matter of opinion is really a matter of fact, that you just happen to not be aware of it. So I'm not going to try.
I do have a few points to address and then I'll just let you believe what you are going to believe.
Since when is pointing out someone's ignorance and truthful lack of experience a personal attack? My telling someone who has never studied cubism that the water color they did as taught at the local learning annex is NOT cubism is not a personal attack. When that person tries to argue that it is because they say so, and they have been to art museums, my pointing out that going to a museum that only has Italian renaissance artwork and so does not make their case at all, is STILL not a personal attack. The problem seems more like you don't like having your knowledge about something disregarded or called into question. No one does... but not liking it, or even getting cheezed off by it does not make it a personal attack.
I do attack the argument. I show to anyone with understanding and knowledge in the subject that the argument is wrong. If someone didn't like that and continued their statements, but without attacking the argument I had laid out, just saying I was wrong, I'm going to say they don't know enough to have a discussion about it... and I'd be right. You may not like it, you may consider it rude... but that does not mean it is not correct. You do the same thing in any number of threads. You just don't like it being done to you. shrug Not my problem. You've done it to me. I have no issue with there being people who know things I don't, or knowing more about a subject than I do. This is just the way the world is.
Why is it so many people seem trapped in this? Having qualified a statement as saying it is your opinion/judgment does not somehow magically protect you from being wrong. I think the sky is plaid with pink paisley swirls, it's my opinion. It is also ridiculously wrong.
I have not defined Blues dancing, that definition was around well before I started teaching this stuff. I have been one of the people that made the existing definition more known, and more accessible by demonstration.
Your sampling size is too small to make definitive statements about the Blues "scene" (as if there were only one, another fault in the argument but no need to go into it). If we were talking about nearly anything else you'd realize this.
Strangely, even the ballroom people are starting in that direction but in a much more public place:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janet-carlson/how-ballroom-dancing-save_b_97217.html
YUCK!!!
-= SLEEPLESS NIGHTS =-
Sorry, dude. Since that was a conversation you weren't privy to, you don't get to use it in your example. All you know is that I sent Beckto a PM - she's sent me plenty. It's not germane to this discussion, and you don't know the content, therefore, I take exception to your characterization.
And I can't tell him what you said? Didn't know that was a rule on here...
Since when have "rules" had anything to do with you, darlin'? chuckle
Here's what I said, which I stand by:
So, Beckto, if you'd like to be funny, please.. do. I'm just trying to help you out in your quest to actually entertain as opposed to just being the entertainment. You read me incorrectly if you think that I get terribly upset about any of this.
So, even now, I'm curious as to how this post or anything about lightening up has anything to do with blues dance...
<img src="http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i114/jrhetz/TOWLIE.jpg"></img>
Thank you, Phlurg, for bringing some much needed sense to this conversation. :)
Nobody has ever accused me of making sense before. Damn you!!!
OK- I'm going to take a risk- and post my personal opinion about Blues and Lindy. You are welcome to critique it if you like, but here goes.
I feel Lindy really doesn't have any rules. Some guiding principles-not really rules. There are several great teachers -who dance very well. I like to take lessons from all of them and steal a little here and there from the ones I like to watch. I take everything I get told in a lesson with a grain of salt- and never treat it as the end all be all of the dance. It's a good tip that I will likely try to apply and see if it works for me.
I consider the East coast Swingers at the back of Fram just as much a part of our Dance community as the lindy hoppers and balboa dancers and Soul dancers and Groovy lindy hoppers, and people dancing to blues.
I know that I can take one class from teacher x-and the next class from teacher y and they are likely to disagree on something. That is OK. I recognize that each instructor is just teaching me-what it is that they do. That's why I chose to take there class in the first place. I do not feel that anyone needs to be the authority on the dance.
I feel that Blues as a dance genre also has no rules. There are also some guiding principles that do give the dance a recognizable aesthetic-but still not rules. There are some great teachers that teach it very well- and actually do not dance it all that well. There are others who dance very well and do not teach at all. I enjoy learning from both! I do not count anyones opinion, way of teaching, or style, as the definition of what is blues! I just take a little of what I like from each instructor- flavor it with my own natural body movement, and have a great time dancing. The music is riveting and makes me want to dance. It empowers me. It even make me feel a little uninhibited-and that's OK! I consider the humpers just as much a part of our community as those who seek out an education in the dance.
I also feel thedance shouldn't be called blues dance-because it is often danced to music that isn't blues- but that opens up a whole new thread topic.
We are all out on the floor doing the dances we love-whatever level we may be at- and however we may choose to do them.
If a couple people hate blues as they see it. That's OK. If a couple of people hate balboa- that's Ok too. If someone wants to hate the ECS crowd go for it. We live in America where we are free to have opinions and voice them. This is wonderful!
You're damn right!!! Shag is where its at, none of this Balboa nonsense.
OY.
there are two comparisons that bring any conversation to a halt: Hitler and Collegiate Shag
It's true. Look it up.
Nazi!
shrug
I still find Beckto's blues humor incredibly amusing. The cat pictures especially. Keither, I might suggest that the jokes stopped being funny for you, but that's your issue...not Beckto's and not Yehoodi's.
To SHORTYJOY's post, I couldn't agree more.
On other notes, I agree with Marcelo and do feel Damon uses his resume pissing contest debating tactic far too frequently. Personally I consider such tactics a sure sign of weakness: If your argument can't stand on its own, if it needs such pissing contest crutches to support it, either the point itself is weak or the presentation skills of the one making the argument is weak.
Either way it basically is a signal that you've lost the debate, for if your resume really represents something real and meaningful, if it has real value, then you'd have the knowledge and presentation skills to easily make your points without having to resort to comparing resume penis sizes.
WHY DO YOU HAVE TO SPELL IT OUT!?!?!?
Now Yehoodi isn't going to be fun for me anymore...
Page(s): < Previous 1 2 ... 24 25 26 27 28 ... 30 31 Next > (927 items total)
BBCode is no longer supported. Use Markdown instead: