Jookin -

What Liz said is technically correct, and does not invalidate my previous statements... there is something "missing" there though which because you lack the familiarity with story behind jookin' and the style itself, is not too surprising that you see a contradiction.

The dances I learned from my relatives from Memphis (which also includes some dances brought from Harlem since my great aunt spent her summers there and she was one of my prime resources) all had a very gritty, "janky" feel. They were very heavy in movement, used a lot more separate movements of various parts of the body to the melodic lines and rhythmically played instruments which all fit together in a complimentary way (and THIS long ass phrase is why polyphonic makes more sense in context). They were full dances and specific dance steps and styling that were often interchangeable with the music and done from the same body position, using the same techniques same kind of musicality.

In essence it was the dances they did when they went out dancing. It includes the Delta style of Slow Drag, Mooche, Grind, touch-n-go, knee-rock, shake, shimmy, shimmy-sha-wobble, gut-bucket, Struttin', boppin', fish-tail, fish-bone, shake-n-bake, etc. etc.

Some of these are dances in the vernacular use of the word and others are complete styels with their own moves, variations, etc.

When Liz said essentially everything after ballrooming were the jookin' dances she did not mean everything after ballrooming chronologically, but after ballrooming in the dances she listed. Which is true, though she placed Slow Drag above ballrooming and one of the styels of that dance is included.

Does that make sense? Our statements don't contradict each other so much as compliment each other.

Quoted from "asane"
Maybe I find it boring because I'm not at a blues level where I can put my follow voice in all the closed position stuff. It certainly takes a good level of proficiency to be able to do it in balboa, so I understand. Then again, I'm not seeing the blues "pros" do much of it either. Anybody got vids of the girls having any say in the closed stuff? Or point it out to me if it's happening in these vids and I'm blind?

Here is a quote from another blues thread that talks about following...

Quote
I strive to find or develop followers who are capable of doing their number one job... following. WAY to many followers can't. They have some ability about following any given move but can not or will not let the lead take them places... it is akin to someone stearing a conversation to the topic opf their choice or refusing to allow a topic to morph and turn. Now that souds overly harsh and I know several followers who are thinking right now, "but how come HE gets to decide? I have as much to say and offer as he does." The answer is simple and generally unsatisfying. HE is leading, not you. Period. If you want it otherwise learn to lead. That being said, it is an ideal to strive for. To be able to do it. Once you are capable of approaching each dance as a follower like an empty cup you will learn how to fill up the space in the cup the leader leaves. Some leaders will pour in just a little, giving you ample opportunity to have control over many aspects of the dance, others will share 50 of the creative and artistic control, some will give you more of one and less of another... But in all of it, if you have not learned how to "just follow"... how to listen and hear rather than talk, you will evetually step on your leaders leads. You will be so busy doing your thing you will miss something that is your responsibility. Following is very difficult. Very nuanced. IMO a much larger challenge than leading. In a lot of ways a follower does not have her own style or dance... she does what the leader asks, directs, suggests, mandates, always striving to match, create balance, find an equilibrium between her own artistic choices and what the leader is creating. If your leader leads you in grope and twitch or body rolls throughout a song your choice is simple follow them or not. Generally the communities "suggests" (and by that I mean demands) you follow your leader if they are not hurting you or violating you. Personally I think that is a load of BS. If a leader is doing something you don't like for any reason I think you should feel free, even encouraged, to inform them. I think the bad dancing would disappear within a year if every time someone lead something skeevy or uncomfortable, in any dance, the follower just raised an eyebrow and asked, "Why are you doing that?" Then again... I come from a culture where that is expected on the dance floor.

There is some stuff in there that is not particularly relevant, but I wanted the context of the statement to make sense so included the whole thing.

In short how much freedom you have depends on your leader, and which dance they choose to lead and how much freedom they want to give you in it.

However if you feel the freedom in Tango to dance with your own voice I'm not sure how you don't intellectually get the freedom that should be available to you in various blues dances.

There are some specific dances you'd probably click with a lot more than others, if we are ever at the same event I'd be happy to demonstrate some that you might enjoy more than the micro-blues travesty (seriousely whose idea was it to start dancing a musical exercise socially?) or something like classic Slow Drag or Drag Blues.

Oh lordy lord. I wondered how long it would be before either of these threads turned into a Zenin-tryin'-to-call-Damon-out fest.

Quoted from "redbean"
Oh lordy lord. I wondered how long it would be before either of these threads turned into a Zenin-tryin'-to-call-Damon-out fest.

I'm not going to get too bent out of shape about it this time though, so no worries.

Damon has a habit of offering very contradictory statements while stating there's no contradiction whatsoever. I've learned to just shrug for the most part; Trying to get him to logically resolve the holes in his statements rarely is a fruitful endeavor. If he can make sense of this one in his next reply, cool, but if not I'll drop it and shrug.

But I would love to see just one quintessential video example of Jookin'.

Quoted from "Zenin"
Do you see why this isn't making sense? Either Jookin' is an arbitrary subset of generic dances. Or it's a unique dance style of its own (reguardless if it happens to partly include generic dances or not) It can't logically be both.

Maybe it is me and I'm not explaining this well. Let me slow down and break down even more.

There are a lot of specific styles of different dance types. Lindy Hop has a lot of styles and within those major styles there are smaller subsets and even styles unique to specific cities, parts of town, venues, and even individuals. Some of the dancers in specific regions, cities, parts of town, venues dance several dances using the same style (which is not to say that individual dancers don't have their own sub-sub-styles unique to themselves).

Jookin' is how my family danced those specific dances. Any one can teach Mooche, Grind, etc. but the term jookin' was brought to the modern blues community referring to a specific way to dance those specific dances as I learned them as well as the specific sub-aesthetic that can be applied to free-style dancing. Now if someone were to use the term jookin' and refer it to something else entirely, I'd find it a little annoying, but as a historical term used to talk about going to a jook joint (the way we use clubbing meaning dancing, drinking, socializing in a club, and even picking up and being picked up by the appropriate sex) I would have no real complaint (see the clip called jukin' referenced earlier). However if it is someone claiming to teach this specific way to do those listed (and unlisted) dances who has not studied under me, my family or those who did those dances in that specific way, I'm probably going to call them on it.

For a more detailed description of how this happened why not try reading the post covering it on gargleblasterblues.com

Quote
Perhaps a video clip of Jookin' would help demonstrate? This is a blues clip thread after all. ;-) I don't think I've found a "This is Jookin'" clip as yet (although being as I can't really understand what you mean when you say Jookin' it's doubtful I'd know it if I saw it).

That clip Steven posted is pretty much jookin' throughout if I remember correctly. If you want I can point out the specific dances and steps being used, but it is probably the best example of jookin' as a form and style available online.

Slow Drag and Drag Blues... are not interchangeable they reference different dances. Drag Blues (as I understand it) is what Chance and Amy called their style of blues dancing.

It is a modern form, not a historical one, IIRC it was inspired by various clips and using the drag steps from lindy hop and more importantly the music they really enjoyed dancing to. They've taught it and many people watching them have been inspired by the style. One of the reasons I love it so much is despite it being modern blues, it is so easily identifiable as blues, and when placed next to various historical styles it is hard if not impossible to identify it as being the modern form. Compare that to what a lot of people try to pass off as 'modern blues' and the difference is obvious.

Slow Drag is a dance which started late in the 19th century and has been danced to very nearly every style of blues in some form. It is essentially a modified one-step in its root form, but some versions utilize a two-step basic. The movement style for all the forms I'm familiar with are significantly less athletic than the Drag Blues style, all the documented styles from the 20th century are of the more lowdown or down home styles.

Drag Blues looks like it mixes classic Slow Drag's stride with ballrooming moves, and lindy drags, with a style that is not really attributable to a single one of them but combines all of them. You could call it a blues fusion.

Quoted from "dormouse"
Slow Drag and Drag Blues... are not interchangeable they reference different dances. Drag Blues (as I understand it) is what Chance and Amy called their style of blues dancing.

Unlike in lindy where there are a lot of unique unnamed styles, it sounds like everyone is naming their own style of blues, which may not really be so different from a lot of other people's styles.

I shall now call my slow dancing "balues," which I'd like to think is a modified balboa/swing. People have asked to learn it, thinking it's blues. Seems like any slow swingish dance passes for blues these days even without trying, so this clips thread should get quite long and the list of blues dances even longer!

A more appropriate analogy would be Erik and Sylvia trademarking their style of dancing as "Hollywood Style" and making a living selling that brand.

So...wait, so these historical sounding names like "Drag Blues" and "Jookin'" are just brand names for the individual styles of specific dancers today?

Quoted from "dormouse"
Asane, there is a mistake in your statement hat you may not know about. Lindy is a kind of Swing Dance. Swing Dance is a genre made up of a multitude of individual dances with many styles named and unnamed. Slow Drag is a kind of Blues Dance. Blues Dance is a genre made up of a multitude of individual dances with many styles named and unnamed. (...) This goes back to the blues != groping/body-rolls/tango or any of the other stuff that gets called blues and is used by lindy hoppers as an example of what is wrong with blues dancing, dancers, and scene. I would say yes but not for the reasons they think more often than not.

There's a rub however: Swing dances share a common style of music, but not a common aesthetic. Some have a very distinctive pulse, others do their best to remove any trace of a pulse. Some have a low, athletic posture while others are very upright. The list goes on and on with the only truly unifying aspect being the music. The only practical definition of a swing dance is a dance that was crafted to be danced to swing (with a small s) music.

But Blues Dancing... Blues enthusiasts on the whole are very quick to point out that Blues Dancing is not simply dancing done to Blues music. The aesthetic is the defining factor that determines if you're blues dancing or dancing something else.

So if one looks at it from the Swing Dancer's point of view...if you're dancing to the music...and that music is Blues...you're Blues Dancing. Of course that's incorrect, but understanding the basis for that assumption might help when trying to correct it. The two dance genres simply have different defining values and you can't use one's values to define something from the other.

Quoted from "Zenin"
There's a rub however: Swing dances share a common style of music, but not a common aesthetic.

I disagree. Are you saying that someone could not describe a general aesthetic that covers, posture, frame/physical connection, rhythmic movement/footwork, and partner dynamic that covers the various swing dances?

You don't see any similarity between WCS, ECS, Lindy Hop, Steppin, Hand Dance, Carolina Shag, etc.?

They all certainly do not dance to Swing music, nor do they even all dance to jazz. But maybe there are some elements that cross the musical genres and sub-genres that the majority of the founding music matches?

Quote
So if one looks at it from the Swing Dancer's point of view...if you're dancing to the music...and that music is Blues...you're Blues Dancing. Of course that's incorrect, but understanding the basis for that assumption might help when trying to correct it. The two dance genres simply have different defining values and you can't use one's values to define something from the other.

Er... yes and no. The problem as Tommy has pointed out is most swing dancers are not dancers. Many don't understand what they are doing or why they are doing it, but because they can swing out they feel qualified to comment on everything under the sun in regards to swing dancing and Swing dancing, and hell any other dance they decide they have expertise via their years of dancing lindy hop.

There are values between the genres, after all they came from the same culture and in a number of cases the same people. I think you may mean that the current dancers have different values, and I won't disagree with that at ALL.

Thanks for the information. I still see a parallel between those terms and a term like "Hollywood Style." Both are derived from historical dances, but are modern terms created by modern dancers to brand their dancing. You said so yourself that you would be upset if someone took the name Jookin' and started peddling it around and you didn't know them or train them. Erik and Sylvia felt the same way about "Hollywood Style," so they trademarked it (a pretty rash move, but it was a bigger business then).

I feel like I have more to say on the subject (nothing really argumentative or anything), but I need to think about it first. Nonetheless I see the distinction you're trying to make.

Quoted from "Marcelo"
And I ain't touching tommy's post with a ten foot pole.

Yeah I know I just put a big gas soaked log in the yehoodi fire but I felt it needed to be pointed out. I grew up in a very musical family that danced a lot and I am sure that this isn't totally unique but it isn't the status quo of the swing dancers I know. It gives a different perspective..

I get what you're saying. Now if you'll allow me to stray off topic and be nitpicky on a minor issue that has NOTHING to do with our original back-and-forth:

Quote
If someone copied every move in the Groovie Movie and got down Arthur and Jean Veloz's style most people would call what they are doing Hollywood style (at least back then). It is a bit different than someone creating their own swing dance which was NOT lindy hop but calling it Hollywood style.

Technically if you copied every move in Groovie Movie and got down the style that wouldn't be "Hollywood Style" in the strictest sense of the term. "Hollywood Style" and the commonly understood methods of Hollywood dancers like Jean Veloz, Dean Collins, etc. are not the same. Not just in the branding, but there are technical differences between the method Erik and Sylvia taught as "Hollywood Style" and what Dean, etc. were doing. E&S took Dean's swingout and modified it to make it a little more teachable to the Savoy style crowd. The main differences are in the in the 4, 5, and 6 of the swingout. It looks the same as what Dean does but it's mechanically very different.

The confusion comes from the fact that "Hollywood Style" as a name is insanely catchy and is used as a generic name for that whole subset of LA-inspired dancing, so it's used interchangeably (in violation of the trademark, ironically) with anything Dean Collins touched. But there ARE functional differences.

Like I said, it has nothing to do with the original points either of us were making, but it just goes to show how finicky labels can be. :)

Sweet I get to split hairs! Thanks for the correction, though I stand by the statement that most people would call it Hollywood style... not that it would be correct, but everything that was "whippy" was being called Hollywood, just as everything that wasn't was called Savoy.

Neither was accurate, but there it is.

It is off-topic, and the above was a technicality, I did completely forget that there were changes that had been made from the old-time LA dancers. Thanks for the reminder you were totally right about the differences.

[warning: shameless plug]

I think that instead of talking endlessly about all those things, you all should come to Ottawa on April 4-6 and then get hands-on experience in what Damon is trying to say :P

Blues Blast

[end of shameless plug]