Quoted from "JSAlmonte"
...Theoretically the only place they could do that is some sort of performance oriented event.

Ain't that was a Showcase or Cabaret Division is for? See Kelly's modern dance pieces or Doug Silton's ball dancing whatnot... --R

If the dance has changed soo much over the last few years is it still considered Lindy Hop?

I mean with people making all these changes maybe it has evolved into an entirely different dance.

Rhumba is Rhumba, Tango is Tango but has Lindy Hop changed so much it needs to be renamed?

Quoted from "JSAlmonte"
No time for an in depth response, but I think you'll hear a fair number of people who will disagree that ULHS has not changed over the years. ... It can be argued that ULHS has done more to change the dance and the community as opposed to reacting to changes.

I agree. I can generally guess what year a ULHS clip is from by the music and the dancing in the finals. At ULHS, there are always new air-steps every year. Everyone else starts copying those and the end up in other comps.

I'm really hard pressed to guess what year an ALHC clip is from. While the music and dancing (and competitors too) have changed a bit over the years, I find that change is really slow at ALHC. I can spot a 1999 clip vs a 2007 clip but I'm really hard pressed to tell a difference between '99 and '02/'03 when the track pants disappeared.

DDD, clearly you are really fond of ALHC and judging from the number of times your name appears on the list of winners, ALHC is an event you know well. Do you compete at ULHS, Camp Hollywood, Camp Jitterbug, etc.?

BTW, speaking of CJ, I was really impressed with the caliber of dancing this year, particularly in the couples contest. Lots of the usual suspects in the finals but they were bringing out new stuff that I haven't seen before.

One of the main differences I see between ALHC and ULHS is that ULHS has more variance in style between the competitors. It's like there is a box and ALHC says fit in this box and ULHS says here's a box, you can play inside or outside, just stay near the box.

As for my own opinion on the matter...

I like that our community has lots of different events with different feels and vibes and priorities and ideas and rules, etc. I wasn't a happy girl when all the comps we had seemed to be copying each other and it was like all the same event in a different hotel. I am a much happier girl now that every time I go to a different event I have different expectations and know I'll have a different type of experience.

Camp Hollywood is totally different than ULHS is totally different from ILHC is totally different from Camp Jitterbug is totally different from US Open and on and on.

And that's a GOOD thing for this community.

A) It means people can choose the event they want to attend based on their priorities and what they enjoy.

And B) it means that those of us who attend many events can have different experiences at each of them. And let's face it, that's more fun.

Quoted from "Double Down Dave"
No need for name calling. DDD

? What name did I call you?

Quoted from "Double Down Dave"
The originality comes not only from the dancing, but also the format in which it is presented. Event promoters and judges determine the format... the dancers then try and do their best inside that format. If event promoters and judges don't have the power to determine the format, then it is the dancers who are making their own rules and breaking them as they see fit. There is inherent weakness of thought if the dancers aren't being challenged by anyone but themselves. Just my opinion. DDD.

I think I know what you re getting at, but I have to take issue with who you re putting the under the umbrella of dancers. It seems like you re just talking about competitors, but as I mentioned before, our scene isn t that big relatively speaking. Most, if not all, event promoters, not to mention judges and teachers are active dancers. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, it seems like you would be advocating for some sort of governing body of non-dancers dictating standards. cough WRRC cough DanceSport cough . Now I m pretty sure you didn t intend that, but you can see where your line of thought is going, or at least where I follow it.

So yes, dancers are the ones primarily challenging themselves, and with that does comes a danger of group think. I don t entirely disagree with the notion that for all its intent on creativity with no rules, that ULHS does produce a certain amount of stylistic homogeneity especially among intermediate dancers that pay attention. However, as Nicole noted, ULHS was structured like that because people saw the same thing happen at events like ALHC.

Watching the scene evolve with both events has convinced me that no one has come up with the perfect solution to remedy this issue, and I'm not sure we ever will.

That s why I think the weakness that you re referring to is inherent in contests in general. By definition, they reward the best, but best doesn t necessarily mean creatively original. Most people will process that as the best of what we ve already seen because different is simply too risky to bank on to win a contest.

The presidential election is a perfect example of this as the candidates are trying to push the idea that they are different from what s come before, but not too different because people have a natural suspicion of the unknown.

There s just so far you can put yourself out there before you start losing people s benefit of the doubt. Dancers have it a little easier because they don t have an opposition actively trying to discredit them during their performance. (Although I think it would be incredibly amusing to see a contest or performance with a Live At The Apollo type audience participation.)

As I mentioned before I m not sure what else can be done in the realm of competitions to foster different kinds of originality. There are just so many formats, rules, or guidelines you can have, and honestly I m not sure there are many left that have not been tried for Lindy Hop. Although, I think Amy Johnson s latest move to make performance divisions done to live music is pretty daring, and I'm super curious to see how it turns out.

In the end though, I m not sure the next major level of development in the Lindy Hop community is going to come from any competition no matter how you structure it or who s calling the shots. It has to come from the dancers. That s what vernacular essentially means if you consider Lindy Hop a vernacular jazz dance. If the dancers don t have a significant say in how it develops, then why should they bother making the effort at all?

The question remains how to encourage dancers to make original contributions to the dance, whether it s through competitions or some other vehicle. Whatever it is, it has to be done in an atmosphere where risk taking is valued, and feedback is given and received in a constructive manner. This is especially true when a performance sucks because if you re going to try to open up an experimental forum, then chances are that you re going to see a lot of crap. But you want to be able to continue fostering people to improve and try again instead of discouraging them and leading them to rely on the tried and true, which is the perception of and reaction to competitions that most people can't seem to shake.

Jerry

(One thing I m waiting for is people to choreograph performances just for the Intertubes. I m not talking about posting a routine performed at local dance, but an actual artistic piece just for the satisfaction of doing it. Youtube is the perfect vehicle for people to put something out there without the pressure of screwing up a one shot deal in front of an audience, or having the context of your piece coming in last place. Sure it sounds narcissistic, but isn't that the definition of YouTube?)

Quoted from "Double Down Dave"
Yes, it can certainly be argued that ULHS has done more to change a lot of things. I'd like to hear your in depth response Jerry, before I get into another one myself.

My answer was going to address this, but obviously meandered off in another direction. I'd give it another shot, but I'm not sure a point by point laundry list would accomplish much of anything. I think there are larger meta issues about all comps that are more interesting to discuss.

Also, I think it may read like I have an ax to grind against comps, but I'm actually a very big fan. It's just that I think that there are certain limitations about such events, and I think we'd all be better off if we were more conscious of them.

Jerry

Quoted from "Double Down Dave"
I can see that, yes, however we've tried creating rules that were all encompassing before with drastic failure (see ALHC circa 2001) and labeling them "Lindy Content". Which is not to say that this rule is not in place in several different competitions around the U.S. (maybe the world, I don't know). Whether it is called "Swing Content" at the U.S. Open or "Lindy Content" at the ALHC it is a silly rule that seems to keep everyone honest and in the realm of swing dancing, but in fact gives judges and events a homogeny to them. This term "Lindy Content" is, I believe, one of the main reasons for the development of competitions like "Hellzapoppin" at the HJDF and ULHS.

The problem with Lindy Content has always been one of definition, meaning that there has never been a satisfying one offered especially from event promoters. Look back at every competition thread on Yehoodi, or anywhere else for that matter, asking someone, anyone, to clarify it, and the conversation either dies for lack of information or sparks a conflagration because no one can get a straight answer.

Quoted from "Double Down Dave"

Quoted from "JSAlmonte"
As I mentioned before I m not sure what else can be done in the realm of competitions to foster different kinds of originality. There are just so many formats, rules, or guidelines you can have, and honestly I m not sure there are many left that have not been tried for Lindy Hop. ...snip... The question remains how to encourage dancers to make original contributions to the dance, whether it s through competitions or some other vehicle.

The most important problem yet posed. How exactly do we inspire ourselves, our peers, and our art form? An answer to that might be a worthy pursuit. Any theories, Jerry? DDD

As I mentioned before I don t think a satisfying answer is going to be found in the competitive arena. We ve had too many rules (ALHC), no rules (ULHS), and in between (NJC and now ILHC). That s not to say that we haven t seen great dancing because there s been a ton. But there hasn t been a real game changer since Mad Dog. And at its heart, that was less about rules and more about values (technical skill vs emotion). But the very idea of a competition is going to limit the way people are going to approach it no matter how you structure it.(see previous posts)

Of course, one has to wonder if a game changer is really necessary at all.

In regards to your comments about innovation, I don't disagree with any of it. That s not to say a new way of innovating in contests does not exist, but listening to people yap, theorize, and experiment with contest formats since I ve been dancing leads me to believe that we ve exhausted viable alternatives in the confines of a competition event.

I get spoiled here in DC because I ve seen some brilliant stuff that s never seen the light of day outside of people s living rooms because there s been no where for them to perform it. Buried in my meandering posts are two suggestions: 1. A performance based event that allows lets performers to experiment with their ideas. 2. Internet based performances.

I maintain that if you want to see something truly out of the ordinary, I think we re going to have to look outside of the competition genre to provide it. Although I may have to reserve my final judgment until after this year's ULHS with its unique take on the performance divisions.

Jerry

Quoted from "JSAlmonte"
The problem with Lindy Content has always been one of definition, meaning that there has never been a satisfying one offered especially from event promoters. Look back at every competition thread on Yehoodi, or anywhere else for that matter, asking someone, anyone, to clarify it, and the conversation either dies for lack of information or sparks a conflagration because no one can get a straight answer.

I think the problem with "Lindy Content", and with the "Anything Goes" modus operandi is the interpretation of the rules ultimately made by the judges. As an ideal, "Lindy Content" is not a bad rule. Giving reason to making a Lindy Hop competition instead of something else. However, it is arbitrary and subjective, providing a definition to a dance that thrives on inspiration and bending interpretation.

Just as arbitrary, however, is judging without rules. Without a basis for what qualifies as Lindy Hop, the judges must decide for themselves who the most talented dancer, or dancers are. There is no learning curve as the judges may not give definition to what is required of the dancers to win, or even place in the competition for that would then provide a rule to a competition that is devoid of them. The judges then are looking for an unquantified quality that is as arbitrary as a definition of "Lindy Hop" itself.

Quoted from "JSAlmonte"
As I mentioned before I don t think a satisfying answer is going to be found in the competitive arena. We ve had too many rules (ALHC), no rules (ULHS), and in between (NJC and now ILHC). That s not to say that we haven t seen great dancing because there s been a ton. But there hasn t been a real game changer since Mad Dog. And at its heart, that was less about rules and more about values (technical skill vs emotion). But the very idea of a competition is going to limit the way people are going to approach it no matter how you structure it.(see previous posts) Of course, one has to wonder if a game changer is really necessary at all.

A "game changer", as you put it, seems only to be a stop-gap to what is ultimately either a flawed system or a flawed dance. A flawed system of competition because it does not allow for innovation, or a flawed dance because it does not allow for definition beyond a name that describes a dance with a capricious nature. As with every "game changer" that comes along, the dance changes sometimes before our very eyes and therefore our ideas of what is possible and what is popular also change.

As human beings, and as Lindy Hoppers, the judges are subject to a popular viewpoint just as anyone else is. Thus their ideas of what is good dancing, and what is good Lindy Hop, are often based upon those "game changers" or at least the most recent one in memory.

"Game Changers" however do not change the system, but merely through their brilliance and inspiration, change the arbitrary ideals of the system and what defines "good dancing."

Quoted from "JSAlmonte"
In regards to your comments about innovation, I don't disagree with any of it. That s not to say a new way of innovating in contests does not exist, but listening to people yap, theorize, and experiment with contest formats since I ve been dancing leads me to believe that we ve exhausted viable alternatives in the confines of a competition event.

I am in complete agreement that people yapping, theorizing, and experimenting with contest formats is exhausting as there seems no end to it, and perhaps there isn't. You can create as many competitions as you'd like but it all comes down to what the audience and especially, the judges, like the most. A subjective viewpoint, to be sure.

How else were West Coast Swing, Carolina Shag, and even Lindy Hop developed as dances? Using inspiration from its predecessors all dances find their own identity. For isn't that what we've been doing? Trying to find our identity as a dance and as dancers? We can not recreate the past without our own identities as people informing on what the dance becomes in the future.

Quoted from "JSAlmonte"
I get spoiled here in DC because I ve seen some brilliant stuff that s never seen the light of day outside of people s living rooms because there s been no where for them to perform it. Buried in my meandering posts are two suggestions: 1. A performance based event that allows lets performers to experiment with their ideas. 2. Internet based performances. Basically if you want to see something truly out of the ordinary, I think we re going to have to look outside of the competition genre to provide it. Although I may have to reserve my final judgment until after this year's ULHS with its unique take on the performance divisions. Jerry

I think you have just told me that there really is no hope in competition-based inspiration, but that your judgment must be reserved until you see just one more competition... to make sure that either you are right or wrong? Or some other reason?

Would seeing just this year's ULHS really have the merit to produce your FINAL judgment? What about next year? What about the ILHC? Maybe inspiration will find its way to the ALHC this year? Who knows where it really lies?

Then you have also given an idea for what could make a better format for finding the inspiration in dance.

Quoted from "JSAlmonte"
Buried in my meandering posts are two suggestions: 1. A performance based event that allows lets performers to experiment with their ideas. 2. Internet based performances.

If you combined the two ideas, what would you get? I think I have a few ideas myself.

Any chance you'll be at the ALHC this year? It'd be cool if we could grab a beer and keep this conversation going. It's been entertaining to say the least.

DDD

Quoted from "Addict"

Quoted from "Double Down Dave"

Quoted from "JSAlmonte"
The problem with Lindy Content has always been one of definition, meaning that there has never been a satisfying one offered especially from event promoters. Look back at every competition thread on Yehoodi, or anywhere else for that matter, asking someone, anyone, to clarify it, and the conversation either dies for lack of information or sparks a conflagration because no one can get a straight answer.

I think the problem with "Lindy Content", and with the "Anything Goes" modus operandi is the interpretation of the rules ultimately made by the judges. As an ideal, "Lindy Content" is not a bad rule. Giving reason to making a Lindy Hop competition instead of something else. However, it is arbitrary and subjective, providing a definition to a dance that thrives on inspiration and bending interpretation. Just as arbitrary, however, is judging without rules. Without a basis for what qualifies as Lindy Hop, the judges must decide for themselves who the most talented dancer, or dancers are. There is no learning curve as the judges may not give definition to what is required of the dancers to win, or even place in the competition for that would then provide a rule to a competition that is devoid of them.

It's true that its just as arbitrary, but why would that lead to no possibility of a learning curve? A judge can be told to use their own judgement solely instead of an published set of criteria, and still pass along critiques of the dancers if they so choose.

Quote
The judges then are looking for an unquantified quality that is as arbitrary as a definition of "Lindy Hop" itself.

I'm pretty confident everyone who's judged at the Showdown has a solid idea of what they consider to be Lindy Hop. Why is it a bad idea for them to be allowed to solely use their own judgement, rather than somebody else's definitions and/or criteria?

Don't you get it? Judges are stupid. Dancers are stupid. They need it spelled out for them. Without rules and definitions people will probably just stop dancing. And certainly stop dancing well. There are people who know best. And we should all just trust them blindly to make up our minds for us.

I mean, come on. There has been no good dancing at any event without rules and definitions. Not once. And certainly no innovation. Basically nothing of interest to anyone. That's why nobody goes to those events. Because they're bad events.

Without someone or something to follow with blind faith Lindy Hop will die. And we will all be the reason for it.

Thank god we have smarter people than us stupid dancers, competitors, choreographers, performers, social dancers, and judges to make sure we're dancing correctly.

I, for one, am so grateful.

i :roll: :roll: :roll:

And, I agree that it makes it tough for competitors -- how do we know what to work on when we don't even know what the judges will be looking for? When the judges themselves don't have a set idea (not a general idea -- I believe anybody good enough to be a judge has a pretty strong general idea of what lindy hop is) with specific techniques that make lindy hop both original and high-level, they don't have a good basis to judge others. It's at that point when facial recognition ends up in the equation, because those end up being the dancers they remember the most in the end when all they're looking for is a couple that somehow "stands out."

Quoted from "Addict"
It's true that its just as arbitrary, but why would that lead to no possibility of a learning curve? A judge can be told to use their own judgement solely instead of an published set of criteria, and still pass along critiques of the dancers if they so choose. I'm pretty confident everyone who's judged at the Showdown has a solid idea of what they consider to be Lindy Hop. Why is it a bad idea for them to be allowed to solely use their own judgement, rather than somebody else's definitions and/or criteria?

A learning curve would be present if everyone had the same idea of what "Lindy Hop" is. You have said that all the judges should be able to use their own judgment, and that all those who are judged (read: competitors) should use their judgment. The judges should then give feedback to dancers as to why they didn't place higher. If everyone were thinking the same thing about "Lindy Hop" then this would not be a problem.

As it happens, we don't even WANT everyone thinking the same things or having the same ideas about what "Lindy Hop" is, as that would create homogeny to an interpretive and innovative dance style. As judging comes down to opinion, a dancer might hear two differing (possibly polar opposite) critiques for the same dance from two different judges. The application of a learning curve to judging criteria that has no base is then reliant on whether or not the judges think the same way, and would give the competitor the same critique. A Catch-22 of sorts, as we don't want the judges thinking the same thing at the same time, to avoid standardization, but we also want to learn from them what we did wrong, so we might improve.

Quote
Why is it a bad idea for them to be allowed to solely use their own judgement, rather than somebody else's definitions and/or criteria?

It is not a bad idea, by any measure, to rely solely on your own judgment as to what makes good "Lindy Hop". It is also not a bad idea, however, to allow someone else's judgment or rules push you towards becoming a better dancer. Neither ALHC, nor ULHS, nor any other competition I've seen, would I call a "bad idea." Two completely different kinds of competition can exist because we live in a pluralistic society. It is what creates diversity of thought, brings brilliance to a competitive dance floor and gives everyone a choice of what they'd like to see there.

DDD

Theoretical discussion is great. I welcome it and often participate in it.

What I don't like is theoretical discussion that completely ignores what is actually happening in the real world.

The competitions that exist without rules are flourishing. People are attending, competitors are "bringing it", and creativity in dance abounds. I can cite several examples of routines or improv performances that sparked new trends, changed the way we see our dance, and innovated in ways that we hadn't seen before from those very events.

Here's the kicker, though - the same thing happens at events with rules, too.

Which means it's NOT the rules or lack thereof that has anything to do with why we innovate or how we innovate.

You can feel free to keep discussing it but I recommend at least CONSIDERING what's happening in real life while doing so.

The proof is in the pudding.

Great new sh t happens at events with lots of rules and great new sh t happens at events without them.

I can see how having rules might make one innovate in different ways than when not having rules, but I have not seen one shred of evidence that they will hinder innovation from happening either way.

And to suggest so just ignores the evidence. So why do it?

(I mean, come on! People dance the EXACT SAME ROUTINES at both events so there can't be THAT much difference!)

As to judging, if you think judging at events with lots of rules doesn't include personal interpretation, bias, and face recognition, then, well, I'm sorry but you're just wrong.

This happens in all judging situations. Good judges are better at fighting this, rules or no rules. If an event hires good judges then they will get less bias, if they don't then no amount of rules will help. (I mean, really, unless their friends are dancing the chacha, how would a rule about lindy content keep a judge from moving their friend to the finals?)

The real and unwavering truth is that judging lindy hop is and always will be subjective (unless we become DanceSport - which I know nobody wants, not even those who appreciate the usefulness of rules in certain areas). There will always be decision you disagree with, always be winners you say wtf about, always be feelings that bias is running the show.

And since MOST events have rules, and PLENTY of people still disagree with the judging at those events, you can't (again, if you're at all interested in reality) argue that having rules makes for less controversial judging practices. You also can't argue having no rules would do that either.

But go ahead and keep discussing all this all you want. I'll be over here in reality seeing what's actually happening, thanks. I like the view much better from here.

Quoted from "Double Down Dave"
I think you have just told me that there really is no hope in competition-based inspiration, but that your judgment must be reserved until you see just one more competition... to make sure that either you are right or wrong? Or some other reason? Would seeing just this year's ULHS really have the merit to produce your FINAL judgment? What about next year? What about the ILHC? Maybe inspiration will find its way to the ALHC this year? Who knows where it really lies?

That was a poor choice of words on my part. I was referring immediately to this thread. Of course if I bothered rendering such a final judgment , somebody would just come along and prove me wrong. Which, to be honest, I wouldn t mind at all.

Quoted from "Double Down Dave"
Any chance you'll be at the ALHC this year? It'd be cool if we could grab a beer and keep this conversation going. It's been entertaining to say the least.

Yep. I ll be pretty easy to find since I m one of the competition DJ s.

Jerry

Quoted from "mouth"
And since MOST events have rules, and PLENTY of people still disagree with the judging at those events, you can't (again, if you're at all interested in reality) argue that having rules makes for less controversial judging practices. You also can't argue having no rules would do that either.

Perhaps one idea to consider is not the rules or lack thereof but the selection process for judges. What are the "rules" for selecting judges?

At some level, I'd hope judges are proxies for the values and priorities of the scene which are all over the map. To me, it would make sense that judges should be selected to represent that variety. How do contests select judges right now?