Quoted from "JSAlmonte"

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

Sweet. I'll buy.

DDD

Wow, talk about spin. You conveniently "snipped" out all the parts of my essay where I talk about what I'm looking for and then go on to make a point about how nobody knows what we're looking for. :roll:

It's interesting that you saying judging is different at ULHS, US Open and Camp Hollywood. Specifically because I judged at all three of those events this year and I judged the exact same way - with zero complaints from the people who hired me.

Dave, I'm sorry that you like sticking your head in the sand and arguing from a dream world that makes you happy. But in reality there have been far more complaints about the judging from the rules events than from the non-rule events over the years.

And just because I like sharing clips and posting positive stuff, I'll go ahead and cite some examples of innovations - I'll use ULHS because there are a lot of free clips online so it's easier to make my point:

Here's the first year of ULHS - Matt and Nina's performance in the Fast Division changed how we thought about competitive dancing. I was there, I remember it vividly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ub3kAsTSy2g

It may not seem a big deal now but that's because it started a trend that grew and is now pervasive. So watching this clip I'm sure some people are going, eh. But nobody danced like that elsewhere yet. Not even year one of Hellzapoppin. This sparked a new wave and changed competitors ideas and priorities.

Also, it was the first competition to be danced to live music. Another trend setting innovation that has spread world wide.

Another incredible performance was Frida and Jojo in the Charleston Contest in 2004: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7dP7dhzwpg People weren't having charleston contests at major comps yet. And it showed in the first round of this division because a lot of people didn't know what the bejeesus they were doing. This comp changed all that. It was the charleston heard round the world because the next thing we all knew everyone was all about solo charleston. I still can't get this final out of my mind.

I shouldn't need to remind everyone of the Fast Dance clip from 2006 that went viral. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myJj0mNNe1Y First, this kid Max showed up out of nowhere (proof that we don't just put our friends into finals, fyi) and then it went on to be one of the best overall rounds of competitive dancing I've yet to see. Why is this innovative? Well the dancing sure was. People prepped for this comp like the did back in the day - working on secret new air steps, thinking about how to "cut" the other guy. (Nick and Ria being GREAT examples of this.) While the dancers back in the day used to compete like this (so we're told), our community never did before this competition. A true turning point for competitive Lindy, I think.

And then this year there was Frida and Skye's routine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii7q-qwEpnI Again, I'm sure I don't need to point it out as it, too, went pretty viral. But the interesting thing was there's no air, just good dancing. An interesting note, almost the entire Classic division at ILHC this year reminded me of Frida and Skye's routine and after talking to more than a few of the competitors, they all admitted they were inspired by that very routine.

Anyway, I think I'm done with this thread. It seems pretty useless to engage in this conversation as people are really disinterested in arguing from a place of actual truth. Ah well. Good luck to you all and see you at some event soon I'm sure.

Apparently, I missed it when it went around, but I hadn't seen the Skye & Frida performance.

Damn.

That is all.

Quoted from "RubyMae"
The reality, Mouth, is that the same dozen or so people win at the comps over and over (yes, I'm generalizing; yes, you can find examples where a unknown/untested dancer placed). Maybe it's because they're really the best dancers nationwide, or maybe, because the Judge's have no criteria for judging ability are unconsciously or consciously picking favorites. I don't think Dave is arguing that ULHS or similar contests should be done away with. Wheeee! It's just like 2000 and I'm arguing with Mouth in Swing Talk.

Ok I'm back in the thread only because it is hysterical that Rubymae and I would argue in SwingTalk again. :wink:

Sadly this isn't really an argument because the same people win at the rules events as win at the non-rules events. So you just made my point (which is that rules have no bearing on the existence or lack of bias or subjectivity in judging).

Thanks!

Dave, you have misrepresented, twisted, and spun everything I have written. I'm personally insulted as well as a little sad for you. That's why I'm done with this thread. But I'm sure you'll spin this post, too.

A few things:

<

ul> Yes Janice Wilson developed the phrased jam for the Hellzapoppin contest for the first Harlem Jazz Dance Festival in the Spring of 2002. ULHS employed the format and added live music when it first started in the Winter of 2002. Both of these were reactions to the perceived shortcomings of ALHC, especially after the uber controversial Classic divisions in 2000 and 2001. The HJDF only happened in 2002 and 2003, but the name and format of Hellzapoppin plus the addition of a live band were used at the Basie Ball at Y6A in 2004. The major difference between the Hellzapoppin contest and ULHS was that Hellzapoppin was one contest while ULHS has employed the format in different divisions separated by tempos with additional divisions for champions and a J &amp; J. [/list:u:5a31c8217f] Both contests plus Mad Dog and the Interwebs can be attributed with the initial popularity of fast/raw dancing, but ULHS has been able to keep it alive and popularize it because a) it attracts the very best dancers in the world b) and allows anyone to record and post videos of the contests.

I ll argue that this is the ultimate form of transparency because anyone can judge with their own eyes rather than relying on text contest results or word of mouth. This renders whatever openness of judging processes in other events irrelevant for all practical purposes. Because ultimately, if no one can see the actual dancing, then opinions about routines and placements mean nothing.

This is why ULHS influenced contest formats at comps all over the country including major ones like Camp Jitterbug, National Jitterbug Championships, ILHC, All Bal Weekend, and the Rhythmic Arts Festival. ULHS used this combination of street cred and openness to popularize solo Charleston and solo blues dance. I don t think Nicole meant that it originated these dances, but it got dancers interested in them as viable forms of expression in their own right rather than just as warm up classes. Without ULHS, it unlikely that entire events like Stompology or the various Girl Jams would have developed. Heck, even Swing and Soul and its offshoots would not have gotten going without the traction of Peter Strom getting everyone groovin, especially the top level dancers, at the ULHS late nights.

Dave you referenced my post about top ALHC routines. I don t know if you noticed, but I didn t list very many highlights between 2003 and 2005. Not to belittle the efforts of everyone who competed or placed in those years, but that reflects the fact that the quality isn t as high as it was when ALHC was one of the only games into town. Attendance and quality suffered with the rise of ULHS as well as other events.

In 2005 Skye took advantage of a freak plane reservation mis-communication that stranded Frida in the US for a few extra days by signing them up for the Classic division. He made this decision around 6 pm that Friday with the division starting at 10 pm. In the time in between they picked a song, choreographed a minute of it, got dinner, he got a haircut, and social danced almost two hours. And they still got first place. There s no way they could have done that at ULHS or any other comp for that matter simply because the field wasn t that strong at ALHC that year or the years before it. Not that is mattered anyway because no one was seeing much of the dancing that was going on there because of the outside video ban.

In the years following 2002 Paulette has introduced jam formats, solo dance contests, and live music for the contests. The fact is that last year s ALHC looked the way it did because of ULHS. Heck, even the music we ve selected for the contests has been inspired by what has happened at ULHS. I know because I helped pick many of those songs.

Despite the huge resurgance last year, lots of people still refuse to go to ALHC. I ve worked for Paulette as a DJ for a couple years, and even I had the event on a death watch. Luckily for her, the scene has grown to the point where many dancers don t know about some of the controversies of 2000 and 2001 because they started a few years after that. (Who else is feeling old?) Of course they all had to be reminded with those tick tack penalties in the team division last year.

This is why ULHS is regarded as the innovator and leader in the Lindy community. The lack of rules or guidelines has let people stretch themselves, so they don't have worry about getting kicked in the face with a time penalty. This has been especially important because the modern lindy scene is still relatively young and all of us in general are just getting comfortable with Lindy Hop and other vernacular jazz dances as forms of expression.

Jerry

Quoted from "JSAlmonte"
A few things:

Yes Janice Wilson developed the phrased jam for the Hellzapoppin contest for the first Harlem Jazz Dance Festival in the Spring of 2002. ULHS employed the format and added live music when it first started in the Winter of 2002. Both of these were reactions to the perceived shortcomings of ALHC, especially after the uber controversial Classic divisions in 2000 and 2001. The HJDF only happened in 2002 and 2003, but the name and format of Hellzapoppin plus the addition of a live band were used at the Basie Ball at Y6A in 2004. The major difference between the Hellzapoppin contest and ULHS was that Hellzapoppin was one contest while ULHS has employed the format in different divisions separated by tempos with additional divisions for champions and a J &amp; J. [/list:u:54b1a955ab]

No argument there. Please continue.

Quote
Both contests plus Mad Dog and the Interwebs can be attributed with the initial popularity of fast/raw dancing, but ULHS has been able to keep it alive and popularize it because a) it attracts the very best dancers in the world b) and allows anyone to record and post videos of the contests.

I would attribute the initial popularity of fast/raw dancing to Hellzapoppin: the Movie, and to Whitey's Lindy Hoppers. I would attribute a resurgence of that kind of fast/raw dancing to a Swedish dance troupe called The Rhythm Hot Shots and everyone of it's members performing all over the U.S. in the late nineties. The current resurgence most certainly belongs to ULHS.

Quote
I ll argue that this is the ultimate form of transparency because anyone can judge with their own eyes rather than relying on text contest results or word of mouth. This renders whatever openness of judging processes in other events irrelevant for all practical purposes. Because ultimately, if no one can see the actual dancing, then opinions about routines and placements mean nothing.

I don't see the jump you made there. Because everyone can judge with their own eyes, text results from different judges are irrelevant? I'm confused with this statement, I'm not sure sure how you went from point A to point B.

Text results for competitions exist so that competitors may see how they scored, and then find the judge that gave them last and kill them... Rather, ask them politely to explain what they, the competitors, could do better.

Quote
This is why ULHS influenced contest formats at comps all over the country including major ones like Camp Jitterbug, National Jitterbug Championships, ILHC, All Bal Weekend, and the Rhythmic Arts Festival. ULHS used this combination of street cred and openness to popularize solo Charleston and solo blues dance. I don t think Nicole meant that it originated these dances, but it got dancers interested in them as viable forms of expression in their own right rather than just as warm up classes. Without ULHS, it unlikely that entire events like Stompology or the various Girl Jams would have developed. Heck, even Swing and Soul and its offshoots would not have gotten going without the traction of Peter Strom getting everyone groovin, especially the top level dancers, at the ULHS late nights.

The popularity of ULHS and it's formats are undeniable, and the fact that these formats have spread like wildfire is not in contest. Popularization of a dance does not mean innovation when an historical dance is simply copied from the original. As far as taking a "warm-up class" and turning it to a competition, if you'd like to attribute that to ULHS, go right ahead. I'd attribute it to any number of jam circles that formed when guys or girls couldn't find partners at social dances, and started doing Solo Charleston jams, but that's just me. I am happy that dance is spreading through any events that can get someone new through the door, though saying that Swing &amp; Soul, Stompology, and any number of Girl Jams are the direct result of ULHS is again, a bit of a jump.

Quote
Dave you referenced my post about top ALHC routines. I don t know if you noticed, but I didn t list very many highlights between 2003 and 2005. Not to belittle the efforts of everyone who competed or placed in those years, but that reflects the fact that the quality isn t as high as it was when ALHC was one of the only games into town. Attendance and quality suffered with the rise of ULHS as well as other events.

So, it's a lot better when ULHS and the formats that have seemingly taken over every competition are the "only game in town?" As far as attendance goes, I can't speak to how many people showed up each year. If you have those numbers please share. As far as quality goes, I would disagree, but that's my prerogative.

Quote
In 2005 Skye took advantage of a freak plane reservation mis-communication that stranded Frida in the US for a few extra days by signing them up for the Classic division. He made this decision around 6 pm that Friday with the division starting at 10 pm. In the time in between they picked a song, choreographed a minute of it, got dinner, he got a haircut, and social danced almost two hours. And they still got first place. There s no way they could have done that at ULHS or any other comp for that matter simply because the field wasn t that strong at ALHC that year or the years before it. Not that is mattered anyway because no one was seeing much of the dancing that was going on there because of the outside video ban.

So ALHC is that bad? Or Skye and Frida are that good? Still not sure what you're saying here.

Quote
In the years following 2002 Paulette has introduced jam formats, solo dance contests, and live music for the contests. The fact is that last year s ALHC looked the way it did because of ULHS. Heck, even the music we ve selected for the contests has been inspired by what has happened at ULHS. I know because I helped pick many of those songs.

I can't argue that ULHS certainly had an effect on the ALHC. So ALHC responded to the community by changing formats and rules. ALHC only changed some of the formats however, and kept some the same way and not going the Full Monty on the "anything goes" format for all it's contests.

Quote
Despite the huge resurgance last year, lots of people still refuse to go to ALHC. I ve worked for Paulette as a DJ for a couple years, and even I had the event on a death watch. Luckily for her, the scene has grown to the point where many dancers don t know about some of the controversies of 2000 and 2001 because they started a few years after that. (Who else is feeling old?) Of course they all had to be reminded with those tick tack penalties in the team division last year.

There are people who refuse to go to ULHS as well, are those people different than the ones that refuse to go to ALHC? Which ones were the tick tack penalties? What happened there?

Quote
This is why ULHS is regarded as the innovator and leader in the Lindy community.

The ULHS is regarded as an innovator and leader in the Lindy community because they are more popular? Or because they popularized dances that have been around for almost a century? I seem to remember a Gap Commercial, a band called Big Bad Voodoo Daddy, and a movie called Swing Kids that helped ULHS just a little bit there.

Quote
The lack of rules or guidelines has let people stretch themselves, so they don't have worry about getting kicked in the face with a time penalty.

The lack of rules has helped competitors because they have to worry about less rules? I'm not sure anyone can argue this one.

Quote
This has been especially important because the modern lindy scene is still relatively young and all of us in general are just getting comfortable with Lindy Hop and other vernacular jazz dances as forms of expression. Jerry

Relatively young to what? and All of us are just getting comfortable to Lindy Hop? I've been doing this since the fall of 1994. Almost half my life. I'm pretty comfortable. Anyone else?

I think I'm gonna need some clarification on the few points mentioned above before I can respond more to your post, Jerry. Thanks.

DDD

Quoted from "JSAlmonte"

Quoted from "Double Down Dave"
There are people who refuse to go to ULHS as well, are those people different than the ones that refuse to go to ALHC? Which ones were the tick tack penalties? What happened there

Seriously, is this the way you're going to roll on this thread? Because I know you know the answer to this question, and I'm not terribly interested in listing all of these because there's too damn many of them. Listen, I work for ALHC, but I can at least acknowledge the past about what has happened. If you're not going to at least meet me half way then I don't see the point of continuing this conversation, because I just don't have that kind of time. Jerry

Just to clarify... Are the types of people who refuse to go to ALHC really all that different from the people who refuse to go to ULHS?

The tick tack penalties, I'm sure I would know what they are. But I am unfamiliar with the phrase "tick tack", so I don't know which penalties you are referring. That's all, not trying to sharpshoot you there.

DDD

Right or wrong, Dave, the fact that you are such a strong supporter of ALHC makes me automatically brand you as a particular kind of dancer (I have more or less the same mental image of an ALHC champion, regardless of which year it was). And then I go and seek out videos of your dancing and I see that my hunch was accurate. It's a style of dancing that I have absolutely zero interest in. Because of that, whenever I see ALHC as the main part of an instructor's credentials, I become immediately skeptical. And that's what we're talking about, right? How to encourage people to see you as a dancer worth hiring?

Now, that's mostly just my personal preference, of course. But is it really such a coincidence that all of the top dancers in the world are attracted to ULHS? I went to both events last year and while I had a lot of fun dances at ALHC, there was no question that the saturation of best-in-class dancers was exponentially higher at ULHS. And that automatically makes the competition stiffer, thereby demanding a higher degree of skill and more innovation.

I agree with you that rules beget creativity, but the problem is that ALHC has not demanded creativity. In fact, historically, it has punished it. So the people who really wanted to go places with this dance fled to ULHS, where the mere fact that you're competing against insanely ambitious dancers is what forces continual development.

I got to witness something pretty interesting in the past year. Lindy competition-wise, I went to ULHS, ALHC, BTP, CSC, and ILHC. A whole bunch of things I saw for the first time at ULHS, I then saw repeated and copycatted at every other event. And as more and more people got to see these things, they proliferated through the social scene as well. Obviously, ULHS wasn't the first time the dancers themselves had done these things, and in many cases it's quite possible they borrowed an old idea. But it was the first time the contemporary scene saw them (i.e. the concept posted above about approaching competition by working on things in secret).

I wonder if you can name some things ALHC has done that were brand new, never been seen anywhere before that moment?

Oh and... for what it's worth... I'm not going back to either ALHC or ULHS this year. ALHC because of the event disorganization and the mismatch between my dance values and the judging. The only thing that's keeping me from ULHS is the extremely unfortunate mismatch between my bank account and the cost of flying from Ottawa to Minneapolis.

I was just responding to the arguments you were making.

Anyway, I've only been to ALHC and ULHS once each. I think both events are going in a positive direction, but I find the change at ULHS to be more visible (perhaps because of my preference for and familiarity with that faction of the scene).

But in the context of this thread... I don't think it's disputable that a win at ULHS is more impressive than a win at ALHC, simply because (by your own admission) that's where all the top dancers go to compete. You don't find the same level of competition for the most part at ALHC or any other competition in the world. You do see some of the same people at other events (for example, I had to compete against Kevin, Emily, Juan, and Sharon at CSC this year), but not nearly as many. While at ULHS I was out on the floor with dozens of the world's best, at CSC/ALHC/BTP/ILHC, I was mainly competing against peers (and it showed... I won some, I lost some). Ultimately, what speaks the most is if you can place consistently across a number of different divisions/events. But if you had to pick just one, ULHS is a surefire winner amongst anyone in-the-know.

Which leads me to another point... amongst people not in-the-know, ALHC looks better than ULHS simply because of its name. "Ultimate Lindy Hop Showdown" doesn't sound as formal or prestigious as "American Lindy Hop Championships." Sad but true.

Anyway, since it's highly unlikely that anyone would ever win at Showdown without first racking up experience and competition wins elsewhere... my advice to anyone wanting to become a professional dancer is to compete as often and at as many events as possible (including ULHS if you can... it's worth the experience!).

hi guys

just want to throw my 2c in on the subject of rules vs. no-rules. there's a few opinions on here on the pro-rules side that seem to imply that not having rules renders the judgment less valid...

rule-less judging of creative activity is far more prevalent than explicitly stated rules. in fact, many explicitly stated rule sets are retro-fitted to existing judgments (ie, this is why x y or z succeeded, because of a b and c metrics that were obviously in play). i'd even hazard a declaration that it's a more natural way to judge creative activity ( ducks ....waits for DDD to quote and rebut....) because creative innovation is a byproduct of a mind that is much too complex to consciously understand or explain. just ask the entire field of psychology, who have been working on it for.....a hundred years.

if what you're asking the competitors for is something novel and unique and exciting and good, then telling them how to go about that is a self-defeating activity. even telling them the qualities it needs to have can be self-defeating--if you're asking them for something you haven't thought of (which is what makes it unique and exciting), then clearly you can't have thought of it yet. so you can't write rules about how to get there.

in many many creative fields, it's a very established practice to "judge" new work by presenting it to an expert and awaiting their opinion. the theory is that "established experts" will a) have attained their status by benefit of some advanced degree of perceptive and analytical abilities and b) as a result of their status, be exposed to (and be practiced at rendering opinions on) more work in their field than most people.

if you want an example, tell me the "rules" for producing a ground-breaking band or for becoming a respected artist, or for starting a new fashion trend (and you'll be a rich person...). there are huge numbers of people in the world employed to "explain" the successes that do happen. there are even people employed to predict future successes, although the daily realities of this job are much less mysterious and impressive than you'd think. an "expert" is simply more exposed to and attuned to the nuances of their particular area, and thus their complex, incomprehensible brain is better able to say "good" or "less good" than to consciously break down the millions of influencing variables that led to that decision. (not that we don't ask them to anyway, that's the point of asking judges questions or writing those essays or whatnot.)

however, that's not to say that we, as humans, are happiest in some anarchistic state where every creative pursuit is completely distinct from those that came before. on the contrary, trends and innovation (of the artistic variety) are generally marginal improvements on a previously established social consensus. the innovative aspect must be couched in a recognizable context, and speak to a shared set of established or emerging values. values, values, values...and as with most sociological issues, everything boils down to conflicting values of the individuals comprising a group.

my point (and i'm getting to it, i promise) is that excessively rule-based evaluation does some negative things for the cutting edge of innovation, especially in the current culture: -explicitly stated rules are an articulation of a (reasonably finite) set of values -as such, they allow for differences in expression of these values, but can inherently prohibit the emergence of new and/or conflicting values -the nature of articulation itself runs contrary to several key values held by many of our top innovators (and arguably integral to the founding principles of jazz dance)

this approach to evaluation i think is a huge part of what puts ALHC in the position of having to keep making mistakes and then making up for them. it may be very true that ALHC addresses rule issues (or some of them........) in subsequent years, but the errors it makes seem to be so epic and inflammatory that no one is hanging around to see the subsequent change. and, if we're operating under the theory that change is good and therefore that things will keep changing, you can extend this line of reasoning to assume that ALHC will always be in a position of making an error and then trying to correct it the following year.

sure, no competition is perfect and i'm sure ULHS has some problems as well. but the difference in approach puts ULHS in a much more agile position. instead of chasing after trying to nail down the details of an incredibly complex metric, they simply employ the people they believe best suited to recognize quality and ask them for their opinion. instead of having organizers who appear to be less than tuned-in to the current community values try to articulate them in a set of stringent rules and waiting to hear the backlash from that interpretation, they simply put the opinion-makers in the drivers seat and let them set the rules: in context, on the fly, and as relates to the specific instances of the specific year.

it's common in design to describe "good" design in terms of "well...i know it when i see it". true of art as well. yes, this sucks for newer community members and those who don't know it when they see it--it's a very unsatisfying reason, and generally leads the expert to try to explain in more concrete terms after the fact. it also sucks for those whose values differ from the "mainstream". that's generally compensated for (with more or less success) by employing a panel of judges with a wide variety of perspectives.

lastly, i think that one of the most important elements to this is the perceived difference between "good" as judged by a set of articulated criteria, and "good" as dictated by popular consensus (ie, fashionable). DDD, you (and many others) seem to have the perspective that there exists an absolute "good", a scientific approach to goodness that is divorced from popular opinion and trend, abstractable from context. that's a bigger argument than this page :) but suffice it to say that ULHS probably takes the contrary opinion, that "good" is defined by popular consensus and radically subject to trends and fashions.

(and, for the record, as pertains to the rockstep routine--DDD you said it was a result of/reaction to the rules, and this is of course true--BUT, we did actually perform enough lindy content. so based on the ALHCs beloved technicalities, we should not have been disqualified. i took particular pleasure in ensuring that. but getting disqualified was sort of the point, so i don't mind that the judges missed that one. sylvia was busy finding her chair again.)

Just popped in to say that DAMN Lucy is smart. And I'd totally do her.

Lucy, that was an incredible post.

Thank you for that.

A question though, well maybe a few:

Quoted from "lucylane"
sure, no competition is perfect and i'm sure ULHS has some problems as well. but the difference in approach puts ULHS in a much more agile position. instead of chasing after trying to nail down the details of an incredibly complex metric, they simply employ the people they believe best suited to recognize quality and ask them for their opinion. instead of having organizers who appear to be less than tuned-in to the current community values try to articulate them in a set of stringent rules and waiting to hear the backlash from that interpretation, they simply put the opinion-makers in the drivers seat and let them set the rules: in context, on the fly, and as relates to the specific instances of the specific year.

Wouldn't ULHS be able to "stack the deck" as it were? There are tons of professionals with differing opinions on Lindy Hop. (It is an art form after all, what would it be without differing opinions?) If they wanted to get a real argument on good dancing, why not put four people of differing opinions on Lindy Hop in a room together? If I saw that happen to the judging panel at ANY event, I'd be there just to get a glimpse of whose head rolled out of the judges room first.

While I am opposed to the judges not sharing what they are looking for as it doesn't really promote improvement in dancers, I am NOT opposed to judges discussing their results with one another and then making a decision. If their qualifications for putting one dancer in front of another is, "Well, he/she was more badass than you." I'm fine with that. I'd just like to hear it from their mouths. Instead, dancers are left to their own devices to improve themselves. In many cases their conclusions to improvement come down to, "Ok. I guess I should dance more like Skye and Frida." As a role model for being a dancer, I can think of no finer persons to emulate. As a role model for "winning the competition", shouldn't we all be looking for way to express ourselves and shouldn't it be okay that we don't dance like those that have won in years past?

Quote
lastly, i think that one of the most important elements to this is the perceived difference between "good" as judged by a set of articulated criteria, and "good" as dictated by popular consensus (ie, fashionable). DDD, you (and many others) seem to have the perspective that there exists an absolute "good", a scientific approach to goodness that is divorced from popular opinion and trend, abstractable from context. that's a bigger argument than this page but suffice it to say that ULHS probably takes the contrary opinion, that "good" is defined by popular consensus and radically subject to trends and fashions.

As this was directed to me personally, no, I don't believe in any absolute "good" as dictated by anything, scientific or otherwise. I believe that any "absolute good" that exists only exists in the conversation itself. The discussion that creates differing opinions, and differing ideas. About the only thing I am certain of is that if we stop discussing any aspect of our chosen art form, minute or not, that it will falter, stagnate, and eventually die. If this discussion has done anything, it has promoted thought and brought up questions about Lindy Hop Competitions and their formats. Whether I am right or wrong in my opinions, doesn't really matter. What matters is that I have them.

Good to hear from you lucylane, it has been a while! DDD

Quoted from "RubyMae"

Quote
i'd even hazard a declaration that it's a more natural way to judge creative activity ( ducks ....waits for DDD to quote and rebut....) because creative innovation is a byproduct of a mind that is much too complex to consciously understand or explain.

If this is a valid assumption, then not only shouldn't their be rules, but their shouldn't even be judges. How can you insure that anyone is qualified to "judge" creative innovation if it's really the byproduct of a mind that is too complex to consciously understand or explain the process? Are you suggesting the "I know it when I see it" is the only standard we can use to judge Lindyhop competitions?

It would be real hard to do this with routine based competitions, but audience judged finals are more and more common now in strictly "just dance" based events. Personally, I think that's the way to go. You still need judges to pair down ginormous divisions though.