Hey all! This is my first post on Yehoodi :) I've been swing dancing for three years and I absolutely love it. I consider myself to be a pretty decent dancer but my ultimate goal is to become professional (i.e. win at Beantown/similar comp and be invited to teach at camps). What would you…
Originally posted Friday, September 19, 2008 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "DJLarkin"
Quoted from "Double Down Dave"
Quoted from "DJLarkin"
Quoted from "Double Down Dave" Thank you for your opinion, DJ!
Based on what you have seen at all the events you have been to, do you have any constructive criticism for events on the whole? Any suggestions for what would make a better event?
DDD
Stop sucking.
Thanks DJ... I can always count on you for insight.
You know as well as I do that I'm perfectly capable of providing detailed and insightful commentary, but why should I bother? You've demonstrated that you're unwilling to waver from your viewpoint, and nothing I say is going to change that. Its especially apparent after looking at your dismissal of the brilliant posts by Jerry, Nicole and Lucy. So, I took a different approach.
You really want my advice? Re-read what they have to say. Take it to heart.
I do take their statements to heart. That's why I responded. If I took their statements for granted then I wouldn't argue. I'm not unwilling to waver, however I would like to hear more opinions. Hearing three opinions, while very strong are still only three out of hundreds.
If I had truly dismissed anyone's opinions then I wouldn't have bothered even reading them. I'd still like to hear your opinion, DJ.
Originally posted Friday, September 19, 2008 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "pocotell" ...And while it's a shame that the organizers aren't open about sharing media from the competition, that doesn't stop us all from watching the routines over and over on youtube, or personally burned copies. We've all done it, and to ALHC's benefit.
i am not a fan of alhc.
that being said, i would like to point out that it is very much to paulette's credit that a significant change in said recording happened last year. this policy enabled you to get a copy of your own or anyone's performance, professionally recorded, at 10 a pop, immediately after said performance. i was a huge fan of this. i didn't have to lug my camera around or watch the performances through its little window or worry about screaming too loud to be caught on my camera- and since i only wanted one performance, 10 was well worth it. not to mention that as the pro took it, it was from the best possible angle with no heads in the way.
Originally posted Friday, September 19, 2008 (3 years ago)
pocotell, I find it funny that your argument is that there is room for lots of different kinds of events and that they each have merit. I find it funny because that was my argument from the beginning.
It was Dave's argument and Dave's alone that ALHC is the best event and that all others are inferior for one reason or another. Some because they don't have rules, some because they are only 1 year old, some because he says he's seen nothing new, inspirational, or innovative come from them over the years.
My argument was I like having different events with different formats because I think that's good for the scene. And that there has been plenty of good coming from various event in lots of different ways, from ALHC AND other events.
Sounds like we agree here.
It's true, I also got into a side argument about how rules or lack thereof do not automatically make a good or bad event. But it's still related to my overall feeling that having lots of different things is good.
I think there's room for both. I judged at ULHS, the US Open, and Camp Hollywood this year, just to name a few. Three very different events. I like them all. I see how they reward different things and I enjoy that about our community. And I didn't see how one of them having no rules made it a lesser event. Dave said it does make it a lesser event. So I argued that issue with him. I wasn't saying ULHS or ALHC was better. I was saying they are both good, both do different things, and that our community seems to enjoy having options (since they both have attendees and competitors) so why dis one and say another is the "right way" to do things?
I personally hope different formats and varying risk and reward assessments don't disappear because diversity is fundamental to what lindy hop is about.
I disagree with Dave that the only right way to do things is the ALHC way. That IS NOT the same as saying ALHC is bad. Just that one way is not necessarily the best and only. And I hope the community continues to feel that way, too. They seem to be saying that loud and clear since lots of different events are thriving and so it seems people are voting with their feet and their dollars.
It is Dave who is being closed minded here. He may not be as heated a poster as some of the rest of us, but his argument is much more insulting to the community at large. I mean, he is devaluing events, organizers, judges, competitors, and attendees who prefer something different than he does. How can you defend that as a good thing???
And now I can pretty much guarantee that Dave will cut my post up, quote only the things that can be twisted into different meanings, and question me in what appears to me a completely innocent way, but is meant only to stir sh t up and make it sound like I was saying something entirely different than my actual point. Go ahead, Dave. I know you enjoy that.
Originally posted Friday, September 19, 2008 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "pocotell" Now while lots, well maybe most, of people are against lindy becoming DanceSport, I think there is a place for competition in lindy hop to become more structured. I actually hope for it to become more structured. I see too many dancers dancing in a lazy free way, thinking that that's what lindy hop is. And many of them get away with it at a high level. I truly enjoy the clean lines, dancing and footwork of people like Carla and Kevin, Nathalie and Yuval, Nick Williams, etc... I think we can still be creative and have a standard for what good lindy hop technique is.
I also wanted to reply to this specifically because I wanted to ask if you knew who's been placing in the top 3 at ULHS for the last few years. Kevin, Carla, and Nick have ALL won and placed several times at ULHS In fact, they're all pretty regular names during awards. Nathalie and Yuval haven't come so who knows where they would place. But the other three dancers you cited all win there.
So if you like their style of dance, you're in agreement with ULHS's priorities and judgements about dance, as well.
Originally posted Friday, September 19, 2008 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "mouth" It was Dave's argument and Dave's alone that ALHC is the best event and that all others are inferior for one reason or another. Some because they don't have rules, some because they are only 1 year old, some because he says he's seen nothing new, inspirational, or innovative come from them over the years.
...
I disagree with Dave that the only right way to do things is the ALHC way. That IS NOT the same as saying ALHC is bad. Just that one way is not necessarily the best and only. And I hope the community continues to feel that way, too. They seem to be saying that loud and clear since lots of different events are thriving and so it seems people are voting with their feet and their dollars.
It is Dave who is being closed minded here. He may not be as heated a poster as some of the rest of us, but his argument is much more insulting to the community at large. I mean, he is devaluing events, organizers, judges, competitors, and attendees who prefer something different than he does. How can you defend that as a good thing???
[/size]
Maybe this is just my perspective, but I don't think he's saying ALHC is a superior event. I think his original point, which has since been taken a little out of context with each smaller and more in-depth reply (and gotten into a much larger philosophical debate about competitions), was that ALHC is still a major competition, among others, which would be important for an up-and-coming dancer to attend. And with that assessment, I do agree.
Otherwise, he is just questioning the validity of competitions without rules because (at least from my reading of his posts) there's too much objectivity. And, while I'm not opposed to the idea of no rules, I'm certainly feel more confident about competitions, and judges, that know exactly what they are judging in their competitors.
I think it's wonderful that great dancers have managed to do well at events like ULHS. I think it means that there IS somewhere in us, a standard of good dancing. I think, more and more, it's going to be important for us to define that. Not that ALHC has, or that ULHS is going to suddenly have "rules" because of it, but that's the direction I think we're headed, which will invariably become important for competition in general. I think having a clear goal of the very specific techniques that make lindy hop good is ultimately a good thing, and will be helpful for competitors trying to become professional dancers.
I think of it like the west coast swing couple Jordan and Tatiana. They can tell you exactly, from every muscle, bone and weight shift, what makes west coast swing good. They have it down to a science. And yet, they are, in my opinion, one of the most creative swing dancers ever and have really found new directions in west coast swing. That's what I hope for lindy hop and competitions.
"If music be the food of love, play on!" - Shakespeare
Originally posted Friday, September 19, 2008 (3 years ago)
While I find Jordan and Tatiana to be incredible technical dancers, I always find that their dancing somehow is moreso to the music and less with the music. But then, that's a value judgment that I make about how to interpret the music.
I'd pick a couple that was a little less technical but a lot more subtle over that any day (one of the reasons I find that Skye & Frida routine so mindblowing). Lest anyone say I'm trying to favor lindy vs. WCS, I've seen some subtle WCS at the competition level that IMO was far better than any of the tricks J&T pulled out. Apples to apples.
Not that this has much of anything to do with anything, but I figure since we're all just throwing out opinions without much regard to anything at all other than a few words we spotted in other people's posts that I'd toss in my buck fiddy.
Originally posted Friday, September 19, 2008 (3 years ago)
pocotell, I completely disagree with your assessment of Dave's argument. Throughout the course of this thread he has valued ALHC above all other events and has done it in a very dismissive way. That's what we're all reacting to so vehemently. Yes there are also other issues we've dissected. But I believe we've dissected them only because of his overall premise that the ALHC way is the best way and all events that don't do it that way are inherently lesser.
Many strong and intelligent voices have stepped up to make some or all of that point.
If he'd said, "I personally like this better but see validity in other ways", nobody's panties would be in a bunch.
I find it completely understandable that people have preferences. Duh. I don't find it at all understandable that people can look at the dancing coming out of events that do things differently and say little to no good has come from them or that they are somehow hurting the community.
Originally posted Friday, September 19, 2008 (3 years ago)
Ha, we can tie that all back Keither.....
OK, so as previously mentioned and overlooked - there's a lot of issues with reworking the rules in WCS.
At Boogie by the Bay last year a number of couples were docked points (no disqualifications) based on lack of swing content. Which led the a whole online (and offline) discussion of "WHAT IS SWING CONTENT?" and how the judges are able to measure 80 swing content or such while judging the merits of the routine or jack & jill as a whole.
Additionally, there has been a lot of talk about music and determining what gets played for competion. Not to the degree of setting tempos like in ballroom, but how does a WCS DJ or couple choose music for a dance which can supposedly be done to anything. At what point does WCS as a dance become a new dance (much in the way WCS was created out of lindy hop).
There has been much discussion over Jordan & Tatiana's routines to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obX1WQZ5b70">Pump it</a> and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=340799kbLNA">Sexi Plexi</a> as neither song swings. So are they doing WCS still or something new? How do you judge that?
Most recently <a herf="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9nd0zDox5I">Benji Schwimmer danced with Kellese Key at Grand Nationals</a> to a decidedly latin song. Again, is this WCS or something new? And can you see the swing content? I had to watch it a few times to find swing-like patterns in the movement and even then it's not rhythmically swing - how does a judge pick up on this live during one viewing? Playing devils advocate as Dave did before - is it possible they were rewarded for who they were and strong dancing rather than dancing within the rules? They clearly were strong technical dancers and very creative in what they did, there's no denying that. Nor can I see clips of other dances (just not put up on youtube) to compare.
As a result, this huge debate started over defining swing content and arguing over music and what should be played in competition, socially, and in jack & jills- should it be what people want to hear (because this is dancing and not life or dance, so we should dance to what we like) or what is traditional WCS (again, moving way from nature of the original dance).
The rules have to be clearly and precisely definable in order to be consistent, but if too precise start to mesh into that world of strict competitive dancing a la the ballroom world. Where's the balance? And without rules you have to consider the possibility of it going to a far extreme of no longer being WCS.
Who do you trust to define terms and create the rules if you go that route. How long has this dance been around and people still use a similar response to what Lucy posted - I know it when I see it. But that doesn't always sit will as an answer for a couple looking to discover why they were docked points for that reason. Plus, the World Swing Dance Council and it's guidelines are just that - so events currently enforce what they want from the guidelines
Shouldn't good and entertaining dancing be rewarded simply for being that? Does it really need rules if the rules are to vauge or complicated?
I have no answer and see both the good and bad of having rules.
(side note that I think is interesting - talking to various competitors, apparently some have been told by judges that costuming is included in ranking of placement and this includes wearing rhinestones - apparently it's not a costume without rhinestones. How this relates to your creativity in choreography or dance ability, I have no clue).
Originally posted Friday, September 19, 2008 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "Keither" While I find Jordan and Tatiana to be incredible technical dancers, I always find that their dancing somehow is moreso to the music and less with the music. But then, that's a value judgment that I make about how to interpret the music.
I'd pick a couple that was a little less technical but a lot more subtle over that any day (one of the reasons I find that Skye & Frida routine so mindblowing). Lest anyone say I'm trying to favor lindy vs. WCS, I've seen some subtle WCS at the competition level that IMO was far better than any of the tricks J&T pulled out. Apples to apples.
Not that this has much of anything to do with anything, but I figure since we're all just throwing out opinions without much regard to anything at all other than a few words we spotted in other people's posts that I'd toss in my buck fiddy.
That's cool, that's why there are so many dance styles out there. I used to think Jordan and Tatiana were more flare than substance, but I've come around the more and more I see them dance. Especially with the range of what they dance. And while Tatiana isn't much of a subtle dancer, Jordan is. Which is why I think they work so well. They balance each other out.
But I do, also, love the subtlety in certain dancers. I'm not sure I think of Skye and Frida as subtle --- Skye, in particular, along with Andy and the rest of the Ithaca crew, have really made big, sweeping movements in lindy hop popular. And in regards to certain Skye and Frida, I prefer them social dancing and doing improv. Their choreography, in my opinion, can be a little simplistic, though executed well.
But, in any case, I think we're in agreement that technical dancing along with creativity (whether that's subtle or showy) is what we should all be aiming for.
And Mouth, I still don't think that DDD ever said ALHC was superior. What you think is an attack on specific competitions is really just him asking some bigger philosophical questions about competitions, rules and judging and using those competitions as examples. But, again, opinions...
"If music be the food of love, play on!" - Shakespeare
Originally posted Friday, September 19, 2008 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "mouth" pocotell, I find it funny that your argument is that there is room for lots of different kinds of events and that they each have merit. I find it funny because that was my argument from the beginning.
It was Dave's argument and Dave's alone that ALHC is the best event and that all others are inferior for one reason or another. Some because they don't have rules, some because they are only 1 year old, some because he says he's seen nothing new, inspirational, or innovative come from them over the years.
My argument was I like having different events with different formats because I think that's good for the scene. And that there has been plenty of good coming from various event in lots of different ways, from ALHC AND other events.
Sounds like we agree here.
It's true, I also got into a side argument about how rules or lack thereof do not automatically make a good or bad event. But it's still related to my overall feeling that having lots of different things is good.
I think there's room for both. I judged at ULHS, the US Open, and Camp Hollywood this year, just to name a few. Three very different events. I like them all. I see how they reward different things and I enjoy that about our community. And I didn't see how one of them having no rules made it a lesser event. Dave said it does make it a lesser event. So I argued that issue with him. I wasn't saying ULHS or ALHC was better. I was saying they are both good, both do different things, and that our community seems to enjoy having options (since they both have attendees and competitors) so why dis one and say another is the "right way" to do things?
I personally hope different formats and varying risk and reward assessments don't disappear because diversity is fundamental to what lindy hop is about.
I disagree with Dave that the only right way to do things is the ALHC way. That IS NOT the same as saying ALHC is bad. Just that one way is not necessarily the best and only. And I hope the community continues to feel that way, too. They seem to be saying that loud and clear since lots of different events are thriving and so it seems people are voting with their feet and their dollars.
It is Dave who is being closed minded here. He may not be as heated a poster as some of the rest of us, but his argument is much more insulting to the community at large. I mean, he is devaluing events, organizers, judges, competitors, and attendees who prefer something different than he does. How can you defend that as a good thing???
And now I can pretty much guarantee that Dave will cut my post up, quote only the things that can be twisted into different meanings, and question me in what appears to me a completely innocent way, but is meant only to stir sh t up and make it sound like I was saying something entirely different than my actual point. Go ahead, Dave. I know you enjoy that.
No cutting. Just not sure which of these statements are opinion and which are fact. I'm not sure why you are putting words in my mouth either, Nicole. I don't seem to have any trouble expressing myself, so why would you take it upon yourself to clarify your translation of my thoughts and opinions when all of my opinions on this subject seemed to be located right here in this thread?
Though I must admit, with all the paraphrasing translation, it makes it very easy to contradict me.
I do have a few questions about your post though. Is it devaluing an event to question it's practices? I'm sure you had a few questions about the ALHC's practices and rules when you were disqualified after doing a great routine in the Classic Division in 2001. So great, in fact, was your routine that it would have placed first had it not been disqualified due to some "lindy content" ruling. (see the listing here)
Did you have questions, Nicole?
Is it so bad to question a format of competition that, while currently successful in it's practice, might lead to the same kinds of controversies that surrounded another event so many years ago? As this format of competition slowly creeps it's way into many other events across the country (ILHC, Camp Jitterbug, Camp Hollywood, and even ALHC), is it wrong to vehemently question those practices?
I cannot disagree that you have always supported pluralism in the Lindy Community, your judging and attendance record speak volumes to this. However, I need to understand why you haven't asked any questions yourself regarding an event and it's format that you clearly have more experience with than I (being in the judges room yourself)? Is it because you know something that we don't? Have all your questions already been answered? Would you share that conversation with me, or even us?
As for my opinions, preferences, arguments, competition and judging records, and even dance style preferences, I am open to discussing all of my preferences with anyone who steps up to the microphone. In all of your posts Nicole, I haven't seen or heard any questions being asked of me or this discussion board, save one. Is that because you have no other questions, or because you don't want them answered?
DDD
p.s. In answer to your one question:
Quoted from "mouth"
Quoted from "Double Down Dave"
No need for name calling.
DDD
?
What name did I call you?
Answer:
Quoted from "mouth" It makes you look dumb. Or that you think we are.
Originally posted Friday, September 19, 2008 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "pocotell" And Mouth, I still don't think that DDD ever said ALHC was superior. What you think is an attack on specific competitions is really just him asking some bigger philosophical questions about competitions, rules and judging and using those competitions as examples. But, again, opinions...
An opinion is when someone says, "I like this format better". An argument is when someone says, "this format is better" and then presents what s/he thinks is quantitative and qualitative examples/reasons why. Dave did the latter. And he did so with much specificity, not generality. The fact that he did these things is not opinion. Re-read the thread and perhaps you'll better understand.
Originally posted Friday, September 19, 2008 (3 years ago)
Just because I feel like nitpicking semantics today:
Quoted from "Double Down Dave"
p.s. In answer to your one question:
Quoted from "mouth"
Quoted from "Double Down Dave"
No need for name calling.
DDD
?
What name did I call you?
Answer:
Quoted from "mouth" It makes you look dumb. Or that you think we are.
Technically, she said that something you wrote may make you appear to have below average intelligence. This is discussing your action, not you as a person, and while not particularly nice (love you mouthy-poo), it is not personally insulting.
I figured a smart guy like you would have picked up on that.
Originally posted Friday, September 19, 2008 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "mouth" I feel like I've already made myself pretty clear. I like both formats. Why would I question them if I like them?
And the word "dumb" is not a name. A name is a noun. "Dumb" is an adjective. Hence the confusion and therefore the question.
You agreed with the judges ruling at the ALHC in 2001?
You agree that the general public shouldn't know what goes on in the judges room at ULHS? And who thought what?
Originally posted Friday, September 19, 2008 (3 years ago)
Dave,
While there is nothing official posted, nothing prevents a random person from asking the judges about how things were judged at ULHS. I know, 'cause I've done it.
Dan
[edited for a stupid mistake and to clarify a point]
Originally posted Friday, September 19, 2008 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "Double Down Dave"
Quoted from "mouth" I feel like I've already made myself pretty clear. I like both formats. Why would I question them if I like them?
And the word "dumb" is not a name. A name is a noun. "Dumb" is an adjective. Hence the confusion and therefore the question.
You agreed with the judges ruling at the ALHC in 2001?
You agree that the general public shouldn't know what goes on in the judges room at ULHS? And who thought what?
Once again, my bad.
DDD
I said I like the format that has rules and the format that doesn't. What part of that are you not understanding?
Is either format perfect? Probably not. But I've yet to see a perfect format so until I do I'm grateful both exist and enjoy each for their respective benefits to the community.
Originally posted Friday, September 19, 2008 (3 years ago)
Also, Dave, I asked you another question that you have yet to answer...
Quoted from "mouth" Oh and please explain to me how a ranking list explains to a competitor what they need to work on to improve their dancing. All I know from that information is that so-and-so-judge didn't like me as much as somebody else, not why. So you have EXACTLY the same information as you do at Showdown. Only written down and posted on a wall.
Quoted from "Double Down Dave"
...and kept for people to find years later when a discussion about judging pops up on Yehoodi.
next.
DDD
Technically, I didn't use a question mark, but it was a question you opted not to answer. How does a ranking on paper better help a dancer know what to improve upon in their dancing? That's an assertion you made but didn't explain.
Originally posted Friday, September 19, 2008 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "mouth" I said I like the format that has rules and the format that doesn't. What part of that are you not understanding?
Is either format perfect? Probably not. But I've yet to see a perfect format so until I do I'm grateful both exist and enjoy each for their respective benefits to the community.
Originally posted Friday, September 19, 2008 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "mouth" How does a ranking on paper better help a dancer know what to improve upon in their dancing? That's an assertion you made but didn't explain.
When watching YouTube, like we all do when trying to find clips of Lindy Hop. We see certain people have won, and certain people have lost. When that happens, I look to see the judges scores on each competitor to try and get an idea of what they were thinking when they watched it. I know what I was thinking, but don't always agree with the ending.
Online, I have found three things regarding the judging at ULHS (besides the things already posted on this thread):
1. A list of judges for this year. Here.
2. An essay by Nicole Frydman on Judging. Here.
3. An essay by Tena Morales on Judging. Here.
While I did find descriptions of the contests here they did not give me any insight to what a judge is looking for, like the essays did.
Nothing else. No past lists of judges, no records of what was said when they watched the routines, and no idea of what is looked for when those specific people (that I saw on YouTube) competed.
Now, the ALHC, the U.S. Open Swing Dance Championships, and many others offer a sheet of paper at the end of the weekend for each contest, after the awards have been announced. While this does nothing to provide insight into a judges thought process, it provides specific examples as to where each judge placed each specific routines and each specific social dance (depending on the division).
So, when I watch the DVDs of the ALHC (or the U.S. Open, etc.), and compare them with the judges scoring sheets that have been posted, I can then start to reason out what a judge looked for that year. Then I watch another DVD, and compare those scores with the dances I'm watching, and start to reason out those scores. Eventually, I have a clearer picture of what each judge is looking for. As those judges are likely to return, if my aim is to "win the competition", then I can certainly do better than I would if I didn't have any of that information.
Originally posted Friday, September 19, 2008 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "Double Down Dave"
Quoted from "mouth" I said I like the format that has rules and the format that doesn't. What part of that are you not understanding?
Is either format perfect? Probably not. But I've yet to see a perfect format so until I do I'm grateful both exist and enjoy each for their respective benefits to the community.
So, answer the questions.
I have when I felt I had something to contribute. I don't think I'm smart enough to have the answers to everything. Others have posted some really good sh t, too.
I'm sorry if they're not the answers you wanted to hear, though.
Quoted from "Double Down Dave"
Quoted from "mouth" How does a ranking on paper better help a dancer know what to improve upon in their dancing? That's an assertion you made but didn't explain.
Now, the ALHC, the U.S. Open Swing Dance Championships, and many others offer a sheet of paper at the end of the weekend for each contest, after the awards have been announced. While this does nothing to provide insight into a judges thought process, it provides specific examples as to where each judge placed each specific routines and each specific social dance (depending on the division).
So, when I watch the DVDs of the ALHC (or the U.S. Open, etc.), and compare them with the judges scoring sheets that have been posted, I can then start to reason out what a judge looked for that year. Then I watch another DVD, and compare those scores with the dances I'm watching, and start to reason out those scores. Eventually, I have a clearer picture of what each judge is looking for. As those judges are likely to return, if my aim is to "win the competition", then I can certainly do better than I would if I didn't have any of that information.
DDD
Ok got it. So you're saying you don't actually get any more insight, you just try to read their minds based on assumptions you make from the numbers.
Seems to me, unless you ask a judge, you'll never know why they scored what they scored the way they scored it. And you can do that at all events.
Originally posted Friday, September 19, 2008 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "mouth" Ok got it. So you're saying you don't actually get any more insight, you just try to read their minds based on assumptions you make from the numbers.
Seems to me, unless you ask a judge, you'll never know why they scored what they scored the way they scored it. And you can do that at all events.
I agree that asking a judge about what they thought and why they scored the way they scored is the best way to find out any information... however, I don't know who was judging in years past right now, that is until they post a list of some kind. Even then, I'm not sure they'd remember what they were thinking way back in 2003, or 2004. Though, as I haven't tried yet, I don't know what they remember... whoever "they" are.
Originally posted Friday, September 19, 2008 (3 years ago)
Ok so what you'd like is for certain events to be better at recording information online. Seems a reasonable request. You should make it directly to event organizers who don't do that (which includes BOTH rules events and no rules events, btw).
Here are a few examples:
Camp Hollywood
Camp Jitterbug
Boston Tea Party
ILHC
Swingin' New England
And while it appears you are convinced the US Open posts scores on its website, I can't find them. So I'll include it on the list.
Originally posted Saturday, September 20, 2008 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "Double Down Dave" Now, the ALHC, the U.S. Open Swing Dance Championships, and many others offer a sheet of paper at the end of the weekend for each contest, after the awards have been announced.
Quoted from "mouth" Ok so what you'd like is for certain events to be better at recording information online. Seems a reasonable request. You should make it directly to event organizers who don't do that (which includes BOTH rules events and no rules events, btw).
Here are a few examples:
Camp Hollywood
Camp Jitterbug
Boston Tea Party
ILHC
Swingin' New England
And while it appears you are convinced the US Open posts scores on its website, I can't find them. So I'll include it on the list.
Not many online sheets of paper out there, nor have I suggested that any event currently does it. However, there are a few people in the past that have taken pictures of the sheets of paper so you can find those online when they post them.
ULHS does not (or at least has not in the past) provide any explanation as to what happens in the judges room. No sheets of paper that is hung on the walls at the contest itself, nor posted anywhere else including online.
I'm not convinced that any event is providing the most information they can, I'm merely pointing out that while most (I cant say all) other events supply some information as to what the judges are thinking, ULHS supplies none. A sheet of paper that is hung on the wall at an event is better than nothing. Asking the judge what they were thinking at the event can be done at any event at any time, true. However, whatever information they provide is not required by the event, nor should any event be given credit for what that judge provides as an explanation.
Thinking all this begs the questions, do the competitors or even the general public have the right to know what goes on in the judges room? Should a sheet be posted outside at all? Should the competitors be allowed to face the judges in a public forum afterwards and ask all the questions they might have? Should there be full disclosure of judges decisions and proceedings, some disclosure, or none at all?
A few more questions as well.... Should the judging be anonymous? Should competitors have the opportunity to take private lessons with the judges just before so they might get a pre-competition critique? Should there be an audition process to get into certain competitions? Should those auditions be publicly or privately held? Should Lindy Hop be judged by those not intrinsically involved in the scene (i.e. have friends who are competing or be able to make a profit off of private lessons with competitors)?
Any other ideas or questions?
How about answers or opinions?
DDD
Originally posted Sunday, September 21, 2008 (3 years ago)
Dave,
I don't understand why you consider that sheet of paper to be such a significant difference. Yes, it is a brief summary of how each judge ranked each competitor relative to each other competitor, which I agree is of interest to the competitors themselves, but it does not tell anybody anything about how those same judges would rank people who didn't compete. There's no DETAIL there. It's just a relative ranking.
It's great for saying something like:
'Yeah Judge B is such a hack and tanked the routine I thought should win'
or
'I totally agree with Judge D about damn near everything'
It doesn't tell you anything about why the judges made those decisions. I don't think there a reason NOT to post that information if it's readily available, but really, it's not that valuable. At best it's a starting point for the competitors themselves.
Quote A few more questions as well.... Should the judging be anonymous? ... Should Lindy Hop be judged by those not intrinsically involved in the scene (i.e. have friends who are competing or be able to make a profit off of private lessons with competitors)?
I think anonymous judging is an interesting idea. It reduces the apparent potential conflict of interest if the judge is an active teacher. I don't believe that conflict of interest is all that dngerous myself, at least in our scene, but I could see how it might be in other circumstances. I think most people in a position to judge are likely to be more difficult on their friends and students than otherwise. But perhaps I'm being naive.
Quote Should competitors have the opportunity to take private lessons with the judges just before so they might get a pre-competition critique?
Um ... they can seek out whatever they like. Judges aren't anonymous or anything yet. Should this be provided for them? Why? I see no reason to.
Quote Should there be an audition process to get into certain competitions? Should those auditions be publicly or privately held?
There are. Some are called prelims. You're auditioning to get into the final round. ALHC has(had?) qualifiers for their championship division.
And by the way, if I were interested in becoming professional(which I'm emphatically not), trying to win comps would be the last way I'd be going about it.
Originally posted Sunday, September 21, 2008 (3 years ago)
Quoted from "Addict" Dave,
I don't understand why you consider that sheet of paper to be such a significant difference. Yes, it is a brief summary of how each judge ranked each competitor relative to each other competitor, which I agree is of interest to the competitors themselves, but it does not tell anybody anything about how those same judges would rank people who didn't compete. There's no DETAIL there. It's just a relative ranking.
It's great for saying something like:
'Yeah Judge B is such a hack and tanked the routine I thought should win'
or
'I totally agree with Judge D about damn near everything'
It doesn't tell you anything about why the judges made those decisions. I don't think there a reason NOT to post that information if it's readily available, but really, it's not that valuable. At best it's a starting point for the competitors themselves.
As opposed to nothing at all, I'll take it. However, if I study someone's work long enough (i.e. judge's scoring sheets) I can begin to understand what they like. Barring any personal differences with competitors, which happens, I can start to understand their preferences in the kind of dancing they like. It's not a terribly valuable sheet of paper as a non-competitor, but as someone who might have been in the competition those sheets give me an idea of who I should talk to about a critique.
Quoted from "Addict"
Quoted from "Double Down Dave" Should competitors have the opportunity to take private lessons with the judges just before so they might get a pre-competition critique?
Um ... they can seek out whatever they like. Judges aren't anonymous or anything yet. Should this be provided for them? Why? I see no reason to.
Not anonymous, no, but the judges for each particular division aren't really posted until you are at the event. Once there, not many judges have time for a private lesson, and most competitors are not in any shape to be changing their routine last minute. I should've phrased that question better.
Here it is, more to the point: Should judges be listed by division, months before the competition so competitors may seek them out for critiques? Would this give an unfair advantage to those that could afford these lessons?
Quoted from "Addict"
Quoted from "Double Down Dave" Should there be an audition process to get into certain competitions? Should those auditions be publicly or privately held?
There are. Some are called prelims. You're auditioning to get into the final round. ALHC has(had?) qualifiers for their championship division.
They've had qualifiers for the American Showcase division all around the country in previous years.
The audition process I was referring to was a private audition with only three or four judges present. Let's say that a division at a competition was incredibly large (over one hundred people), would having a private audition cut down on the amount of time the audience would have to spend watching endless preliminaries? Would it benefit the comp or hurt it as those people who didn't get past the private audition would be mad that they paid money and no one got to see them dance?
Quote And by the way, if I were interested in becoming professional(which I'm emphatically not), trying to win comps would be the last way I'd be going about it.
Originally posted Sunday, September 21, 2008 (3 years ago)
Taking professional as getting high level national gigs
1st: I would first focus on my ability to teach others, and try establish myself locally as the person to go to. My goal would be to turn out as many high quality dancers as rapidly as possible, rather than focusing on a retention policy which would be potentially more profitable.
2nd: I would expend as much energy as possible on my ability to perform, and do my best to regularly perform, both in from of the community and outside
3rd: I would seek out opportunities to teach outside my area, starting at smaller events, and planning to move up the ladder over time.
4th: Lastly I would occasionally compete, but not actually worry about winning, but rather seeing it as another opportunity to perform for the scene in general
Originally posted Monday, September 22, 2008 (3 years ago)
This thread is going in a lot of directions, so I m going to take a shotgun approach with my comments. It's long, but think of it as a nice distraction from the fact that its Monday.
It s a damn shame that most of the Yehoodi archives got toasted because there was an amazing discussion after NADC 2002, and leading up to the first Harlem Jazz Dance Festival where Janice Wilson laid out the vision of her event and challenged the community to think about and discuss what everyone valued. It introduced the word vernacular into the modern Lindy Hop community s vocabulary, and was remarkable because it was the last time many of the top tier dancers of the time participated in an online discussion en masse.
Does anyone here seriously think that there s a way to teach that? Can you even do it justice by trying to describe it with the written word? Something happened there that can t be learned if you took workshops and private lessons from here until the day you die. It s not something that can be boiled down to just the three T s of Timing, Teamwork, and Technique. It s about heart, soul, and passion. That s the originality that I m talking about, not just some new aerial or footwork combination. Watch the other ten minutes of that contest, and no one reacts the same way like they do to Mickey and Nina.
I like no holds barred contests, and I don t mind that judges for most events don t list what they look for in a comp. I feel that this forces people to dig down deep inside and show us what they re about. When we're lucky, they tap into that intangible factor that makes judges jump out of their seats, fellow competitors scream, and the whole crowd go apesh!t crazy for 10 swingouts. Some of the craziest aerials and stunts I've ever seen in a contest happen in that clip and Mickey and Nina almost started a riot with ten examples of the most basic pattern in Lindy Hop.
Quoted from "Artie Shaw" I m not comfortable with categories, and I distrust most definitions. The word definition is based on the word finite, which would seem to indicate that once we ve defined something, we don t need to think about it anymore.
Dave you mentioned that you ve been dancing for 14 years, and that you re pretty comfortable with Lindy Hop. So why do you or anyone else need the input of all these judges? To win? And then what? To become a professional dancer? Is this a competition or a marketing opportunity? Honestly, I don t see how you can advocate getting people to make original contributions to the dance, but also be on a mission to fulfill someone else s preconceived notions.
Great dancing, or art in general, isn t just about technical skill, or even how creative you can be. Important factors? Certainly. But there's also the ability to reach out to an audience and get them to react on an emotional level; to see what you see rather than settling by just giving them what they want, whatever you think that is.
Yes, the choreography for Skye and Frida s 2007 routine was relatively simple, especially if you compare it to some of the stuff that people can throw down today. But complexity of movement wasn t the point. They had a little idea that they wanted to explore and share with everyone. How you measure that? You can t, which is why competitions suck for these kinds of things, but they re the main venue we have right now for dancers to showcase their ideas. So until a more creative outlet comes along, I think it would be a better to have fewer rules in place in order to continue and encourage dialogue.
Dave mentioned having a continuous conversation about our dance, and I agree, but most of the arguments for this debate are ultimately going to be made on the dance floor. For better or worse, competitions are our main forums for this discussion.
Go back to my Silver Shadows example. Even with what seemed like an objective standard, there was still a difference of opinion that cost the Shadows. They had thought they had choreographed enough movement to fulfill the judges expectations. They were wrong.
Theoretically, I could have gotten seven of my friends, did swingouts for 3 minutes, and beaten the Silver Shadows. (assuming there weren t six other teams in the division :P) As awesome as that sounds to me, what would have anyone gotten from that?
That s what this mentality of inventorying judges opinions and setting official standards says to me. Play it safe, color within the lines, and you ll do well. Judges: I want to see this. Competitor: Here it is. End of discussion. Swing Heil.
In my opinion, the best way to keep this conversation going is to let the dancers dance; to show us what they have by fostering an environment where people can contribute their ideas without being held prisoner to other people s expectations. Besides, it s not like we don t have standards in the form of vintage clips and the great new dancing that happens every year.
Some people want the best aspects of these clips enumerated in some sort of easy to reference list, but as I ve mentioned before on this thread:
Quote . . . . people are always looking for an easy to follow recipe to win more competitions, become a professional dancer, or what religion or political party, if any, to follow. And the answer that people don t like to hear is that its all very complicated and depends on a lot of stuff, some of which you can control, and a lot of which you can t. But they don t have time for that kind of critique or self reflection especially for something like Lindy Hop.
What are we about? Are we about certain types of music? How fast or slow our dancing is? What kind of lines we can draw with our bodies? To me, all that stuff is incidental. Who are you? Why do you dance? What do you want to say? How are you going to tell other people? Those are the core questions that I think, if answered honestly and courageously, will keep this conversation going on the dance floor.
How to get professional?
Hey all! This is my first post on Yehoodi :) I've been swing dancing for three years and I absolutely love it. I consider myself to be a pretty decent dancer but my ultimate goal is to become professional (i.e. win at Beantown/similar comp and be invited to teach at camps). What would you…
Page(s): < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... Next > (282 items total)
I do take their statements to heart. That's why I responded. If I took their statements for granted then I wouldn't argue. I'm not unwilling to waver, however I would like to hear more opinions. Hearing three opinions, while very strong are still only three out of hundreds.
If I had truly dismissed anyone's opinions then I wouldn't have bothered even reading them. I'd still like to hear your opinion, DJ.
DDD
i am not a fan of alhc.
that being said, i would like to point out that it is very much to paulette's credit that a significant change in said recording happened last year. this policy enabled you to get a copy of your own or anyone's performance, professionally recorded, at 10 a pop, immediately after said performance. i was a huge fan of this. i didn't have to lug my camera around or watch the performances through its little window or worry about screaming too loud to be caught on my camera- and since i only wanted one performance, 10 was well worth it. not to mention that as the pro took it, it was from the best possible angle with no heads in the way.
ok, back to the arguing.
pocotell, I find it funny that your argument is that there is room for lots of different kinds of events and that they each have merit. I find it funny because that was my argument from the beginning.
It was Dave's argument and Dave's alone that ALHC is the best event and that all others are inferior for one reason or another. Some because they don't have rules, some because they are only 1 year old, some because he says he's seen nothing new, inspirational, or innovative come from them over the years.
My argument was I like having different events with different formats because I think that's good for the scene. And that there has been plenty of good coming from various event in lots of different ways, from ALHC AND other events.
Sounds like we agree here.
It's true, I also got into a side argument about how rules or lack thereof do not automatically make a good or bad event. But it's still related to my overall feeling that having lots of different things is good.
I think there's room for both. I judged at ULHS, the US Open, and Camp Hollywood this year, just to name a few. Three very different events. I like them all. I see how they reward different things and I enjoy that about our community. And I didn't see how one of them having no rules made it a lesser event. Dave said it does make it a lesser event. So I argued that issue with him. I wasn't saying ULHS or ALHC was better. I was saying they are both good, both do different things, and that our community seems to enjoy having options (since they both have attendees and competitors) so why dis one and say another is the "right way" to do things?
I personally hope different formats and varying risk and reward assessments don't disappear because diversity is fundamental to what lindy hop is about.
I disagree with Dave that the only right way to do things is the ALHC way. That IS NOT the same as saying ALHC is bad. Just that one way is not necessarily the best and only. And I hope the community continues to feel that way, too. They seem to be saying that loud and clear since lots of different events are thriving and so it seems people are voting with their feet and their dollars.
It is Dave who is being closed minded here. He may not be as heated a poster as some of the rest of us, but his argument is much more insulting to the community at large. I mean, he is devaluing events, organizers, judges, competitors, and attendees who prefer something different than he does. How can you defend that as a good thing???
And now I can pretty much guarantee that Dave will cut my post up, quote only the things that can be twisted into different meanings, and question me in what appears to me a completely innocent way, but is meant only to stir sh t up and make it sound like I was saying something entirely different than my actual point. Go ahead, Dave. I know you enjoy that.
I also wanted to reply to this specifically because I wanted to ask if you knew who's been placing in the top 3 at ULHS for the last few years. Kevin, Carla, and Nick have ALL won and placed several times at ULHS In fact, they're all pretty regular names during awards. Nathalie and Yuval haven't come so who knows where they would place. But the other three dancers you cited all win there.
So if you like their style of dance, you're in agreement with ULHS's priorities and judgements about dance, as well.
Just wanted to make that point, thanks.
Maybe this is just my perspective, but I don't think he's saying ALHC is a superior event. I think his original point, which has since been taken a little out of context with each smaller and more in-depth reply (and gotten into a much larger philosophical debate about competitions), was that ALHC is still a major competition, among others, which would be important for an up-and-coming dancer to attend. And with that assessment, I do agree.
Otherwise, he is just questioning the validity of competitions without rules because (at least from my reading of his posts) there's too much objectivity. And, while I'm not opposed to the idea of no rules, I'm certainly feel more confident about competitions, and judges, that know exactly what they are judging in their competitors.
I think it's wonderful that great dancers have managed to do well at events like ULHS. I think it means that there IS somewhere in us, a standard of good dancing. I think, more and more, it's going to be important for us to define that. Not that ALHC has, or that ULHS is going to suddenly have "rules" because of it, but that's the direction I think we're headed, which will invariably become important for competition in general. I think having a clear goal of the very specific techniques that make lindy hop good is ultimately a good thing, and will be helpful for competitors trying to become professional dancers.
I think of it like the west coast swing couple Jordan and Tatiana. They can tell you exactly, from every muscle, bone and weight shift, what makes west coast swing good. They have it down to a science. And yet, they are, in my opinion, one of the most creative swing dancers ever and have really found new directions in west coast swing. That's what I hope for lindy hop and competitions.
"If music be the food of love, play on!" - Shakespeare
While I find Jordan and Tatiana to be incredible technical dancers, I always find that their dancing somehow is moreso to the music and less with the music. But then, that's a value judgment that I make about how to interpret the music.
I'd pick a couple that was a little less technical but a lot more subtle over that any day (one of the reasons I find that Skye & Frida routine so mindblowing). Lest anyone say I'm trying to favor lindy vs. WCS, I've seen some subtle WCS at the competition level that IMO was far better than any of the tricks J&T pulled out. Apples to apples.
Not that this has much of anything to do with anything, but I figure since we're all just throwing out opinions without much regard to anything at all other than a few words we spotted in other people's posts that I'd toss in my buck fiddy.
pocotell, I completely disagree with your assessment of Dave's argument. Throughout the course of this thread he has valued ALHC above all other events and has done it in a very dismissive way. That's what we're all reacting to so vehemently. Yes there are also other issues we've dissected. But I believe we've dissected them only because of his overall premise that the ALHC way is the best way and all events that don't do it that way are inherently lesser.
Many strong and intelligent voices have stepped up to make some or all of that point.
If he'd said, "I personally like this better but see validity in other ways", nobody's panties would be in a bunch.
I find it completely understandable that people have preferences. Duh. I don't find it at all understandable that people can look at the dancing coming out of events that do things differently and say little to no good has come from them or that they are somehow hurting the community.
Ha, we can tie that all back Keither.....
OK, so as previously mentioned and overlooked - there's a lot of issues with reworking the rules in WCS.
At Boogie by the Bay last year a number of couples were docked points (no disqualifications) based on lack of swing content. Which led the a whole online (and offline) discussion of "WHAT IS SWING CONTENT?" and how the judges are able to measure 80 swing content or such while judging the merits of the routine or jack & jill as a whole.
Additionally, there has been a lot of talk about music and determining what gets played for competion. Not to the degree of setting tempos like in ballroom, but how does a WCS DJ or couple choose music for a dance which can supposedly be done to anything. At what point does WCS as a dance become a new dance (much in the way WCS was created out of lindy hop).
There has been much discussion over Jordan & Tatiana's routines to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obX1WQZ5b70">Pump it</a> and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=340799kbLNA">Sexi Plexi</a> as neither song swings. So are they doing WCS still or something new? How do you judge that?
Most recently <a herf="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9nd0zDox5I">Benji Schwimmer danced with Kellese Key at Grand Nationals</a> to a decidedly latin song. Again, is this WCS or something new? And can you see the swing content? I had to watch it a few times to find swing-like patterns in the movement and even then it's not rhythmically swing - how does a judge pick up on this live during one viewing? Playing devils advocate as Dave did before - is it possible they were rewarded for who they were and strong dancing rather than dancing within the rules? They clearly were strong technical dancers and very creative in what they did, there's no denying that. Nor can I see clips of other dances (just not put up on youtube) to compare.
As a result, this huge debate started over defining swing content and arguing over music and what should be played in competition, socially, and in jack & jills- should it be what people want to hear (because this is dancing and not life or dance, so we should dance to what we like) or what is traditional WCS (again, moving way from nature of the original dance).
The rules have to be clearly and precisely definable in order to be consistent, but if too precise start to mesh into that world of strict competitive dancing a la the ballroom world. Where's the balance? And without rules you have to consider the possibility of it going to a far extreme of no longer being WCS.
Who do you trust to define terms and create the rules if you go that route. How long has this dance been around and people still use a similar response to what Lucy posted - I know it when I see it. But that doesn't always sit will as an answer for a couple looking to discover why they were docked points for that reason. Plus, the World Swing Dance Council and it's guidelines are just that - so events currently enforce what they want from the guidelines
Shouldn't good and entertaining dancing be rewarded simply for being that? Does it really need rules if the rules are to vauge or complicated?
I have no answer and see both the good and bad of having rules.
(side note that I think is interesting - talking to various competitors, apparently some have been told by judges that costuming is included in ranking of placement and this includes wearing rhinestones - apparently it's not a costume without rhinestones. How this relates to your creativity in choreography or dance ability, I have no clue).
Stacked: Dangerously Well-Read
That's cool, that's why there are so many dance styles out there. I used to think Jordan and Tatiana were more flare than substance, but I've come around the more and more I see them dance. Especially with the range of what they dance. And while Tatiana isn't much of a subtle dancer, Jordan is. Which is why I think they work so well. They balance each other out.
But I do, also, love the subtlety in certain dancers. I'm not sure I think of Skye and Frida as subtle --- Skye, in particular, along with Andy and the rest of the Ithaca crew, have really made big, sweeping movements in lindy hop popular. And in regards to certain Skye and Frida, I prefer them social dancing and doing improv. Their choreography, in my opinion, can be a little simplistic, though executed well.
But, in any case, I think we're in agreement that technical dancing along with creativity (whether that's subtle or showy) is what we should all be aiming for.
And Mouth, I still don't think that DDD ever said ALHC was superior. What you think is an attack on specific competitions is really just him asking some bigger philosophical questions about competitions, rules and judging and using those competitions as examples. But, again, opinions...
"If music be the food of love, play on!" - Shakespeare
No cutting. Just not sure which of these statements are opinion and which are fact. I'm not sure why you are putting words in my mouth either, Nicole. I don't seem to have any trouble expressing myself, so why would you take it upon yourself to clarify your translation of my thoughts and opinions when all of my opinions on this subject seemed to be located right here in this thread?
Though I must admit, with all the paraphrasing translation, it makes it very easy to contradict me.
I do have a few questions about your post though. Is it devaluing an event to question it's practices? I'm sure you had a few questions about the ALHC's practices and rules when you were disqualified after doing a great routine in the Classic Division in 2001. So great, in fact, was your routine that it would have placed first had it not been disqualified due to some "lindy content" ruling. (see the listing here)
Did you have questions, Nicole?
Is it so bad to question a format of competition that, while currently successful in it's practice, might lead to the same kinds of controversies that surrounded another event so many years ago? As this format of competition slowly creeps it's way into many other events across the country (ILHC, Camp Jitterbug, Camp Hollywood, and even ALHC), is it wrong to vehemently question those practices?
I cannot disagree that you have always supported pluralism in the Lindy Community, your judging and attendance record speak volumes to this. However, I need to understand why you haven't asked any questions yourself regarding an event and it's format that you clearly have more experience with than I (being in the judges room yourself)? Is it because you know something that we don't? Have all your questions already been answered? Would you share that conversation with me, or even us?
As for my opinions, preferences, arguments, competition and judging records, and even dance style preferences, I am open to discussing all of my preferences with anyone who steps up to the microphone. In all of your posts Nicole, I haven't seen or heard any questions being asked of me or this discussion board, save one. Is that because you have no other questions, or because you don't want them answered?
DDD
p.s. In answer to your one question:
Answer:
An opinion is when someone says, "I like this format better". An argument is when someone says, "this format is better" and then presents what s/he thinks is quantitative and qualitative examples/reasons why. Dave did the latter. And he did so with much specificity, not generality. The fact that he did these things is not opinion. Re-read the thread and perhaps you'll better understand.
Just because I feel like nitpicking semantics today:
Technically, she said that something you wrote may make you appear to have below average intelligence. This is discussing your action, not you as a person, and while not particularly nice (love you mouthy-poo), it is not personally insulting.
I figured a smart guy like you would have picked up on that.
My bad then.
I feel like I've already made myself pretty clear. I like both formats. Why would I question them if I like them?
And the word "dumb" is not a name. A name is a noun. "Dumb" is an adjective. Hence the confusion and therefore the question.
Meg - HA!
Great minds think alike and all that. :wink:
You agreed with the judges ruling at the ALHC in 2001? You agree that the general public shouldn't know what goes on in the judges room at ULHS? And who thought what?
Once again, my bad. DDD
Dave,
While there is nothing official posted, nothing prevents a random person from asking the judges about how things were judged at ULHS. I know, 'cause I've done it.
Dan
[edited for a stupid mistake and to clarify a point]
I said I like the format that has rules and the format that doesn't. What part of that are you not understanding? Is either format perfect? Probably not. But I've yet to see a perfect format so until I do I'm grateful both exist and enjoy each for their respective benefits to the community.
Also, Dave, I asked you another question that you have yet to answer...
Technically, I didn't use a question mark, but it was a question you opted not to answer. How does a ranking on paper better help a dancer know what to improve upon in their dancing? That's an assertion you made but didn't explain.
So, answer the questions.
When watching YouTube, like we all do when trying to find clips of Lindy Hop. We see certain people have won, and certain people have lost. When that happens, I look to see the judges scores on each competitor to try and get an idea of what they were thinking when they watched it. I know what I was thinking, but don't always agree with the ending.
Online, I have found three things regarding the judging at ULHS (besides the things already posted on this thread): 1. A list of judges for this year. Here. 2. An essay by Nicole Frydman on Judging. Here. 3. An essay by Tena Morales on Judging. Here.
While I did find descriptions of the contests here they did not give me any insight to what a judge is looking for, like the essays did.
Nothing else. No past lists of judges, no records of what was said when they watched the routines, and no idea of what is looked for when those specific people (that I saw on YouTube) competed.
Now, the ALHC, the U.S. Open Swing Dance Championships, and many others offer a sheet of paper at the end of the weekend for each contest, after the awards have been announced. While this does nothing to provide insight into a judges thought process, it provides specific examples as to where each judge placed each specific routines and each specific social dance (depending on the division).
So, when I watch the DVDs of the ALHC (or the U.S. Open, etc.), and compare them with the judges scoring sheets that have been posted, I can then start to reason out what a judge looked for that year. Then I watch another DVD, and compare those scores with the dances I'm watching, and start to reason out those scores. Eventually, I have a clearer picture of what each judge is looking for. As those judges are likely to return, if my aim is to "win the competition", then I can certainly do better than I would if I didn't have any of that information.
DDD
I have when I felt I had something to contribute. I don't think I'm smart enough to have the answers to everything. Others have posted some really good sh t, too.
I'm sorry if they're not the answers you wanted to hear, though.
Ok got it. So you're saying you don't actually get any more insight, you just try to read their minds based on assumptions you make from the numbers.
Seems to me, unless you ask a judge, you'll never know why they scored what they scored the way they scored it. And you can do that at all events.
I agree that asking a judge about what they thought and why they scored the way they scored is the best way to find out any information... however, I don't know who was judging in years past right now, that is until they post a list of some kind. Even then, I'm not sure they'd remember what they were thinking way back in 2003, or 2004. Though, as I haven't tried yet, I don't know what they remember... whoever "they" are.
Until then, I'll take anything I can get. DDD
Ok so what you'd like is for certain events to be better at recording information online. Seems a reasonable request. You should make it directly to event organizers who don't do that (which includes BOTH rules events and no rules events, btw).
Here are a few examples: Camp Hollywood Camp Jitterbug Boston Tea Party ILHC Swingin' New England
And while it appears you are convinced the US Open posts scores on its website, I can't find them. So I'll include it on the list.
Not many online sheets of paper out there, nor have I suggested that any event currently does it. However, there are a few people in the past that have taken pictures of the sheets of paper so you can find those online when they post them.
ULHS does not (or at least has not in the past) provide any explanation as to what happens in the judges room. No sheets of paper that is hung on the walls at the contest itself, nor posted anywhere else including online.
I'm not convinced that any event is providing the most information they can, I'm merely pointing out that while most (I cant say all) other events supply some information as to what the judges are thinking, ULHS supplies none. A sheet of paper that is hung on the wall at an event is better than nothing. Asking the judge what they were thinking at the event can be done at any event at any time, true. However, whatever information they provide is not required by the event, nor should any event be given credit for what that judge provides as an explanation.
Thinking all this begs the questions, do the competitors or even the general public have the right to know what goes on in the judges room? Should a sheet be posted outside at all? Should the competitors be allowed to face the judges in a public forum afterwards and ask all the questions they might have? Should there be full disclosure of judges decisions and proceedings, some disclosure, or none at all?
A few more questions as well.... Should the judging be anonymous? Should competitors have the opportunity to take private lessons with the judges just before so they might get a pre-competition critique? Should there be an audition process to get into certain competitions? Should those auditions be publicly or privately held? Should Lindy Hop be judged by those not intrinsically involved in the scene (i.e. have friends who are competing or be able to make a profit off of private lessons with competitors)?
Any other ideas or questions? How about answers or opinions? DDD
Dave,
I don't understand why you consider that sheet of paper to be such a significant difference. Yes, it is a brief summary of how each judge ranked each competitor relative to each other competitor, which I agree is of interest to the competitors themselves, but it does not tell anybody anything about how those same judges would rank people who didn't compete. There's no DETAIL there. It's just a relative ranking.
It's great for saying something like:
'Yeah Judge B is such a hack and tanked the routine I thought should win'
or
'I totally agree with Judge D about damn near everything'
It doesn't tell you anything about why the judges made those decisions. I don't think there a reason NOT to post that information if it's readily available, but really, it's not that valuable. At best it's a starting point for the competitors themselves.
I think anonymous judging is an interesting idea. It reduces the apparent potential conflict of interest if the judge is an active teacher. I don't believe that conflict of interest is all that dngerous myself, at least in our scene, but I could see how it might be in other circumstances. I think most people in a position to judge are likely to be more difficult on their friends and students than otherwise. But perhaps I'm being naive.
Um ... they can seek out whatever they like. Judges aren't anonymous or anything yet. Should this be provided for them? Why? I see no reason to.
There are. Some are called prelims. You're auditioning to get into the final round. ALHC has(had?) qualifiers for their championship division.
And by the way, if I were interested in becoming professional(which I'm emphatically not), trying to win comps would be the last way I'd be going about it.
As opposed to nothing at all, I'll take it. However, if I study someone's work long enough (i.e. judge's scoring sheets) I can begin to understand what they like. Barring any personal differences with competitors, which happens, I can start to understand their preferences in the kind of dancing they like. It's not a terribly valuable sheet of paper as a non-competitor, but as someone who might have been in the competition those sheets give me an idea of who I should talk to about a critique.
Not anonymous, no, but the judges for each particular division aren't really posted until you are at the event. Once there, not many judges have time for a private lesson, and most competitors are not in any shape to be changing their routine last minute. I should've phrased that question better.
Here it is, more to the point: Should judges be listed by division, months before the competition so competitors may seek them out for critiques? Would this give an unfair advantage to those that could afford these lessons?
They've had qualifiers for the American Showcase division all around the country in previous years.
The audition process I was referring to was a private audition with only three or four judges present. Let's say that a division at a competition was incredibly large (over one hundred people), would having a private audition cut down on the amount of time the audience would have to spend watching endless preliminaries? Would it benefit the comp or hurt it as those people who didn't get past the private audition would be mad that they paid money and no one got to see them dance?
What would you do instead? DDD
Taking professional as getting high level national gigs
1st: I would first focus on my ability to teach others, and try establish myself locally as the person to go to. My goal would be to turn out as many high quality dancers as rapidly as possible, rather than focusing on a retention policy which would be potentially more profitable.
2nd: I would expend as much energy as possible on my ability to perform, and do my best to regularly perform, both in from of the community and outside
3rd: I would seek out opportunities to teach outside my area, starting at smaller events, and planning to move up the ladder over time.
4th: Lastly I would occasionally compete, but not actually worry about winning, but rather seeing it as another opportunity to perform for the scene in general
On the ULHS contest page two judges have provided essays describing what they look for.
This thread is going in a lot of directions, so I m going to take a shotgun approach with my comments. It's long, but think of it as a nice distraction from the fact that its Monday.
It s a damn shame that most of the Yehoodi archives got toasted because there was an amazing discussion after NADC 2002, and leading up to the first Harlem Jazz Dance Festival where Janice Wilson laid out the vision of her event and challenged the community to think about and discuss what everyone valued. It introduced the word vernacular into the modern Lindy Hop community s vocabulary, and was remarkable because it was the last time many of the top tier dancers of the time participated in an online discussion en masse.
Lots of people took different things out of that thread, but this is what I learned: There s a difference between doing a "swing out" and swinging out. Everyone here can do the former. (I would hope) Nina Gilkenson and Mikey Pedroza showed us an example of the latter at this year s Camp Hollywood/National Jitterbug Championships starting at 3:58 on this clip.
Does anyone here seriously think that there s a way to teach that? Can you even do it justice by trying to describe it with the written word? Something happened there that can t be learned if you took workshops and private lessons from here until the day you die. It s not something that can be boiled down to just the three T s of Timing, Teamwork, and Technique. It s about heart, soul, and passion. That s the originality that I m talking about, not just some new aerial or footwork combination. Watch the other ten minutes of that contest, and no one reacts the same way like they do to Mickey and Nina.
I like no holds barred contests, and I don t mind that judges for most events don t list what they look for in a comp. I feel that this forces people to dig down deep inside and show us what they re about. When we're lucky, they tap into that intangible factor that makes judges jump out of their seats, fellow competitors scream, and the whole crowd go apesh!t crazy for 10 swingouts. Some of the craziest aerials and stunts I've ever seen in a contest happen in that clip and Mickey and Nina almost started a riot with ten examples of the most basic pattern in Lindy Hop.
Dave you mentioned that you ve been dancing for 14 years, and that you re pretty comfortable with Lindy Hop. So why do you or anyone else need the input of all these judges? To win? And then what? To become a professional dancer? Is this a competition or a marketing opportunity? Honestly, I don t see how you can advocate getting people to make original contributions to the dance, but also be on a mission to fulfill someone else s preconceived notions.
Great dancing, or art in general, isn t just about technical skill, or even how creative you can be. Important factors? Certainly. But there's also the ability to reach out to an audience and get them to react on an emotional level; to see what you see rather than settling by just giving them what they want, whatever you think that is.
Yes, the choreography for Skye and Frida s 2007 routine was relatively simple, especially if you compare it to some of the stuff that people can throw down today. But complexity of movement wasn t the point. They had a little idea that they wanted to explore and share with everyone. How you measure that? You can t, which is why competitions suck for these kinds of things, but they re the main venue we have right now for dancers to showcase their ideas. So until a more creative outlet comes along, I think it would be a better to have fewer rules in place in order to continue and encourage dialogue.
Dave mentioned having a continuous conversation about our dance, and I agree, but most of the arguments for this debate are ultimately going to be made on the dance floor. For better or worse, competitions are our main forums for this discussion.
Go back to my Silver Shadows example. Even with what seemed like an objective standard, there was still a difference of opinion that cost the Shadows. They had thought they had choreographed enough movement to fulfill the judges expectations. They were wrong.
Theoretically, I could have gotten seven of my friends, did swingouts for 3 minutes, and beaten the Silver Shadows. (assuming there weren t six other teams in the division :P) As awesome as that sounds to me, what would have anyone gotten from that?
That s what this mentality of inventorying judges opinions and setting official standards says to me. Play it safe, color within the lines, and you ll do well. Judges: I want to see this. Competitor: Here it is. End of discussion. Swing Heil.
In my opinion, the best way to keep this conversation going is to let the dancers dance; to show us what they have by fostering an environment where people can contribute their ideas without being held prisoner to other people s expectations. Besides, it s not like we don t have standards in the form of vintage clips and the great new dancing that happens every year.
Some people want the best aspects of these clips enumerated in some sort of easy to reference list, but as I ve mentioned before on this thread:
What are we about? Are we about certain types of music? How fast or slow our dancing is? What kind of lines we can draw with our bodies? To me, all that stuff is incidental. Who are you? Why do you dance? What do you want to say? How are you going to tell other people? Those are the core questions that I think, if answered honestly and courageously, will keep this conversation going on the dance floor.
Jerry
My Blog: http://jsalmonte.wordpress.com/
Page(s): < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... Next > (282 items total)
BBCode is no longer supported. Use Markdown instead: