Quoted from "JSAlmonte"
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.

A passionate response is awe-inspiring, and a beautiful thing to see. I agree that we need more of this in the Lindy Hop community. The response we have is visceral, almost tangible in it's passion, to a routine or just a dance that is much more than just a bunch of moves. There is an emotion running through that simple set of steps that can not be replicated or taught. A truly original moment. No argument there.

Quote
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.

So, what you are actually looking for is passion? A completely believable, passionate, emotional, and original dance? This is an interesting, and very compelling way of looking at Lindy Hop.

Quote
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.

It sounds as if you are asking "why do I compete?" I think you could ask just about anyone who has ever appeared at any competition anywhere and get a different answer every time. As if going into a competition that has judges, rules or no, is a testament to that person's desire for approval. I think you have forgotten where that "passionate originality" you are champion of (Mikey & Nina) occurred... on a competitive dance floor.

As far as my motives for competing are concerned, Jerry, they have changed constantly since the day I started.

Quote
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.

I think the logic here is flawed in saying that competitions should be more like performances, therefore they should have fewer rules. Especially seeing that you have already stated that, "...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..." You have basically stated that a range of emotion can not be graded by anyone, whether Mikey & Nina's swing-outs would somehow trump Skye & Frida's classic routine is comparing apples to oranges on that emotional level. Both are emotional responses, and both are to be rewarded equally. A lack of rules would make the judging easier or harder when your only basis for comparison (showmanship) is emotional and more subjective than any finite ruling?

This sole qualifier, "showmanship," has been included in the rules of every performance based competition I have been to since I started dancing, and definitely a part of every theatre competition I have been to since I was kid (I'm a theatre geek, yes.) However, many judges have misinterpreted the rule regarding "showmanship" as to be a testament of how calm or easy the dancers make a seemingly hard dance look. It's the difference between a Shakespearean actor not just making sense of the language he/she has spoken, but endowing that speech with character, emotion, and clarity of thought.

What then are we, as judges, to use as a basis for comparison if not emotional commitment and passion? Whether or not we agree with the emotional response that the performers had, at the time that they had it? Shall we grade on whether or not the emotion was believable? Whether they sold it or fell flat on their face?

Quote
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.

Very true. However, to deny our ability to talk endlessly about stuff that can never be expressed in words will only encourage those with shorter tempers and a smaller vocabulary to speak for us.

Quote
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 the Silver Shadows should've been more clear as to where the choreography began? You asked.

Quote
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.

I don't see anyone being held down by anyone else's expectations or standards. Are any of the Silver Shadows in danger of quitting the competitive or social floor, saying, "F ck it. I give up."? Do the best of us give up when we lose, or are we challenged to do better? Or when we win, do we say, "F ck it... on to better things."? Either way, there is no competition that says, "No. You can't dance on this floor."

Quote
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.

When does the new become old? Aren't there a finite number of vintage clips to be seen? When does the same style of dance keep looking like the same routine hashed out just to a different song with a different set of players? Is that the time you cash in your chips and move on? Or is that the time you look elsewhere for inspiration, and find to new eyes to use for looking upon the same old song and dance?

Quote
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.

Couldn't agree more.

Quote
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

I think all questions about our dance are incidental, meaning a natural occurrence to, and yet all of them are relevant as well. To dismiss anyone's curiosity about learning to be a better technical dancer, is the same as dismissing anyone's desire to learn more about being a passionate dancer.

Which is not to say that you are dismissive in any way, Jerry. However, you may be more focused on one aspect of the dance, and more inspired by the passion incurred while on the dance floor than someone who is inspired by the technicality of it all.

The problem I have seen since my induction into the world of Lindy Hop and it's competitive nature are the values that we cling to so dearly and are unwilling to change. These values are, more often than not, a knee-jerk response to another set of values that we were, of course, limited to and opposed to when we found that we could not exist inside and thrive. Those values were, at that point (ALHC circa 2001), the rules that we based our competitive performance around. The knee-jerk response was, let's have a competition but with no rules (ULHS circa 2002). When, in fact, it wasn't the establishment of any rules that we found oppressive. It was the rules themselves, and how they were carried out.

"To value technicality above passion is not where Lindy Hop should go if it will thrive as a dance and an art form." That is what you are arguing, yes? Well, no one is arguing that, especially not me.

My disagreement with you only lies in the answer to the question: "Where should we go from here?" My answer is not to forego all the rules. If passion, emotion, and showmanship are to be valued above all then that is what the judges should be told. That should be a rule. If technicality, timing, and teamwork are subservient to that purpose, and should only be used when two performances are indistinguishable in their performance from level of emotional commitment. Then the three "T"'s should be used as a tie breaker of sorts. If Mikey and Nina were to come out on the dance floor and show us ten perfectly crazy and beautiful swing-outs, and Skye and Frida were to show us a routine that was equally beautiful in it's emotional connection to the audience... what should those judges look for? Who they like better? Who they are better friends with? or Should they look for who was more technical? Should they look for who showed the greater difficulty level if the emotional connection to the audience is indiscernible?

A competition like this does not exist, yet. As ULHS does not have any rules, by it's own admission, there is no motivation for anyone to step up and show their passion for the dance beyond that which has already been shown, as there is no guarantee that it will be rewarded. ALHC values technicality, at the moment, and passion for the dance and in the dance would be secondary to that. So there is no motivation to show passion without principle first, which can sometimes get in the way and take something raw away from that emotional connection.

Other competitions have tried to find an equilibrium to their judging, by allowing "anything goes" and "content" based competitions into their folds. With no compromise in use, that I am aware of, I'm afraid the "anything goes" format will eventually take over. No rules, and nothing guiding the judges on what to reward. Take it or leave it.

With no rules, however, there will be nothing to fight against if you happen to disagree, except the fact that there are no rules.

DDD

Quoted from "bryn"
The culture of the event is what influences the judges. At ULHS, passion/showmanship/emotion (I'm not satisfied with any of those descriptors, but have nothing better) is rewarded because that's the spirit of the event. No one needs a rule to tell them that.

Okay. You know that. Does everyone else? DDD

Jerry, thanks for pointing out that CH clip. There was some crazy, badass, inspiring stuff going on. Any one of the couples could have won. There shouldn't be a question that everything was Lindy Hop. Everyone was technically very good.

What really strikes me with Mikey and Nina is that they chose to create something different. The contrast between their swing-outs and all the crazy [bleep!] was what highlighted their skill.

When there are prescribed rules such as there must be aerials in a routine or dancers can not touch the floor or any number of tic-tack penalties discourages artistic risks.

Dave, you asserted that ALHC was the more prestigious competition in part because of it's rules. Jerry provided some concrete numbers showing a marked decrease in the number of competitors. The video of preliminary rounds of ULHS show that the field of competitors is much larger. Prestige may be different for everyone but to me it seems like a larger proportion of the scene believes ULHS is more prestigious by way of popularity.

With that popularity, it seems that people (competitors and spectators) either already know what to expect or if they don't have an expectation are happy with what is delivered. A lot of people talk about their experience at ULHS, that sets some implicit general expectations for the event.

As an organizer, I believe it's important to meet or exceed expectations with an event. In the case of the ALHC DQs in the early 2000's and the subsequent drop in attendance, that seems like an indicator that ALHC did not meet the expectations that may have been set by their explicit rules.

Quoted from "Double Down Dave"
It sounds as if you are asking "why do I compete?" I think you could ask just about anyone who has ever appeared at any competition anywhere and get a different answer every time. As if going into a competition that has judges, not necessarily rules, is a testament to that person's desire for approval. I think you have forgotten where that "passionate originality" you are champion of (Mikey & Nina) occurred... on a competitive dance floor.

Not quite sure I m following what is being said here. I m questioning how you re going about trying to win at any competition by adjusting your dancing at each event by consulting some sort of theoretical database of judges opinions. Aside from the fact that its kinda creepy, it s mercenary and makes a person s dancing look insincere.

It s the same kind of perception that hosed Hilary Clinton in the primaries when people accused her triangulating her positions. It sounds like a prudent strategy, but it still leaves a bad taste in people s mouths.

Quoted from "Double Down Dave"

Quoted from "JSAlmonte"
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 ) As awesome as that sounds to me, what would have anyone gotten from that?

That the Silver Shadows should've been more clear as to where the choreography began? You asked.

Swing Heil. (Does this count as a Godwin?)

Quoted from "Double Down Dave"
I don't see anyone being held down by anyone else's expectations or standards.

Then you need to pay attention more. Nicole already mentioned this year s ILHC Classic division where many of the competitors resembled Frida and Skye s routine from last year. Even with few guidelines, people still fell back to what has been successful. You haven t presented a substantial case for how instituting a more structured competition event would change this other than saying it would.

What you perceive as a contradiction in principle in my posts is actually my acknowledgment of the reality of our current circumstances. The primary venue for the demonstration of creative ideas in the Lindy Hop community as of September, 2008 is competition events, particularly those that allow contest footage to be freely distributed over the Internet.

In light of that, I generally favor less rigid rules to allow for the flow of a greater variety of ideas for the reasons outlined by Lucy in her earlier post. If we had more notable performance outlets, I would be less concerned about the amount of limitations at competitive events. But we don t, so I think the current situation where we have a handful of competition events with varying structures, skewed towards fewer guidelines, will have to do for now. It s an imperfect solution to be sure, but hopefully not a permanent one either.

Quoted from "Double Down Dave"
A competition like this does not exist, yet. As ULHS does not have any rules, by it's own admission, there is no motivation for anyone to step up and show their passion for the dance beyond that which has already been shown, as there is no guarantee that it will be rewarded.

I'll take exception to both of these assertions. To the first, we do have the National Jitterbug Championships and the International Lindy Hop Championships which both occupy the area in between the spectrum of ALHC and ULHS.

To the second, again the reality of the situation belies the principle you re espousing. This is why I can see Nicole getting annoyed at your posts. You re arguing theoreticals, but the body of evidence indicates otherwise. While it s true that there is no written requirement for dancers to be awesome, the reality is that they have been every year since ULHS started, and there s plenty of proof on the internet. We don t have to go back any further than the results from last year s ULHS showcase division where Skye and Frida s routine won over faster and more athletically challenging performances before your theory falls apart.

Is there a guarantee that such a routine would consistently do well? No, and I m not sure why or how you would make such a guarantee. I d like to see cool sh!t as much as the next person, but instituting a rule that says Throw down and we will love you is a little sophomoric.

While I find a theoretical discussion interesting, I m more concerned about practical application for the world as it exists today and where we want it to go. We ve gone round and round about having fewer and no rules, so let s go the other way. What type of specific rules, guidelines, or standards do you think would promote the kind of values that you want emphasized through a theoretical competition or other event? Presumably you have some ideas as to what those could be, how to communicate them to the judges, how they would be enforced, who you would get to judge, how to resolve conflicts of interpretation, and what would you hope to accomplish as the result of all of this effort.

Jerry

Quoted from "JSAlmonte"
What type of specific rules, guidelines, or standards do you think would promote the kind of values that you want emphasized through a theoretical competition or other event? Presumably you have some ideas as to what those could be, how to communicate them to the judges, how they would be enforced

Kippy Belts! Any routine found lacking results in Nicole Frydman beating you mercilessly with a Fanny Pack full of Peter Strom's... um... nevermind.

Quoted from "JSAlmonte"
I m questioning how you re going about trying to win at any competition by adjusting your dancing at each event by consulting some sort of theoretical database of judges opinions. Aside from the fact that its kinda creepy, it s mercenary and makes a person s dancing look insincere. It s the same kind of perception that hosed Hilary Clinton in the primaries when people accused her triangulating her positions. It sounds like a prudent strategy, but it still leaves a bad taste in people s mouths.

I disagree. I always try to take the event and the judges into consideration when I'm competing. I always dance like me, but it's smart to be a little bit strategic. Sometimes it's wise to play it safe with stuff I've done a million times and know I can do well/cleanly (ALHC). Sometimes it's smart to bust ass and take risks (ULHS). I don't think this is deceitful... I think the challenge of adjusting to the crowd is a worthy skill for a dancer to have.

Quoted from "JSAlmonte"

Quoted from "bryn"
I disagree. I always try to take the event and the judges into consideration when I'm competing. I always dance like me, but it's smart to be a little bit strategic. Sometimes it's wise to play it safe with stuff I've done a million times and know I can do well/cleanly (ALHC). Sometimes it's smart to bust ass and take risks (ULHS). I don't think this is deceitful... I think the challenge of adjusting to the crowd is a worthy skill for a dancer to have.

When you put it that way I agree, but Dave was talking about being much more specific Jerry

As I've said before, I'm more than capable of speaking for myself. If you have a particular gripe with me, than it's okay to say so, just don't put words in my mouth with your phrasing. Thank you.

DDD

:dunno: I analyze scoring sheets, too. It's a good way to get to know your judges, but also to see whether you're meeting your own personal objectives. I weigh the opinion of judges whose own dancing I admire/relate to more heavily than those whose priorities are clearly different from mine. Still, I think it's good to also take those other judges' opinions into account. I may not subscribe to the same objectives as Yuval, for instance, but I take his feedback seriously because I think there are things I can learn from him. I've even considered taking a private from him as a way of balancing out my dancing with a different perspective.

What I got from Dave's statement is that knowing how the individual judges have ranked you (and others) is helpful for seeking out feedback. I often want to know why certain judges have ranked me poorly and why others have ranked me well. Knowing who's who helps me approach the right people. (And also helps me remember who was judging that comp). But over time, once you've had a chance to speak with various judges and gotten to know what they're looking for, the need to seek that information from them diminishes (though occasional check-ups are a good idea) and you can start to gauge your progress from their point of view.

All of these things are, in my mind, important to becoming a professional dancer. Outside opinions are vital for: a) getting hired, and b) continual development

But it's just as important to not lose sight of your own vision, goals, priorities, personality, etc. in the process. You will never reach the top so long as you are conforming exclusively to other people's ideas.

What I've noticed is that competitions with lots of rules encourage the competitors to conform to a specific ideal. Competitions with fewer formal rules encourage the competitors to show us what is important to them and convince us that we should care.

Quoted from "bryn"
What I've noticed is that competitions with lots of rules encourage the competitors to conform to a specific ideal. Competitions with fewer formal rules encourage the competitors to show us what is important to them and convince us that we should care.

In a world without YouTube, yes, this might be so.

However, I think the exact opposite is happening. In years past, the "specific ideal" that people have been asked to conform to wasn't coming from the competitions with "lots of rules", but rather from the competitions with "fewer formal rules."

YouTube has made sure that everyone has seen what dancing at ULHS (and ILHC, Camp Jitterbug, and Camp Hollywood) looks like. So, in turn, the people show up ready to "conform to a specific ideal." Looking at clips like this, and this let me know that whatever "specific ideals" you are referring to are not coming from any rules set down by the competition itself, but from what is freely accessible to everyone on the internet.

I don't have clips from the ALHC to post, but from what I remember seeing at the ALHC last year (and every year before that) is that it doesn't look the same from year to year, doesn't sound the same from year to year, and there are MANY competitors who have flown in the face of that specific idealism to create something great and memorable.

I'm not arguing who is better in this post. I'm merely presenting an opposing viewpoint to what was said in Bryn's post. Though I can not argue with " Competitions with fewer formal rules encourage the competitors to show us what is important to them and convince us that we should care." because that is something I believe happens every time anyone gets out on the floor, in any competition.

DDD

Quoted from "Double Down Dave"
In a world without YouTube, yes, this might be so. However, I think the exact opposite is happening. In years past, the "specific ideal" that people have been asked to conform to wasn't coming from the competitions with "lots of rules", but rather from the competitions with "fewer formal rules."

Dave,

This is not a function of the rules, this is a function of how badass a few people are. Are you saying that more rules are needed to level the playing field, per se? If so, do you think that's a good thing?

Dan

Dave, can you please clarify your point for me? Because I completely missed it. Not only do I fail to see the similarity between them (aside for both couples having an affinity for aerials and a shared song), I also fail to understand what the point would be even if there were some obvious imitation happening.

Nice of you to link to my studio, though. I'll tell Byron you were thinking of him.

Quoted from "Addict"
Dave, Do you disagree with my point that it's the individuals rather than the rule sets determining how influential specific routines are? Dan

Dan, my short answer to your question was mostly because I have no idea where the 'argument' of individuals vs. rule sets came from. I think you'll have to clarify this more for me to weigh in, if that's what you'd like me to do.

DDD

1. The N&Y clip you cited was taken a year after the B&A clip.
2. I still don't see the imitation of which you speak. Byron and Annie have studied with Nathalie and Yuval, but they approach their dancing very differently. I know this for a fact; Byron is one of my closest friends and also the person who has had the biggest influence on my dancing. We have had this discussion many times. But even if I had absolutely no inside knowledge, the difference between the two couples is glaringly obvious in those clips. Surely a dancer as experienced as you are can see that.

By virtue of the fact that we all do the same dance, there's bound to be a lot of overlap. I imitate all the time, and I don't think there's a single lindy hopper out there who can legitimately claim they don't do the same. But there's a big difference between appropriating ideas/knowledge from a variety of sources in a way that's unique to you and striving to be a carbon copy of someone else.

A carbon copy is insincere and will never be as good as the original. When competition's as fierce as it is at ULHS, you have to do better than that. You have to do something that pulls people in and evokes a reaction. And that is not something you can qualify or quantify. It can't be written up as a recipe. The more you try to do that (i.e. writing it in the rules and judging criteria), the more you miss the point. The best you will get are a bunch of dancers all striving to fit into the exact same mold (which may or may not be based on an actual dancer, but striving to be any kind of dancer you're not will have the same effect). Or else it'll create dancers too busy focusing on things like precision and "showmanship" to remember what the spirit of lindy hop is really about. Putting on a good show and dancing with so much spirit the audience can't help but be drawn in are not even close to being the same thing.

I already answered your question about my ALHC attendance a while ago, but I'll answer again. I've been once. Last year. Which was presumably the most evolved ALHC to date (until next month). I won't be going back.

Sorry about that, Bryn. You're right, you did say how many times you'd been to the ALHC before. My bad.

As far as seeing similarity between Byron & Annie and Natalie & Yuval, I see nothing BUT similarity in their choreography. Their styles are different, and yes, they come from different parts of the world. However, as seeing similarities between two dancing couples has come down to differing opinions, I will just agree to disagree with you.

Quoted from "bryn"
A carbon copy is insincere and will never be as good as the original. When competition's as fierce as it is at ULHS, you have to do better than that. You have to do something that pulls people in and evokes a reaction. And that is not something you can qualify or quantify. It can't be written up as a recipe.

So your recipe for winning at ULHS is not to be a "carbon copy" of someone else's dancing? Do your own thing and it will be rewarded?

Quote
The more you try to do that (i.e. writing it in the rules and judging criteria), the more you miss the point. The best you will get are a bunch of dancers all striving to fit into the exact same mold (which may or may not be based on an actual dancer, but striving to be any kind of dancer you're not will have the same effect).

Creating a recipe is like creating a regime of dancers that will all try an fit to the exact same mold? (And striving to be something you are not is a bad thing or a good thing?)

Quote
Or else it'll create dancers too busy focusing on things like precision and "showmanship" to remember what the spirit of lindy hop is really about. Putting on a good show and dancing with so much spirit the audience can't help but be drawn in are not even close to being the same thing.

So, the recipe (or "rules set down by competitions") will either create dancers that are either striving to be something they are not, or dancers that can't perform well. Did I get that right?

This is not sarcasm here, I am trying to clarify your point in my mind. I see that there are plenty of people that already know the point you are trying to make, and I think I see it too, but I'd like to make sure before I respond.

Please continue. DDD

I'd agree with what Keith said, with one exception: Byron's actually told me the story a bunch of times of a judge (I think it was Yuval) who told him that he judges less-advanced dancers according to his own criteria, but top dancers according to their own criteria. Basically, if a dancer is really good at doing their own thing, they've earned the right to not be judged according to the judges' personal values.

I can't say to what extent this principle is followed amongst all judges, but I know I definitely apply it myself. There are plenty of dancers whose dancing I can respect as being awesome and yet not at all what I aspire to.