Substance

   
Joined on 20 Май 2007
Total posts: 118

Substance

08 Юли 2009 г. 12:11

What makes our dancing to what it is?
Or should I say who makes our dancing to what it is?

If we look into the past everyone will know and recognize the values of people like Walter Laird and Alex Moore, just to name two. But dancing went on from there and was carried by many more, influenced by many others.

It takes a special person to carry the substance of dance. It takes an even more special person to become the substance of dance.
Like Mohammed Ali in boxing, Bjorn Borge in tennis, Michael Jackson in music, such a person is more than just a carrier, they are the substance of what they do.
Of course they are not forever, but without them dancing wouldn't be what it is.
They follow the known roads all the way, first discovering and taking in the knowledge at hand. Then go into areas nobody went before.
It is hard to imagine, if not impossible, where they have been and how many "dead ends" they met to find their own road in our world of dance. And then make that road the highway for all. But they did and deserve everybody's respect for that.
The number of casualties of such form of pioneering are uncountable. The number of successful pioneering can be counted on two hands per generation. This small group of people is the substance of our dancing, regardless of all others that have also contributed and helped in building this new highway.

For me it is unbelievable that some persons, mere administrators, seem to think they can reject these pioneers and do without. By not giving them credit they not only reject the person, they reject the substance of dance. Of course the do not even realize that, since they haven't got a clue what I'm talking about. I'll be more clear to them:

Wether you like people such as Donnie Burns, Richard Gleave, Espen Salberg, Anthony Hurley, Alan Fletcher, Brian Watson and their respective partners and some more that you can add yourself, is not an issue. They cannot be ignored, they are the substance of what we do or love.
Without them we are dead meat.
Without a system that guarantees the freedom to explore we are dead meat.
We all should listen to them and learn, even if we do not like what they say.
They are not fighting the system, they are fighting for the right to do what dancing needs to develop and create new substance: go where you wanna go, explore new roads.

Administrative bodies, like the WDC and the IDSF, should fight to include these rare persons.
One does, the other seems to prefer to pioneer into a "dead end" herself and become a casualty. Not that I care, a system that tells the world to be superior maybe deserves nothing better. The substance they offer is a lot of red tape and paper. What a stupidity!

I personally would like to thank those few persons for having dedicated their lifes to make dancing into what we have now. My deepest respect!
Hope you will live forever.
Geronimo

Joined on 07 Април 2005
Total posts: 509

Re: Substance

08 Юли 2009 г. 16:11

Isn't what you are describing as substance already  called an evolution ?

Those you mentioned and also those  you did not, certainly hit many dead ends....but in doing so they were not alone... while seeking the way "out" ,  whilst digging deeper and deeper into a hole/  just to meet another  dead end, they were followed and they thought their many admirers / followers, who paid dearly for just hitting the dead end.

What do we mean by a dead end ?  The areas where if you stay you do not progress, you perish misunderstood, unappreciated, considered a failure of evolution ?  That does not mean you were not good or did not deserve recognition. Dinosaurs were extremely successful species, far more successful than human beings,  but we are here,  regarded as the tops of the evolutionary tree,  the most successful ?  We, the  weak, hairless, screwing the nature and environment around us,  some of us finding the meaning of life in making the most radical 123 Natural Turns, in  supper uncomfortable dance shoes, wearing tons of mascara, with a hip and back hurting from the unnatural tortion, all in the name of the perceived elegance ?

"Real success !," says the blonde..

 

"Without them we are dead meat ?"

Geronimo,  you appear  emotional and rather irrational.  No,  we are not dead meat.  

First not all play tennis,  not all  dance, and  while many do grab their crotch they cannot moon- walk. 

Many, if not majority of  dance  teachers have so much knowledge, talent and love for dance and  they have so much to offer to anyone who wants to learn to move to music that their students/ followers can pick up and learn so much about dance.   There are also so many  types of dance,  and I have no idea how Richard Gleave break dances, or  Brian Watson does in ballet - probably well, but his back hand in tennis sucks, I hear. 

Evolution cannot be forced,  there are many nature's unsuccessful experiments which looked very promising but another species came about and either  ate the "experiment" , or bacteria , virus,  a disaster came about and finished the job.

I'd like to agree with you, and try hard to see your probably emotionally driven point, but can only suggest that it is  the people in charge of judging dance who  determine what is acceptable,  what is preferred,  what is  rewarded .  They  the people who will determine what the dancers who wish to be rewarded will be trying to learn,  mimic, duplicate, what they will force their dance teachers to teach them,  no matter how horrible, repulsive, vulgar, inappropriate ,  unacceptable it may appear to you, your friends, relatives,  even to those you hold in such a high esteem.  You see,  if you do not show judges what they want, what they like they will not mark you and you will never reach the status of those you mentioned, and as such, even though probably very good and appreciated by your love ones, you will be not noticed.

It  comes as no surprise  that it is only those who follow the existing accepted principles set by "dead meats"  who  may one day  reach the top, become known, noticed, regarded as "the best"  who may  "invent"/  try influence their field of "expertise" and introduce something new , radical -  it may be a quadruple jump in figure skating,  with one hand on the crotch - something no ice dancer has done in a competition - but do not listen to me, it will take a top notch figure skater, who has become tom notch by listening, and paying attention to your "dead meat" , for if he/ she grabbed his/her crotch earlier he/ she would have been told off, expelled for public vulgarity, and never rewarded or shown on TV.

Is this not the reason  why we see the costumes ( or their lack of ) on the dance floors ,  the horrible mascaras,  dancers running around like a herd of  panicked animals - now referred to as sport dancing, and something desirable ?

I have no idea where our dancesport is heading,  but  as long as  dance  remains art, as long as interpretation of music, feeling is referred to as dancing,  and as long as the feeling is a very personal creations of our own, never identical to anyone else's, never felt the same,  just as every snow flake is different ( so they say ),   so we all  have some of what you call the "substance" - unless of course we are  'dead meat'.

I am not an advocate to learning something  from those  we do not like for what they say.  Sure you can listen,  but if you do not agree with the message,  if you do not enjoy it,  why waste time ?   Life is already so short,  there is not enough time to learn from those whose message we like, enjoy....value.
 

In short,  the subject of substance is rather philosophical, and the example of dead meat is driven by some strange emotions or temporary feeling of some guilt which I do not get.

Believe me,  dancers will try  embrace changes and will try to imitate what is being rewarded.  If  they get rewarded for  wearing a tu-tu, or  making high leaps into air,  wearing weird attire, you can bet that  this  what you will see on the dance floor.   Those who promote the change will be proclaimed the leaders in the industry,  just as M.J. grabbing his crotch has become something of a leading substance - iconic,  appreciated, rewarded, advertised, copied ....

RIP  Michael. 

What many greats ask dancers and dance teachers to do is to stay true to the principals of dance, and not to depart from these principals.

I believe this is on account of lacking standards,  or  inability to standardize dance , so that  dance quality could  be measured in a precise, comprehensive and fair way.  Adjudicating Dancesport is already very  subjective.  If there were many new departures from the accepted "core",  judging dancesport would become even more of a challenge than it is today.

To answer your questions:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The dancesport legends you mentioned all agreed that dance teachers are responsible for the future of dance, and where dance  may  go.... it was Donny Burns who preached against the introduction of vulgarity and ugliness in dancesport and warns against it, it was Anthony  Hurley  who stressed the importance of adhering to the established core and principals.

All the rest, the costumes, the special effects, even the use of inappropriate modern music,  that's all a passing fancy, a fad. 

But if we  stick with the substance, the core of the dance established by the recognized few....do we not reject/fight the normal evolution.... isn't the evolution brought about by the experiments, which  often takes us away from the core   ? 

Joined on 20 Май 2007
Total posts: 118

Re: Substance

08 Юли 2009 г. 22:44

Dear Jazz,

I don't think you quite understood the message, but can't help that.
First of all substance is a result, evolution is a process.
I advise you to read Roger Lewin (Patterns in Evolution); that might be very revealing if you want to discuss evolution with me.
And I'm not saying that the people I mentioned are the end-stadium; they are not, as they are also not the first stadium. More of them will come up in future GIVEN THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES. That's my point.

If you say that teachers are doing a good job, I can agree to a certain extend. But one is not Einstein himself when he's explaining what Einstein thought.

And yes, judges do set the criteria for success. But that is not the same as development.
"Good" judges will recognize and allow development and give direction. The judges I fear are the same you speak about. The ones that are qualified by one or two days of workshops on the subject.

If it is true what you say, that you only like to listen if you like what you hear, I feel sorry for you.
Nothing helps more than an argument to sharpen one's mind.

Last but not least (in terms of evolution), once the chain is broken, that's the end. And all our great champions of the past and present are part of that chain of development.

Geronimo