|
Original posting February 2017 NASSPDA Newsletter
Posted: January 6, 2022 By: Benjamin Soencksen Our world of partner dancing has many topics that are considered controversial or hot button issues, such as gender identification, pros and cons of equality dancing (changing lead and follow within one dance), the choice of costumes, etc. Discussions of these topics are influenced not only by questions of what constitutes better dancing, but also by social changes and changing perceptions or what is today deemed politically correct. But we also pick up and continue discussions that stem from the mainstream and competitive world of partner dancing, some of which are as old as the early days of competitive dancing, which can be set as early as the start of the 20th century. One of these topics is the development, usefulness and application of a syllabus. A syllabus sets the basic language of a dance by establishing characteristic step patterns, technical execution and rhythmical interpretation, which to our understanding defines each dance. This understanding is typically based on the observations of several years of development of the dance, preceded by the musical evolution that triggered the invention of the dance. There are different types of syllabi for the various dances we still dance today, some are more and others are less restrictive in their interpretation of the basic language and some vary greatly in style, such as the same dances that are described within the International, American, Country Western or other styles of dancing. Typically, these variations are more about the addition of step patterns further interpreting the very basic pattern, the technical execution and the rhythmical application. The diversity, created over decades enjoying these dances and their various style interpretations, has also triggered calls for consistent standards when we are competing to be the best in that dance or style. Style categories have been created, organizations have formed around one style, syllabi have been established to firm up that style, establishing parameters excluding other styles and subsequently creating a standard for that style and dance. The structure of these syllabi further changed when they were used to influence the development of a dancer by subdividing a syllabi into levels of achievement. It is widespread believed that a dancer garners better dancing skills, if initially restricted by levels of patterns that are deemed simpler in the beginning stages of the learning process and then get more complicated as we grow into higher levels of accomplishment. That is at least the theory. In reality, many people are drawn to partner dancing by examples of high level dancing, which they want to experience with the very first steps they learn. That typically leads to a learning curve less desirable, but mostly unavoidable. One rushes through the preliminaries of learning a dance to get to the more complicated, intricate patterns that tempted us in the first place, at which point we are made to realize that our skill set isn’t adequate to the challenge and that we need to get back to the basics. That is the moment when a dancer starts to become truly a dancer. In order to promote learning by application of a syllabus and therefore from the start the development of better dancers, the mainstream world has applied syllabus restrictions on the lower levels of competitions and established a system of points and/or amounts of placements that would elevate one to the next higher level. During the very first same-sex dance events, no such or any other system was applied to separate couples into specific levels of experience, but rather couples made their own choices. It was quickly realized that in all fairness some system would be needed, but that, especially with international events and when encouraging dancers of all levels to participate, such as the Eurogames or the Gay Games, a syllabi restriction to define the various levels won’t quite work and would be too restrictive. Instead, as has been done now for almost two decades, our community has taken to the grading system developed by the Europeans, through which at each event every participating couple is newly classified in comparison to all other couples before the actual competition takes place. This practice has found even in mainstream many admirers, since it establishes anew each time a fairer playing field. It has also allowed a couple to organically grow into higher levels of the competition circuit through improving their skill set(s) and not by collecting points and/or placements, which could easily be an arbitrary result depending on who one was competing against at the time. Whether learning by syllabus and being restricted when competing in one’s first stages develops better dancers is in my opinion quite debatable. I personally have experienced competing in both, a system that didn’t have any syllabus restrictions, which then was changed to that restriction, and I have witnessed no betterment in the learning curve or level of competition. This means to me that even though I recognize that a syllabus can be a very helpful learning tool, it isn’t the only answer to a better level of dancing.
0 Comments
By: Lee Fox
I don’t think there is one simple answer to that. Both parts have their share of responsibilities to the partnership, so I believe it all has to do with the individual. Some people find it easier to learn the leader’s part. The leader has a lot to think about. They have to learn their own patterns, understand the follower’s part and ability, keep the timing and the rhythm going, communicate to the follower what is expected of them, watch for other dancers on the floor, and, in the cases of the progressive dances, maneuver the partnership around the floor while choosing the next move they are going to execute based on all of the above. The leader does not have to be the more dominate personality (I’ve seen and danced with my share of dominant followers) but should be more of a multi-tasker. Some people find it easier to learn to follow. Following is more about reacting to the leader’s silent messages. They don’t have to “know” their patterns as the leaders do though I believe they become even better followers if they do (provided they remember to let the leader lead). They need to learn to go where the leaders go and understand the signals given through the leader’s hands and frame. Of course in the beginning they should learn the basic patterns, the basic rhythms and the basic characteristics of the individual dances. After that it’s about the reacting. I usually tell people in the beginning to pick one and not to try to learn both parts yet. Get a little bit of experience under their belts (or in their shoes) first. Learn how to move with a partner before trying the other role, and I don’t mean next week unless you’re dancing 24/7. I personally enjoy both roles and, with the right partners, switching roles in a dance is fun. Originally published in April 2016 NASSPDA Newsletter
Posting: January 6, 2022 By: Benjamin Soencksen Our small, but growing community, whether we are socially and/or competitively engaged, needs and deserves the commitment of all of us at every level, if we indeed desire growth and more opportunities. Many involved socially in our same-sex dance communities are hesitant or even flat out refuse to consider competing. One of the main reasons often given focuses around winning. For me that was actually never the impetus to join couples on the competitive dance floor, though once I did, it was, of course, an added goal. When I was in my teens, I was asked to join the very first youth competition in my area. It was clear to me that I wouldn’t have a winning chance, but it also occurred to me that by participating I would help build momentum for bringing Dancesport to more young people and lend greater importance to any win of any couple participating. So, my dance partner and I borrowed outfits, persuaded our parents to pay our dues as well as entry fees and drive us to the event. We had a blast! There were kids as young as 5 years old as well as the maximum age 18 (sometimes, the younger disappeared below the petticoats of the older couples). We had no idea that so many kids enjoyed this sport/activity as much as we did. We did our best, slipped and fell in the Quickstep, got entangled with and bumped into other couples, made a mess of some dances (3 Latin and 3 Standard dances in the same outfits), and excelled in others, and made the first cut out of over 40 couples. We didn’t win, but we had an unforgettable experience and the knowledge that we contributed to the meaning of the first place of that event and the formation of a youth movement, which resulted into a multitude of opportunities for young dancers. In my opinion therefore, the impetus for competing in any kind of sport should always be foremost about participation, not about winning any glorious titles or shiny medals. And in my experience, every participant in a same-sex dance competitions gets everywhere and at any event, whether it be the Gay Games in Sydney, April Follies in Oakland or the Pink Jukebox Trophy in London, a very warm and appreciative welcome by all in attendance. Of course, one can spend a lot of financial resources on this sport to make it as much as possible a winning prospect, but one doesn’t have to and it will still be a very satisfying and exhilarating experience, helping with one’s growth in one’s own dancing. Even though I’m no longer competing myself, I’m still trying to stay involved, because I believe that it is vital for us all to have opportunities for expression and enjoyment. It is my hope that you all enjoy being part of the social and/or competitive same-sex dance scene in your area and help to spread the word or, even better, get further involved in whichever way you can. |
Archives |
