|
|
| Lindy: I am not a Blues Dancer (Updated) |
|
| on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 10:31 PM - 982 Reads |
 |
I'm a lindy hopper who sometimes does blues. I've done more than my fair share of blues dancing and traveling and party throwing, and for now, I'm done with it all. I have no intention of traveling to blues-only events for the foreseeable future.
My approach to dancing and music in general isn't very academic (more on this in a follow-on post). That being said, I have two main issues with what is currently popular in the "blues scene." Most of the music that is played isn't what I want to dance to. Secondly, I have no interest in dancing the way most people dance at blues events... Let's start with the music. I don't like most of what gets played by blues DJs. I'm certainly no stickler for modern versus traditional blues. If a modern song follows the blues tradition, and/or speaks to me, I have no problems accepting and embracing it.
This brings up an important debate that has been bandied about for years... Most blues dancers would agree that the music being danced to at "blues" events, isn't actually "blues," but is no less worth dancing to. If people like dancing to that music, more power to them. I'm finding more and more that I just don't. Sure, I can dance to it, but it doesn't make me feel the way I want to feel or move the way I want to move to slower music.
I'm certainly not a purist. I don't think a song needs to be 12 bars or 3 chords for me to consider it “blues.” I'm not sure I can describe what I consider essential to blues as well as some other people, so here are some quotes about blues music that I think should apply to most of the music played at blues dances:
"The blues is a low-down aching chill; if you ain't never had 'em, I hope you never will." - Robert Johnson
"The blues was peculiar, as music born of despair, which had the effect of making people happy." Bruce Eder
"Blues is the most emotional, gut-wrenching style of 20th-century American secular music." Kip Lornell
If it expresses this kind of sentiment, then I'll most likely enjoy it. Most music played at dance events doesn't have this kind of feeling. The songs are more west coast / pop / cheesy prom slow dance music that I simply can't stand. The blues music I want to dance to is an experience within a song, felt from the gut and not just heard. I also know that I'm not as much of a fan of dancing to the earliest blues recordings that some DJs like. I don't think that this music was intended for dancing. Dancable music came with the blues/jazz fusion in the 30's and 40's. This music included the power and emotion of the blues tradition with a style more suitable for dancing.
I think this preference for the music also underscores why I don't like entire weekends of blues. More and more, I see blues as a dessert for the end of a night or the end of a weekend. I want it to be emotionally exhausting, whether it is physically so or not. An entire weekend of dessert will make you sick. It also prevents the kind of music I consider good blues from actually being played all weekend.
I also think this is why I prefer blues house parties to weekend blues events. These are as much social events as anything else, with as much (or more) drinking and talking and enjoying each other's company as dancing.
Speaking of the dancing...
To preface, I've never taught, nor built a scene. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm specifying my opinion on what I like, and what I would like to see more of. As such, I'm only the man heckling from the sidelines of the arena. This doesn't mean that my opinion isn't still valid, but I want to make it clear that in spite of my criticism, I have a great respect for those who put their money where their mouth is and do the things that others (like me) only talk about.
With that out of the way, my general preferences and styling are much different from many current blues instructors. This was highlighted by the lessons I took this past weekend with Mihai and Chris. A lot of stuff they do I would go so far as to characterize as "bad" dancing. It was a little frustrating to have them teach a principal that I thought was worth teaching, and then apply it in ways I thought were counterproductive to good dancing. This was quite obvious in the approach that the newer Tulsa dancers took to blues. I think so much more could be done with much less.
A lot of noise has been made recently about how much the blues scene has improved in recent years, with better instruction and more structure and technique. If it has improved, I don't consider it nearly enough. As far as I'm concerned, blues should be an expression of the music. It shouldn't be about leading with your arms and wrists instead of with your body, or moving various parts of the follow instead of her center, or throwing each other off balance while constantly changing the shared center of gravity. Most importantly, it shouldn't ever devolve into standing still to wiggle and do body rolls. A lot of people make a stink about defining what "is" or "isn't" blues instead of just letting it develop. That is fair, but in my opinion, this type of thing isn't good dancing, and it certainly isn't the dancing that I want any part of.
Another issue for me is the notion that you can teach people to be good blues dancers without their knowing lindy. I've heard some organizers brag about how few of their blues dancers know lindy at all. Maybe this sentiment is limited to specific scenes or regions and not indicative of the national scene. This is a tough one for me to reconcile with other beliefs of mine. I know that I don't think it is necessary to know or learn other forms of dancing to be good at lindy, even though that can help. I hesitate to make the same claim for blues and lindy, but I'm still examining my own prejudices with that one. I'm curious what bal dancers would say about needing to know lindy to be a good bal dancer.
I remember Chicago dancers years ago had a big row with LA dancers over how fast lindy hop "should" be danced, or at least that all lindy hoppers should strive to dance at all tempos found in swing music. If I agree with the Chicagoans, that their preferences for only slower/groovier lindy are valid, how can I complain about the preferences of people to only dance blues in one particular way?
Maybe the best way to view it is simply as a preference. I don't want an entire weekend of only being able to dance with someone that has such a limited skill set that I struggle dancing open position with them. If I can't throw in slow lindy steps, especially in the slightly faster blues songs, I will be more frustrated than the dance is worth to me.
I know that early on in the lindy "revival," people who weren't coming from a dance background and picked up lindy incorporated a lot of 'non-dancer' bad habits, which over the years, with new generations of dancers being taught by improving teachers, has gotten significantly better. Maybe blues will develop the same way? My concern is that, unlike with lindy in most scenes early on, there are many blues instructors out there that I do think teach good dancing first and foremost. Maybe I haven't taken enough classes with enough of these teachers since I became more discerning with my blues dancing to recognize that they do in fact teach the things that I don't like.
Up until now I've always believed that the dancing in the blues scene will eventually grow and become more like what I yearn for in the dance. That notion is based solely on the ability of everyone who dances blues to recognize the things that go into making dancing better. This isn't “this is right and that is wrong" type discussions. Even in Lindy I don't think that really applies. You can lead some incredible things without using your body (arm leads). It feels better, and the dancing can be done on a new level, though, when the leading is from your entire body (your center) rather than just your arms. These types of improvements is what I want to see in blues.
Based on this, One of my biggest concerns for the future of the scene, is that organizers are focusing on teaching non-dancers, who don't yet know or appreciate the difference between "good" and "bad" dancing. They then teach them in ways that I (and I suspect many lindy hoppers) don't consider good dancing. They focus on creativity to the exclusion of technique. I think by focusing on teaching blues to non-dancers, you remove an essential part of improving the dancing process. Removing the focus on experienced dancers, pretty much ensures that the improvement I want to see is set back years, or maybe never happens at all..
Certainly marketing something to non-dancers that isn't selling well to established dancers makes good business sense. I don't want to intimate that it is being done maliciously, either. I just don't think it moves things in the direction that I'd better appreciate. My opinion, especially if it is only shared by other lindy hoppers won't have any real effect on something tailored to non-dancers.
My impressions and understanding of blues is still changing. I hope that I can continue to grow in my understanding of this music, and the direction the current scene is headed. Maybe in a few more years there will be enough serious dancers dancing to the kind of music I like to make more blues-focused events worthwhile for me. In the meantime, I'll stick to lindy exchange late nights and parties for blues dancing with the right people.
Note: Updated 1/18 for clarity, and public publishing |
|
|
| | | |
