[Tango-L] Choreography

[Huck Kennedy]

Part 2 of 2:


     Consider the following salsa article that can be found
on the internet (http://tinyurl.com/s2qfe).  It is called,
"On Learning the Passion of Salsa:  Social Dancing vs.
Choreography."  The way all the dancers in the article use
the word "choreography" coincides with my and Jonathan's
interpretation and not your vague over-generalized one.
I quote various relevant excerpts without noting skipped text:

    The night-clubs challenge the student dancer differently
    than dancing a choreographed routine before an audience.
    Ideally, a good salsa dancer should be capable in both
    social dancing and performance, but each dancer will build,
    or prefer to build, their foundation differently.  

    Alexandra Sell <http://www.mambopro.com/> commented, "Social
    dancing allows you to develop lead & follow skills, strengthen
    reflexes, improvise and increase attentiveness to the music.
    Choreography, on the other hand, trains stage presence,
    sharpness, technique, ability to handle pressure, etc."

    It is arguable, however, that dancers who mainly reserve
    their dancing to performance or choreographed classes lack
    spontaneity and adaptability, whereas, dancers who mainly
    reserve their dancing to the social floor never learn any
    new moves, lack growth--and are often there for other
    reasons than salsa.

    "However," she added, "I never lose sight of what salsa
    really is: a street dance.  Social dancing is unquestionably
    better at feeling the music and connecting with your dance
    partner.  I don't see how choreography can do that.  After
    all, that is what it is--choreography, so the moves do not
    have to be lead-able.  As with everything else, repeatedly
    training the same routine and music is bound to become
    monotonous, tedious and lose its spontaneity."

    Everybody learns differently, according to  Erika Sanchez
    from Grupo America <http://www.grupoamerica.net/>  (Vancouver,
    Canada ).  Some people learn to feel the music better in
    choreography because the timing and execution has to be
    perfect.  "These dancers not only follow a routine based on
    counts but on the changes and highlights of a song, plus they
    learn the feeling of each piece when the choreographer
    explains it."
    
    "Performance and choreography is taking what you learned to
    the next level and treating salsa as more than a past-time or
    hobby," according to Arthur Ga of Salsa Picante Dance Company
    <http://www.salsapicantedanceco.com/>  (Toronto, Canada).

    Natalie Reis of AusLatin Productions <http://www.auslatin.com/>,
    (Australia) responded, "Salsa is first and foremost meant to
    be enjoyed between two people moving with the music.  There
    is nothing quite like the almost universal language of dancing
    salsa socially with a friend or complete stranger from across
    the globe, and knowing that you are both so in tune with one
    another that you have, in fact, become the music.  It is true
    magic."

    "I feel strongly that one should develop social dance skills
    to a fairly competent level before moving into choreography,"
    she added.  

(end of quotes)


So I would submit to you, Jake, that this is how the word
"choreography" is used in everyday life in the real dance
world, and that your over-generalizing of a rather simplistic
one-line dictionary definition of "The art of creating and
arranging dances or ballets" to include virtually all dance
movement would tend towards the sophomoric.  :)  Now you
may argue that my particular choice of article to quote was
a begging the question of sorts--well, then okay, if you
find some passages that clearly shows your use of the word
"choreography" to be mainstream in the everyday workaday
dance world, then I'll back off a bit.  :)

> Furthermore, the _short_ bibliography at the end of the Wikipedia entry 
> refers to a title called: "Choreography: A Basic Approach Using 
> Improvisation." This leads me to believe that there IS such a thing, 

     Maybe that just means one might strive to
think outside the box when designing dance routines
and take risks.  Maybe it means you can design
a performance where not everything is planned in
advance.  It doesn't necessarily mean that all
improvisation can be labelled "choreography."

     I think Jonathan raised an excellent point:
If we label just anything that happens on the dance
floor "choreography," then the word just morphs
towards being a synonym of "dancing" and loses its
usefulness as a tool of distinguishing one kind of
dance (more or less spontaneous) from another
(planned out in detail in advance).

> >> as will browsing just about any (gasp) book on dance as an art form.
> >>     
> > Do comic books count?
>
> I really can't pin down whether you're being a snob or a philistine in 
> this comment-- care to set me on course? Or are you just razzing me 
> because I'm a sometime cartoonist? or because I've published newspaper 
> reviews of comic books? HAVE you got a point? What are most comics 
> packed with, if not choreography?

     Wow, you've applied way too much of your own
circumstances to that one (I'm trying to refrain
from saying, "Everything isn't all about you, Jake"
but, alas, I'm failing).  It was just a humorous
sarcastic self-deprecating rejoinder to your insulting
suggestion that some of us would never dream of tearing
ourselves away from NASCAR and Three Rocks From The Sun
long enough to (gasp) pick up a book and actually read
it and not just look at the pictures.

> Others interested in this tangent: Isn't Dave Sim's art in "Jaka's 
> Story" (Cerebus, vol. 5) quite good at capturing the iconic appeal of 
> dance? The reactions in those scenes of the onlooking peanut gallery 
> (rapture) may be comic relief, but they're insightfully in keeping with 
> Paglia's observations on how fully and intensely audiences react to 
> dance as an art form.
> 
> If this is too heady for anyone out there, skip it. It won't be on the test.

     Dear God in Heaven, you can't stop, can you.  If we
actually did meet in person (email can be so misleading)
at a cocktail party, no doubt there'd be no in between,
I'd either take to you immensely, or run away screaming,
I'm not quite sure which.  Guess I have something to look
forward to.  :)

> > Could you possibly be more of a condescending,
> > annoying, sophomoric twit?  Why yes, I suppose you
> > could go back to reciting fresh bon mots from Oscar
> > Wilde with each posting.  Oh my God, what have I just
> > done.
>
> Sure. Let me start by attributing to myself your post, that used 
> "syncopation" to joke-butt those who have trouble understanding it. That 
> was plenty condescending, you big teddy bear, you.

      I should hope that by now with the further input
I've given you, it should be clear that that was not
what I was doing.  And I still claim it *was* what you
were doing (perhaps unwittingly, I'm willing to give
you the benefit of the doubt):  After I pointed out
that many dancers without a musician's background
struggle with the term, you responded with a cavalier,
what's the big deal, syncopation is a simple concept,
don't they have dictionaries, and if they do, don't
they bother to use them?  You're claiming that isn't
condescending and insulting to the folks who are
struggling to understand the term?  What are they
supposed to think after reading that, besides, "Wow,
I guess I must be really stupid then for struggling
with what is apparently supposed to be such a simple
term to grasp."
   
> >> I really do advise everyone
> >>     
> > Do you now, laddie?
> >   
> >> to look this garbage up Before they start 
> >> pontificating about "respecting words" and all that.
> >>     
> > Okay, part of that is my bad.  I'd already
> > responded on the subject of choreography, and the sole
> > purpose of my responding to Igor's posting about
> > respecting words was to make the joke about syncopation
> > (a subject previously fretted over in this forum several
> > times in the past, but of course you had no way of
> > knowing that); but on re-reading that post, I see now
> > that it could easily be misconstrued (well, by the
> > shallow reader, anyway) to look like I was actually
> > pontificating ("Take that, Trini, you ignorant slut!")
> > instead of just using Igor's line as a straight line
> > with which to lead into my joke.
>
> It was so funny too.

     No need to get snippy about it, Jake, rest assured
I have no plans to give up my day job, but as I said before,
you couldn't be expected to see any humor in it not having
been aware of the history of the group's discussions on
syncopation.

> But to clarify my "pontification" remark: I wasn't 
> intending to target you. That, Huck, is why I quoted, er, IGOR's diction.

     And you also quoted my quoting of Igor, and snipped
out my joke.  So it looked like what I'd done was just
pile onto Trini ("I wholeheartedly agree, Igor") instead
of quote that line just to lead into the joke.  And
besides, you said, "I really do advise everyone to look
up this garbage before *they* [emphasis mine] start
pontificating about 'respecting words' and all that."
Sounds like your target was more than just Igor to me.
After all, the fact that you missed my joke (no matter
how poor it was) would imply that you believed I did
agree with Igor.  You can't have it both ways.

> As for the content of your prior post on choreography, here's an 
> excerpt, halved:
> 
> (HALF ONE): "... I think it's more realistic to think of the allowable
> improvisational building blocks to be a bit more than a single step."
> 
> I personally disagree with you on this. I believe every step (to confine 
> ourselves to the step as a unit) is the result of several other 
> improvised (or not) factors, determining or describing its particular 
> qualities. And I believe that full improvisation requires the dancers to 
> actively choose those qualities, crafting every single of them, so that 
> the outcome step is uniquely carved into space. I believe this, I strive 
> to do it in my dance, and I try to teach aspects of it to my students.
> 
> That is: I believe we must improvise More than our choreography. We must 
> improvise our entire dance.

     Ignoring all disagreements about the meaning of
"choreography," I agree with your conclusion, but
I don't agree with how you got there.  If I decide
to do a right giro, I might improvise all sorts of
emotion from the music and subtle movement-nuance into
it as I do it, but I've still made up my mind to do
a complete circle, and will do so barring any unforseen
circumstances like someone coming crashing in to smash
into me from the wings.

     Gee, I hope that not considering changing my mind
and doing something else instead halfway around (unless
forced to by outside influence or perhaps the follower
doing something other than I thought I was leading)
doesn't make me *too* insufferably boring!  :)  The
thing is, I'm not either Superman or Gustavo, and women
tend to like clear definition and confidence in a lead,
so if I try to always be improvising all the way down to
the atomic or even sub-atomic level at all times to the
point of being too vague and tentative, it becomes more
of a liability than an asset to the partnership.
Especially if we're in the outer lane trying to be part
of a cohesive ronda-animal and not just lollygagging
about independently by ourselves in the middle.

> I'm curious about what others think, however, because I like the free 
> exchange of ideas, and I'm always open to rethinking and revision. I'm 
> also interested in non-improv choreography, but that seems to be 
> universally hated here, except by the few people who've actually tried 
> it.

     Has anyone actually said that?  I thought the prevailing
sentiment was that people just didn't like it at the milonga.
I for one think it's great fun to work on a choreographed
routine and perform it.  Or even just practice it with
nobody looking.

> But silly me for imagining this is the place for open talk.
> I should really find a forum somewhere.

     This strikes me as approaching a martyr complex,
Jake.  I've seen plenty of response to your discussions
here from many people (including from me several times
before this).

> {HALF TWO): "If after determining it should be perfectly safe to do so,
> a leader decides to lead a simple little right-turn giro in place, should
> he be accused of doing choreography? I don't think so."
> 
> I absolutely do. I accuse myself of it all the time. This dance, in my 
> opinion, is best when it's rich and complex at every instant. And I'm 
> after the best, slowly though I plod. If you're not, that's perfectly 
> fine.

     I think we're all after that, but there are
other considerations.  In a crowded milonga, my
partner expects me to not do anything to put her
in a position to get physically hurt, to not in any
way bother any other couple, and to lead something
to the music.  Under circumstances like that, I'm
a bit more concerned with survival than always
striving to find the ultimate tango experience in
each and every moment.  So I hope you won't judge
me too harshly if I don't go for the gold ring at
all times.  At least for now.  I'm going for it more
and more.

> So far, most of them seem to want that capacity. They're hungry for it. 
> I'll tell them, Huck, that you think it's okay if they stick to routine, 

     Oh come on, Jake, that's an awful lot to
extrapolate and saddle me with from my simple
statement that I don't think deciding to do
a little right giro is worthy of being accused
of doing choreography.  I beg you to kindly step
down off your soap box.

     You asked once what people strive for in
tango.  One thing I strive for as a leader is to
move my thought processes while dancing as much
as possible from my left, logically calculating
brain, to my right intuitive and instinctive one.
I think that pretty much jibes with your goals.

Huck