SwingDJs

Swifty wrote: This also makes me wonder, why is it okay that modern foxtrot is far different from 20s/30s foxtrot but a modern take on lindy hop is frowned upon by so many? Is it simply a ballroom vs vernacular viewpoint or is it something else?

I don't think he said it's ok..

even seeing old timers at trad dances do foxtrot is a world away from the aurthur murray or dancesporty kinda stuff - much less the footage Peter's got of "collegiate" foxtrot with air steps and stuff.

maybe it's even a cautionary look at what would happen if nobody was keeping the scene connected to the roots of the dance. :)

Swifty wrote: This also makes me wonder, why is it okay that modern foxtrot is far different from 20s/30s foxtrot but a modern take on lindy hop is frowned upon by so many? Is it simply a ballroom vs vernacular viewpoint or is it something else?

most people that do foxtrot (pretty much everyone) has learned this one correct way that was definied by ballroom. Nobody does 20s foxtrot anymore, the dance is dead. The ballroom studios also define lindy hop, but because there are so many of us that dance lindy hop, we dont accept their definition of it.

If there were thousands of people that actually did fox trot as it was done in the early part of the century, you would probably have the same modern/classic debates.

but for the most part i think you are right, because ballroom dancers accept the definitions that are given to them by the powers that be. (vernacular vs street)

GuruReuben wrote:It was due to marketing as it was thought that something labeled as "Lindy Hop" would not sell as well due to it's "evil" associations.

So let me get this straight, does that mean they were really intended for Lindy Hop but labelled otherwise just for sales? Doesn't that contradict that Falty said, namely they're really not for Foxtrotting (modern or classic)?

Again I ask what would you do today if those songs came on, and what would people do when they were played back when those songs were new?

I realize this is very off-topic from "Too Much Groove" maybe it should get a thread of its own. Can a moderator split it somehow?

Swifty wrote:a modern take on lindy hop is frowned upon by so many?

That sentiment has evolved somewhat. Now it's OK to frown upon modern takes on lindy hop with no grounding in the roots or history of the dance.

So, like, if you can bust out OLD SKOOL (tm), then go ahead and groove (tm) too. If you can't, you suck (tm), and all the usual arguments apply. Not that that's MY opinion or anything. heh heh heh.

Swifty wrote:Or this?

http://www009.upp.so-net.ne.jp/JAZZ-78rpm/masa113.jpg

Windows Media sample

I don't know if I could Lindy Hop to this, but trying to Foxtrot to it would kick my ass all over the dance floor.

I think all swing songs were labeled foxtrots. I have an old record of Basie One O'Clock Jump that's labeled a foxtrot. actually foxtrot is an interesting dance, it's another american dance that was developed in response to swing music. It used to include quickstep which supposed was developed out of the charleston. and like swing has both 6- and 8-count patterns.

Swifty wrote:Again I ask what would you do today if those songs came on, and what would people do when they were played back when those songs were new?

if these songs came on somewhere like at the savoy, you would see a mix of people doing one step, two step, fox trot, peabody, shag, and lindy hop and charleston.

Mike wrote: but for the most part i think you are right, because ballroom dancers accept the definitions that are given to them by the powers that be. (vernacular vs street)

Aren't we struggling to become the powers that be so we can define lindy hop? I'm confused here. I've already told everyone that they're not doing lindy hop but they don't take me seriously. How do I acquire the power?

falty411 wrote: if these songs came on somewhere like at the savoy, you would see a mix of people doing one step, two step, fox trot, peabody, shag, and lindy hop and charleston.

So the music doesn't really define the dance after all?

I thought they only did stomp at the Savoy... and now they freak.

Kalman

julius wrote:

falty411 wrote: if these songs came on somewhere like at the savoy, you would see a mix of people doing one step, two step, fox trot, peabody, shag, and lindy hop and charleston.

So the music doesn't really define the dance after all?

swing music inspired many dances because the rhythm was so infectious.

now take a swing dance like balboa or lindy hop and do it to a different style of music then you have something else. Taking a dance and trying to force it onto a style of music that didn't inspire it and bring it to its heights is my contention.

julius wrote:

falty411 wrote: if these songs came on somewhere like at the savoy, you would see a mix of people doing one step, two step, fox trot, peabody, shag, and lindy hop and charleston.

So the music doesn't really define the dance after all?

it does only partially, because music is a necessary but not sufficient condition to define a dance.

taking lindy hop and trying to force it in a box, imo, goes against the "spirit of the dance". lindy hop is created by putting many things together. any single component does not identify the dance; its a combination. take one piece away, its still lindy hop. take many pieces away, well then it becomes something else. lindy hop is not defined by the music alone.

julius wrote: How do I acquire the power?

For a small fee, I'll grant you the power.

I'm just not interested in the modern version(s). Even the people that are really good at it don't really make me want to do it. I want to dance in a way that resembles the way they danced in the 30s. I often see very, very good dancers doing lindy hop and putting in moves that just don't seem (to me) to contain the spirit of the dance as it was. I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all. I'm just not interested in it.

Mostly agree. Classic Coke is better than Caffeine Free Diet Coke any day and goes better with alcohol.

Kalman