yedancer wrote:BryanC wrote:Is it _actually_ lindy hop or not? Does it fit the requirements of a dance that was never codifield in the first place? If people, by my observation of of dancers on and off the floor, are having a good time, then I'm doing what I set out to do.
I think the point was pretty well summarized by Reuben:
Reuben wrote:It's something "new" and different, celebrate it as such.
Trust me, as a Jew, I would LOVE to re-name the dance, entirely, to manifest this change/evolution and eliminate any reference to that damn Nazi Lindburgh. I would definitely celebrate it.

(It is rather ironic (to say the least) that the dance developed to so-called "nigger-Jew" music was named after one of the most public, ardent, and outspoken pro-Nazi American figures of the WWII era.)
Nonetheless, historical anecdotes and one-liners aside, I really think this is one of the most important topics this Board can discuss right now, so I really want to know what you all think in more than a one-liner quip. Lindy Hop is not a Ballroom dance. It is not codified, and it thus is not so limited as you and Reuben claim it is. (West Coast Swing is a Ballroom dance, and IS somewhat codified). Lindy Hop originally evolved as a street dance merely to adapt a dance to the "new" swing music that was out there because no other dance captured the athleticism and energy of the music.
The Motown music about which we are speaking shares every relevant musical similarity to Swing music except the syncopated triplets. The music progresses and regresses in 4-count increments: often four counts upwards, four counts downwards. It has 8, 10, 12, and 16 bar "paragraph" patterns, just like vintage Swing music. It even has call and response patterns. The scales and chord progressions that musically define "Jazz" music are, frankly, irrelevant to Lindy Hop (e.g., we don't do different moves or patterns to an A-minor scale than we do to a C-major scale); it is the rhythmic patterns that Lindy Hop responds to, not the scales or chords. Those rhythmic patterns were adopted by other forms of music (including Motown music), which is why, say, Jump Blues is "Lindy Hoppable" even though its not the original jazz to which Lindy Hop originally evolved. It is not like "jackhammering" a three-count Waltz onto four-beat music.
The only rhythmic thing missing in what we're referring to as "Motown" is the syncopation: the syncopated triplets. Thus, the question remains: what is this fundamental aspect of "Motown Lindy" such that it can't be considered an adaptation of Lindy Hop to match some music we want to dance to: an adaptation just like the original evolution of Lindy Hop adapting to Swing music? If you simply answer "Swing music," then you are arguing in a circle.
To phrase it another way, why are the syncopated triple steps more fundamental to Lindy Hop than, say, 1) the basic 8-count Lindy patterns (swing-out, circle, etc.), 2) the progressions of those 8-count patterns (the circle of going up for four beats, then returning down for four beats; bring her in for four beats, swing her back out for the next four beats), 3) the athletic posture and "feeling" of the dance, 4) the free-form improvisational nature of the dance as a "street dance", and 5) the unique approach toward leading and following with a tigher connection than, say, West Coast Swing or any other Ballroom dance?
I submit that the latter elements are more "fundamental" to Lindy Hop than the syncopated triplets, which is why I submit that Lindy Hop is "evolvable" to any sort of non-syncopated music with a steady "4-beat-feel" rhythm.