Getting to the bottom of the set

Oberdan Otto

Message 15080 · 13 Dec 1998 08:30:15 · Fixed-width font · Whole thread

>Oberdan wrote
>> Many of these are good, common-sense
>>progressions. Having the original dance deviser present a well-reasoned
>>choreography for the progression to 4th place is far preferrable to
>>seat-of-the-pants choreography by the dancers. In any case, such
>>progressions should be taught and practiced as well as the rest of the
>>dance.
>[Bryan:]Sorry can't agree with this. <snip>

Perhaps I was a bit terse. The above statement advocates the _teaching_ of
dances as they were written, _including_ teaching the progression to 4th
place if it is also specified. The alternative is chaos. The issue here is
what teachers should teach. What dancers actually _do_ is a separate issue.

Nonetheless, you seem to have correctly extrapolated that I also prefer it
when dancers _do_ the dances as written. I have said in the past that
knowlingly modifying a dance is basically showing off or self
gratification. It doesn't usually enhance the enjoyment of the dance for
the other dancers--often quite the opposite.

When dancers do dances "as written", there is a tremendous amount of
latitude in how the dancers express the movements. There are many "nooks
and crannies" that can be explored when doing a dance as written. If you
haven't yet experienced that, then you can look forward to discovering much
larger vistas within SCD. Rather than just learning the minimum to get
through a dance, take time to explore the varied opportunities that each
dance provides.

If you find that a dance is not fun or that it is boring, then you are
either doing the wrong dance (perhaps a poorly choreographed one) or your
imagination is inoperative. I don't think I have ever danced any dance
exactly the same way twice even though I attempt to do dances "as written".

Cheers, Oberdan.

Trans Vector Technologies, Inc, 184 Estaban Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010-1611
Phone: (805)484-2775, FAX: (805)484-2718, EMail: xxxxx@xxx.xxx