>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
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".
Trans Vector Technologies, Inc, 184 Estaban Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010-1611
Phone: (805)484-2775, FAX: (805)484-2718, EMail: firstname.lastname@example.org