It is directed at the small, vocal, minority that seems to believe there is only one right way to dance and that way is to constantly and frequently change partners. It is written on behalf of those of us who have a beloved partner; a partner whom no other can come close to equaling. It speaks for those of us who have a partner to whom we're committed. Frankly, this post is meant to reclaim the right of those I've describe to have an opinion which counts just as much as that belonging to the loud louts and self-proclaimed arbiters of 'good dance'.
A scourge has crept into the ballrooms and dancehalls of America. It's a sinister, undercurrent; a poisonous element that threatens the ability of many to enjoy the wondrous thing that is dancing. Worst of all, unlike many ills of today's society, this blight is not only acknowledged by many otherwise right-thinking dance enthusiasts - it is openly embraced and promulgated as the one and only right way to become a 'good' dancer. This stain on the dance community is openly promoted on websites, by instructors at dance studios, and through local dance clubs around the country. I speak of the baseless assertion you cannot be a 'good' dancer unless you change partners, doing your level best to rotate through every Tom, Dick, and Hildegard in the ballroom within the span of the night. I write to say the fanatic belief that dancing with as many different people as possible improves your dancing is not only based on false assumptions but that it amounts to (in my not-so-humble opinion) no less than an outright assault on a dancer's right to enjoy dance in their own way.
There is a basic assumption that troubles me. That assumption is that the reason you're dancing is to dance with many people. This assumption is what prompted my choice of titles for this blog post. The adage "Dance with the one that brung ya" has been co-opted by everything from sports to politics but when applied to the area from which it originated, its meaning is simple and clear. You should be committed and loyal to the person who brought you to the party. Literally, you should dance with them instead of flitting about with partners that seem momentarily more intriguing, know a few cunning dance tricks, or are brash enough to cut in on someone else's evening out. What part of being taken out for an evening of dancing necessitates being farmed out as some kind of dime-a-dance rental? What part of being true to the one you're with implies rudeness?
Truthfully, the practice of partner-changing regardless of arriving with a partner is an artifact of what I call Dance World - it's like Water World, drier but no less artificial. In the wild, you'd never go to a nightclub and pick the attractive young brunette who's with the burly football player, then go ask her to dance. Pardon my crudeness but you'd wind up wearing your ass for a hat. However, in a ballroom setting it's supposed to be 'normal' and refusing to accept this suspension of reality supposedly is a breach of etiquette or, worse, a comment on your lacking skills as a dancer.
You might think that last sentence is hyperbole. It sounds like a gross exaggeration, after all how could you being willing or unwilling to dance with people you don't really know be conflated with the inability to dance with anyone? Well, many clubs openly promote the idea that sticking with your partner is both a manners and a marker of ineptitude. I've clipped a few examples from the web and, in deference to their sense of superiority; I've decided to let them own their stupidity:
"By the third week, I had two groups. Twenty non-coupled people rotated in a circle on one side of the room while ten couples stayed at the other end preferring not to switch. The morale was pathetic.
The absolute nadir occurred when several ladies of the non-switching couples began to ask me to give special attention to their partners. It seems their husband's leads and footwork were weak. Since all individual help occurs naturally as my assistant and I rotate through the Circle, none of the non-switchers were being helped with their leads.
Quite frankly, no one finished that course in a very good frame of mind. I was so disgusted I vowed that even if I had to ask people to leave the class and refund tuition, I would do so rather than have people refuse to switch. Most people do not mind "sharing", but if even one couple doesn't switch, then the selfish side of human nature is tempted to appear.
I concluded that for Group Classes to work, switching is necessary." - Houston SSQQ
Rather than blame the few people who didn't wish to rotate partners, an accusation that seems to be a bit premature, why not consider some other possibilities. Twenty couples in a class is a lot. Think about it, that's forty people all learning something that's both physical and (I can only assume) totally new to them. This sets up, in the very least, a less than ideal learning environment. We can add to this the instructor's attitude regarding dedicated partners is apparent from the onset. It's very possible that it was just as apparent during the class sessions and that was the reason 'no one' finished the class in a 'very good frame of mind'. I also can't help but notice that the teacher specifically stated they didn't help those who didn't wish to change partners - if you ignore students, can you really be surprised when they don't perform as well? It seems a bit rich to chalk this up to the 'selfishness of human nature' unless we're speaking of the selfishness of an instructor who cannot bear the thought someone else's approach might be as valid as theirs. I'm also interested in the diagnosis that not wishing to trade partners while learning the basics of a dance is somehow a sign of the 'selfish side of human nature'. It seems like an interesting definition of selfishness, wanting to practice with the people you're going to be dancing with. Maybe it's a new definition that isn't in the dictionary. Frankly, it seems more selfish to hold onto a cherished opinion without regard for the feelings or points of view of others than it does to wish to learn with the partner you'll eventually dance with.
"Dancing one-out-of-three or one-out-of-four partner changes with your romantic partner is a decent ratio for couples who want to spend more time dancing with each other during class and still actually become good dancers." - Art of Dance
The recommended ratio seems interesting and I'm not sure if the author means dance one dance with your romantic partner to three or four with others or one dance with others and then the remaining three or four with your romantic partner. Assuming the former, lets do the math. Kelly and I are into fast dances - swings, rockabilly, and fast Latin dances. We're not the fittest of the fit but we're not wheezing octogenarians either, so we dance between 13 and 20 numbers in a night. So, let's divide that number by four for the worst case one out of four dances mentioned in the clipping. That means our romance amounts to 3 to 5 dances a night. Really, three dances with the woman I love is good? You're more accepting than I am. If we go with the latter case, the assumption is dancing 3 to 5 dances with someone else is actually sufficient to impact my dance skill? Really? Even accross the eight styles of dance I do (including two that nobody else does)? What if I dance with 3 to 5 bad dancers? Does that downgrade my ability? I'd like to see that assertion quantified. I also like the phrase 'actually become good dancers', it gives a window into the thinking that you can't possibly be a good dancer unless you hardly dance together. Somehow your unfamiliarity with your partner makes you better! Where else is that true? Only in Dance World.
"I don't care if you don't change partners, if YOU don't care if you don't learn to dance." - DPS
This has to be my favorite because it's so unilateral in its authority. The only way you can ever learn to dance is to switch partners and if you don't, you can't dance. I respond in video form:
Tap dancers really need DPS. They don't understand that they can't dance because they don't change partners. It's obvious this is an example of horrid dancing. I don't understand why they try.
What an awful dancers 'Snake Hips' was. If he'd only had DPS' partner changing plan maybe the lack of skill shown in this clip could have been remedied.
Oh what a wreck! If DPS had choreographed Swan Lake and been able to make sure there was partner dancing and that the dancers switched partners, the ballet might have been something that would have stood the test of time!
Finally, according to the geniuses at DPS this has to be the worst dancer of all times. If Michael Jackson would have only obeyed their edicts he might have been renown for his dance skills. Too bad.
I find it ironic that DPS offers to teach wedding dancing…isn't that the art of dancing (sometimes just a single dance) with one person? Doesn't that violate the stone-hard rule that if you don't partner swap you can't dance? Maybe getting paid changes the rules. Hmm…oh well, I guess it must be tough to live by such prejudiced rules.
The final unraveling of the bias against commitment to a single partner can be taken from the worlds of sports as well as dance. The most lauded and admired denizens of both these realms are the professionals who make their living through their performances. They are consummate perfectionists, relying on executing flawlessly every time they undertake their profession. To obtain this level of perfection they don't swap partners. A quarterback doesn't change centers every other snap just so he can 'get used to how other people snap the ball'. The manager of a baseball team doesn't swap pitchers unless they're failing in striking out batters. Fred Astaire wasn't famous for dancing with lots of partners; he was famous for dancing with Ginger Rogers. When you watch the International Ballroom Competition, there isn't a judging category for dancing with multiple partners.
In short, assertions that the only way you can be a 'good' dancer (or, alternately, that you can dance at all) is by switching partners as often as possible isn't even supported by examples from Dance World. In fact there is no quantitative evidence there is any improvement in dance through partner swapping. The propriety of swapping partners is an opinion and like all opinions it isn't necessarily shared by everyone. To those of you who believe not swapping partners is rude I'd ask you to look at your own behavior - is interrupting someone else's enjoyment of an evening out with their loved one rude? Is it rude to make assumptions about their aptitude based on your opinions? Is it rude to insult and defame those people who don't swap partners because they don't conform to what you'd like to happen? To those of you who believe anyone who doesn't swap partners isn't a good dancer I'd ask how you became the sole judge of dance quality.
Everyone is allowed an opinion. Sure, you can disagree - frankly it'd be nice if you did so privately. Your opinion is no better (or worse) than anyone else's. Your interpretation of what makes a good dancer isn't the limit and yardstick. Dance is about having fun and if that couple who share every dance together are having fun they're getting what dance is all about. If the couple who swaps partners ever dance is having fun, they're getting what dance is about. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
No comments:
Post a Comment