The Best and Worst of 2010

Another year has passed, 365 days nearly gone by and the earth has just about completed one more revolution around our average-sized sun in the unfashionable corner of the universe we call home. It's been another big dance year for Kelly and I; another year of discoveries and lessons, many pleasant and some not so much. Last night after the hubbub of the Yule festivities died down, Kelly and I took a deep breath and enjoyed the peacefulness of our own kitchen for a little bit and as we relaxed the subject of the year gone by naturally came to the fore. Auld Lang Syne always catalyzes a million lists. Probably the most common are the litany of resolutions that most of us voice but never effort. It's easy to swear you'll lose fifty pounds, read all the classics, and start volunteering at local charities but, for most of us, sometime around January eighth we start to realize passing on the pound cake, slugging through Melville, and spending every weekend shoulder-to-the-wheel isn't nearly as easy or fun as it'd sounded while basking in the glow of a saucer of bubbly.


Possibly more popular is the best/worst list. While cruising the TV listings I've noticed one or two 'Best and Worst of 2010' shows cropping up. I feel a little like a 12-stepper for admitting these shows attract me. Not because I sit back nodding in agreement with the self-appointed experts and their assessment of the worth and quality of the various-and-sundry of the year gone by. For me it's a bit more shaking my head and nay-saying the process of comparing disparate things and implying they can be judged against one another. I mean, come on, how can there be a 'best news story of 2010' or a 'greatest sporting moment of the year'? It brings up that whole apples/oranges thing.


Yet, I'll admit, I'm just as list-bound as every other human being on the planet. Yes, I've made some resolutions and as I sit here at my keyboard I'm asking myself "what were the best and worst dance-related events of 2010?" I poured over the blog entries of the last three years only to realize that I haven't done a best/worst list since 2008. The first year of Blue Suede Souls is the only year I authored the list. Part of me wants to stay away from creating a new one. That halo-adorned fellow on my right shoulder is saying, "Dude, let it go." However, the horned gentleman on my left has already tallied up the possible contestants and began ranking them. Who should I listen to?

Best of 2010


10. New Old Venues - Through 2010 we had an opportunity to visit some classic venues that we hadn't had an opportunity to dance before. We visited The Blue Lantern Ballroom in New Carlisle, IN - one of the whistle stops visited by the big bands of the Chicago area back at the beginning of the 20th century. We also had an opportunity to dance at the Irvington Lodge as well as a Valentine dance at the Athenaeum here in Indianapolis.

9. The Moo - Speaking of reviving the old, there was a day when most men in the United States belonged to a fraternal order of some sort. The names range from the imagined sinister (the Masons) to the obscure (the Odd Fellows) to the religiously motivated (the Knights of Columbus) but most men belonged if not for the benefits of the organization, for the social aspects. In 2010, though our dance clubs, we've had the chance to dance at a couple Benevolent Order of Moose lodges in Indianapolis and we're planning on spending our New Year's Eve at one. In general the dance floors have been great (if sometimes small) and the people decent, hard working, and friendly.

8. Reunited - There was a time when I thought we might have taken our last lesson with Dance Masters (aka. Fred Astaire, South). We'd had some rather bad bumps in our relationship and I wondered if we could get back to where we started. When we worked out the issues and re-fashioned our relationship with the studio it felt a lot like coming home again.

7. Clave - In 2010 we decided to try to experience Latin dances within the culture that bred them so, we found Shayne and started learning the Clave. I'm here to say that the Clave is one of the hardest dances I've ever tried and that there's little I'm more proud of than having learned even the basic step of this dance. It bolstered my dance confidence even while it drove me crazy on more than one occasion.

6. Vintage Foxtrot - I'm addicted to anything from the 20's and 30's. I honestly believe in a previous life I had to have been of a certain age in both decades. Late in 2010 we started learning the vintage Foxtrot and I'll never go back to the ballroom variant. The genuine lightness of the vintage dance reminds me that this was a living dance that drew in pieces of other dances to give it vitality long before there were school figures and accepted patterns.

5. Rockabilly - Still, in my opinion, the most fun you can have on the dance floor.

4. Taking to the Air - In 2010 we learned our first aerials, the Number 9 and the Frog Hop. Since then we've started adding the Baby Doll Drop and the Death Drop to our arsenal. Suddenly I feel moderately young again.

3. Terry Lee and his Rockaboogie Band - I'm biased, I'll admit it, however I love a band that can show up and play their music wonderfully every time you see them. Terry and his band never seem to have an off night, their tunes don't drag or race out of control, they're on key, and they're alive. Terry's personable and accessible and he always seems to be up, having fun doing what he does which is nothing short of rocking the joint.

2. Dancing through the Pain - In 2010 I had the misfortune of having to close down the place I worked. I kept a job with the company (that I'm still trying to adjust into) however, I witnessed a lot of good people lose their livelihoods as the economy continued its slow-motion train wreck. Through the misery the two things I could rely on was the understanding of my wife and being able to blow off steam on the dance floor. Dance carried America through the Great Depression and it carried me through mine.

1. Freedom - Through 2010 I think the one thing we learned that will give us the most joy is that dance is freedom. Yes, there are steps to learn and you can even go in for patterns if you want, but in the end you're the artist and the dance floor is your pallet. This isn't paint by numbers, folks. You own your dance and you should do it in a way that makes you happy. If you want to toss tango into your WCS, do it. If you want to dance fast rumbas, dance them. Do whatever the music moves you to do.


Worst of 2010

5. Dancesport (Heartland Dancers) - There's a saying about corporations: the company's culture mimics that of its executives. This means if the executives are unethical, cruel, and egotistical the culture of the company will be…guess what? The same is true of dance clubs. So, when the reaction to our showing up at a Heartland Dancers event was a look down the nose and whispered comments about what sort of shoes we wore, well we knew it wasn't the club for us.

4. No Show - I'm a staunch supporter of local dance venues, big and small. I think that it's important to go out and dance at as many local venues as possible because your patronage makes it possible to have these venues. So, in August, when we went to Mike's Dance Barn to attend the Car Show and Rockabilly Dance that they'd advertized only to find no show and now dance, it a little more than disappointing. We travel over an hour one way to support this venue and to have them simply not show up kind of shook our confidence. I'm not saying that we've stopped supporting the Dance Barn or any other local venue - however when we see an advertisement for one of these functions at the Dance Barn, we're more likely to ask ourselves if we believe it'll really come off or if we'll be sitting in an empty parking lot again.

3. Still with the Manners - Three years after the first Best/Worst list and this one still makes the five worst features of dance. Unfortunately, it seems poor manners have spread from the clods who don't understand how to dance socially and now its invading the gallery. This year we've been seated with people who have moved to a new table after we sat down (without an explanation - but they did move to another EMPTY table so it wasn't to join friends), had our seats usurped by a moron who then had the nerve to ask us to move our stuff, and had another person both badger us to sell tickets for their dance club and flash her ring under our noses asking us how much we thought it cost.

2. Indiana Roof Ballroom's Free-for-All Policy - In the past month there's been an unfortunate trend at the Indiana Roof. Lately the staff has been adding tables to accommodate all who want to attend an event. This is fine if the event in question is a concert but when you're taking away space on the dance floor AT A DANCE so that you can squeeze the admittance fees out of two dozen more patrons, well you've lost sight of the purpose. The quality of the floor at the Roof has steadily declined in parallel with the decline in management's ability to use common sense. I hope the trend doesn't continue, it'd be a shame to see the great old venue go into a new sort of decline.

1. The Demise of the Indy Boogie Dancers - The Indy Boogies quickly became our favorite club both for their music selection and their laid back approach to dance however in 2010 the economy and declining membership took their toll on the club and in October it closed its doors. A faint glimmer of hope lies in the fact the club did have a Christmas dance and we'll keep our fingers crossed that they will return in 2011 both reinvigorated and refreshed.

Dance with the One That Brung Ya'

I want to start this post with a disclaimer in the form of defining the very specific audience that I'm addressing. This post is not directed at those of you who are without a partner and who've entered dancing as a means of socializing and meeting people. It isn't aimed at singles for whom dance is a part of the romance of chance encounters. It isn't meant as an edict to people who enjoy changing partners throughout the course of an evening's dancing. Dance is about having fun and expressing yourself, and if changing up partners helps you do that then more power to you. Go out, swap often, and have a blast. Joy is joy and you should take it wherever you can get it.

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.