1. Some details of choreography will not be able
to be preserved because choreographers do not know
what we know about what is leadable. Some minor
adustments will need to be made to make some partner
dances work better. The idea is to preserve the
woman's choreography as much as possible and the
man makes the adjustments. This dance offers good
illustrations of this point.
2. The man and woman's footwork is optional and can
be syncopated as long as it does not affect their partner.
3. When separating, the woman's movement is optional
as long as she arrives back to where she is supposed
to be on time.
With these three points, we can address your questions.
>> Shortly after the do si do part that I spoke of above,
>> the woman turns and is facing out with the man behind her.
>> The hand hold is RR and LL. Last week, I perceived this as
>> both dancers doing the same steps as we sort of grapevine
>> to our own L. Now, I see that the footwork is
>> different for the man and the woman.
AW: See point 2 above
>> I see no way
>> to lead the woman's turn after the do si do
AW: You could lead the woman's turn easily enough by
modifying your own movement, making connection with the
hands and using your hand to signal the turn.
See point 1 above.
Another possibility is to say this follows point 3 above
and the woman's turn is optional. Then the man would also
have an optional turn at the same point.
>> What do you think? Is this really social dancing?
AW: The choreography cannot be signaled as done in this video.
Therefore if the choreography must be done as in this video,
it would be a performance dance. However the choreography
could be done close enough for my standards with minor
changes, so for me, this still is a social dance.
For me, a perfomance dance is going to have lifts, drops,
tricks, things that people do not maintain their own balance.
Performance dances will have separate parts for the man and
woman where the woman will not be looking at the man. For
example, she comes forward facing the audience on her own
and does some choreography with the man in the background
that he obviously cannot be leading.
If he can signal the choreography close enough, with only
minor changes to his part, for me that is still social dancing.
Thanks,
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff.Su@SBCGlobal.net [mailto:Jeff.Su@SBCGlobal.net]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 5:07 AM
To: Andrew Weitzen
Subject: Re: Unleadable Sequence?
Andrew Weitzen wrote:
> Hi Jeff, see below - A
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff.Su@SBCGlobal.net [mailto:Jeff.Su@SBCGlobal.net]
> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 5:56 PM
> To: Andy Weitzen
> Subject: Unleadable Sequence?
>
> Andy,
>
> This is the Carmiel-winning dancing of the year. I see two things in the
> begining that are problematic leading. The first may just be problematic
> because the woman in the video is not following, but the second is
> something that I think may be invalid choreography for social (v
> performance) dancing.
>
> 1. At the very beginning, at the word "Kan" in the lyrics, the woman
> turns to face the same way as the man. I think this can be led, but not
> the way it is danced in the video.
>
> AW: Agree. She is leading herself at that point,
> and he is just standing there waiting for her to show up.
> You can signal a woman to turn around.
>
> 2. This one is the real problem. Right after the words, "Nachon At
> Rotzah" and after the square-dancing move where the couple walks around
> each other (the name of the sequence escapes me),
>
> AW: do si do
>
> the woman turns while
> the man crosses. There is no physical contact, and the woman has to move
> in the opposite direction as she would if she mirrored him. The only way
> that I can see to lead this without touching is for the man to fake a
> turn for the woman to copy and then abort once it is too late for her to
> abort.
>
> AW: Agree, if she was following she would mirror what he is doing.
>
> Jeff
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUvLfBTi6MQ
>
>
>
Andy,
Last week I came late in the teach, so did not get all the nuances. This
week, Phil reviewed the dance, and there is yet another unleadable part.
Shortly after the do si do part that I spoke of above, the woman turns
and is facing out with the man behind her. The hand hold is RR and LL.
Last week, I perceived this as both dancers doing the same steps as we
sort of grapevine to our own L. Now, I see that the footwork is
different for the man and the woman.
I believe that this is a performance dance. I see no way to lead the
woman's turn after the do si do and the woman's steps as the couple
grapevines to the left as I describe above.
The way that Phil taught this, based on his own video of the
choreographer Marco Ben Shimon, is exactly like this video with one
slight excecption that I do not like. The differene is that Phil taught
the wrap-unwrap sequence releasing his L and her R hand during the
unwrap (so that the woman unwraps herself), whereas I prefer the way it
is done in this video where the hand comes above the woman's head to
unwrap her. That difference is not important, but everything else in
this video is consistant with what Phil taught. So, I don't think that
the dancer is being lazy anywhere.
What do you think? Is this really social dancing?
Jeff
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment