Inspired by these two posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidB  I wouldn't like to define the difference between 'someone doing a dance' and a 'dancer'. Despite that, I'm pretty sure that all MJ classes (at least all the ones I've seen) just teach people how to do the dance.
There are a handful of people who do MJ I would class as dancers. Some are natural dancers. Others have trained in other dance forms. I don't think any became dancers purely from doing MJ.
But I think now there is a possibility that someone could do this - ie learn enough about dancing from MJ to be classed as a dancer. However they would have to go to several different teachers, as I don't believe any one teacher has that level of knowledge yet. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparkles I love dancing. I love the challenge of interpreting the music and of following the leads of many many different people. I like the idea I can dance my way to a piece of music without being told it's wrong. I've been dancing (properly) for over 20years now, but I'm not a dancer and never will be one. And that's just fine by me  . |
To me, Sparkles is a dancer. (but, of course, I respect your right to call yourself whatever you want
)
With all the respect due.... I have no idea what DavidB is talking about, but I know he is not talking about dance.... or dancers. Maybe competition judging?
People talk about having a good frame like it's something you can fix with a tape measure. They talk about technique like it's some holy grail, which, if you find it, WOW! You
are a dancer! It's complete crap. Technique on it's own is useless. Technique is merely a means to an end. Some of the most technically gifted dancers are the most boring or most mechanical.
Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against improving technique, I've done it myself, but I was a [bad/average/good] dancer before that, and I'm a [bad/average/good] dancer now. The point is, I'm a dancer both ways. Dance is not a Science.
Dance is about moving to music, nothing more, nothing less. A dancer is someone who moves to music. Whether that is by learning fixed moves, or in a wonderful show of emotional dance expression is completely irrelevent because both are simply steps on the same path. (Zen moment there
)
Likewise, this is not a sport, how far you go down 'the path' is completely upto the individual. Crossing the winning line is not the goal. People do not need to be put down as 'not dancers' simply because of some (usually insecure) desire to separate the elite from the rest.
Of course, there is a big difference between a 'professional dancer', and a 'dancer'. Likewise, competitions do exist. But these things are merely measuring devices and actually have no relevance to what a 'dancer actually is'.
My view is; Dance is an art form.
Sure, some art appeals to more people than other art, that doesn't mean it's not all art.
Sure, some dancers happen to be better than other dancers, that doesn't mean they are not all 'dancers'.
Rant over.