The Joy of Blues Dancing

I've written before about how closed position creates more intimacy between the partners, and how it allows the partners to feel out one another together with the music.

Blues dancing is danced to slow blues - the kind that just begs for intimacy - and as such, it is danced primarily in closed position (depending on how much swing you mix into it). Learning blues dancing is a great way for all swing dancers to develop useful skills, such as leading and following, body movements, and musical interpretation.

Because the dance is in closed, blue dancing is a great way to understand leading and following. In closed position, the leader need only focus on the movement of his own body, and let the follower move with him. As a follower, she can learn to surrender to his lead and go with what she feels. With the centers close together, this dance is very much about dancing center to center.

Since the music is slower and in closed position, there is more time to explore body movement, rather than utilize patterns and footwork. With the partners' bodies closer together, it is easier to communicate subtle movements, and it affords us the opportunity to really explore the music with different parts of our bodies.

Finally, because the music is slower, and because we're in closed position, it allows us both the time and the freedom to focus on the music. Without the need to worry about leading and following patterns, we can get down to the fundamentals of movement to music.

Better body leads and follows, more body movements over patterns and footwork, and time to explore the music with your partner. Doesn't that sound like a great recipe for amazing partner dancing?

Have you tried blues dancing? If so, how has it affected your understanding of swing dancing? Teachers, have you thought about using blues dancing to help your students focus on the fundamentals of swing dancing?

The Choreographer

When I was first learning to dance, I took a lindy hop workshop with a great teacher from Ithaca named Bill Borgida. I don't remember what he taught in the workshop, but something he said stuck with me: "Count Basie is my choreographer." Count Basie is of course the great swing band leader, and his point was that the music was telling him what to do.

We often think of the leader as the choreographer in the dance, or at least the lead choreographer. He is responsible in many ways for setting the tone and directing much of the dance. But ideally what he choreographs is not born solely out of his knowledge of patterns, but rather his inspiration from the music. 

Putting the leader in touch with the music has many benefits. Not only does it create a more musical dance, but it makes his choices clearer to the follower, who can hear what he's trying to choreograph. This should also make it easier for the follower to engage and add some choreography of her own, knowing that she is on the same page as the leader, both of them connected by the music. It should also be a bit of a relief for the leader, who can let the music guide his leading rather than having to come up with moves on his own.

Who do you think of as the choreographer in the dance? Who is it now and is that how you want it to be? Teachers, how do you help your students to understand choreography and its relationship with the music?

Take a little out

Last week's post explored the concept of pattern extensions as a way of adapting patterns to fit the music. 

Similarly, pattern compaction - the process of linking two patterns by replacing the anchor step with a rock-and-go - can also be used to help fit patterns to the music. For instance, compaction can help get to the end of a pattern to fit the phrase of a song, rather than hitting the phrase change in the middle of a pattern. Compaction can also create a rushed feeling that fits well to the build up of a song before a phrase change or break. 

The trick to successful pattern compaction is creating the spring action of the rock-and-go. Though you remove the anchor step - the triple that ends patterns - there should still be an anchor - the extension that results from changing direction. The leader will still slow down and change the direction of his own body, causing the follower to reach the end of the slot before being redirected down the slot again. The only difference is that in a rock-and-go this now happens in one beat and one step (the first step of the rock-and-go) rather than over two beats and three steps, as in an anchor step. Getting this stretch right is what facilitates a smooth and easy change of direction. 

Too often leaders aren't clear on the anchor, sometimes even pulling the follower out of her anchor step. In some ways, learning pattern compaction can help leaders improve their anchors by learning the difference between an anchor step and a rock-and-go, while also teaching followers to seek the stretch at the end of the slot. 

Have you learned pattern compaction? How do you use it in your dancing? Has it had any impact on how you execute your anchor steps? Teachers, do you teach pattern compaction? If so, how do you help students to get that spring action on the rock-and-go?

Give a little more

As I noted in an earlier post, there are a lot of pattern dancers out there - people who know the beginning, middle, and end of what's next before it even begins. They don't necessarily connect with the music or adapt their patterns to fit what they're hearing.

This is where pattern extensions come in. A pattern extension is when a dancer adds an even number of beats to a movement to either delay its conclusion or delay the start of the next movement. They generally fall into three buckets or types:

• Repeated movements, where the partners' positions relative to one another are kept the same but they keep moving;
• Stopping, where the partners hold still for a period of time; and
• Continuous movement, where the partners add movements in a fluid way to keep moving and delay the end of the pattern.

Aside from executing them clearly and comfortably, the trick, of course, is to use these pattern extensions where the music calls for them. Repeated movements (e.g. continuous whip, walks, side-to-side grooving, etc.) are best applied where - you guessed it - the music repeats, either lyrically or rhythmically. They are also useful where the music slows down and you want to slow down your dance as well. Stopping is most appropriate when the music stops or drops off in a significant way, either during breaks or as a transition to a lower energy part of the song. And continuous movement is useful to lengthen patterns where the song builds up, so that you keep moving and building while the song does the same. And I often use repeated movements and continuous movements for phrasing, particularly to extend a pattern to end on 1 of a new phrase, rather than ending during the build up to a phrase change.

We often learn pattern extensions by learning patterns or amalgamations that have extensions in them, but learning to view these tools separately and apply them where relevant is a valuable skill to have - for both leaders and followers. Leaders can use them to adjust their patterns to the music, while followers can use them to appropriately interrupt patterns to fit them to the music.

How have you learned pattern extensions? How do you think about them and use them? Teachers, do you teach your students about pattern extensions, and if so, how?

Detachable feet

Last week I wrote about how we become pattern dancers and the effects that has on our relationship to our partner and to the music. Just as we tend to get locked into patterns, we also get locked into specific rhythm patterns with our feet.

A rhythm pattern is a specific sequence of doubles and triples that forms the foundation for patterns. For example, the rhythm pattern for a six-count pattern is double-triple-triple. These rhythms are fundamental to our dance and are closely tied to the execution of patterns.

However, we spend so much time working on rhythm patterns that we can have difficulty breaking out of them. When we attempt syncopations or a change of rhythm with our feet it can be disruptive to our movement and to our partnership. Our bodies become highly dependent on our feet, sometimes to the point that we are moving from our feet instead of our centers. This isn't entirely surprising, given the strong emphasis on when and where to put your feet in dance classes. After all, how we talk about the dance influences where we focus our dancing.

Learning to decouple footwork from movement frees us up to be musical with our feet without interrupting the flow of the dance. It allows us to take advantage of our feet as instruments of expression, particularly when the partnership demands attention of our bodies and a continuity of movement. Besides, being able to separate our footwork from our movement is indicative of a higher level of dancing, where the center drives the body and we don't need to be mentally focused on our feet.

Do you find that you have to focus on your feet when breaking out of a standard rhythm pattern? Are you able to let your feet play without disrupting your movement or the partnership? What have you learned about footwork and rhythms that has made things easier or more difficult for you? Teachers, how do you talk about footwork in your classes and how do you help your students get comfortable with their footwork?

A phrase by any other name...

Oftentimes when we are taught musicality and phrasing, we are taught, appropriately, to mark the phrase change. The biggest accent is on the one of a new phrase and we strive to reflect that in our dancing.

But there's another part to phrasing: the fact that phrases are different. A verse is different from the chorus, and the chorus from a pre-chorus, and all of the above from the intro. Phrases differ in their chord progressions, their melodies, and their lyrical rhythms, but the difference most notable for dancing is the energy level, indicated by the volume and complexity - and sometimes emotion or expressiveness - of the music. If we are to really phrase our dancing with the music, we should dance each of these phrases differently.

Phrasing our dance means thinking about how the energy and feel of our dancing matches the energy and feel of the song. This is reflected in our choice of patterns and styling, the complexity of our movements, the size and pace of our dancing, and the overall dynamic we create with our partner. As the song changes, so should our dance.

And if we do dance these phrases differently, we create a dynamic and growing dance, riding the rollercoaster of energy that good songs have. If we don't, we miss an opportunity to be musical, to create variation in our dance, and to engage our partners on a different level.

How much do you pay attention to making one phrase feel different from another in your dancing? How much do you just focus on the phrase change? Have you ever been taught how to phrase in the way described above? Teachers, do you work with your students on this level of musicality, either hearing the music in this way or how to dance to it in this way?

Moving beyond rhythm

As I work with my students on musical interpretation, I often have them focus on articulating the lyrics of a song. But every time I do this, at least one student points out the difficulty of hearing the melody, adding that they naturally turn to the rhythm.

The rhythm is often dominant in the music we dance to, in part because it has a driving beat that lends itself to swing, but also in part because much of the music we dance to today is increasingly rhythm-heavy. This makes the rhythm easy to hear, but the problem with letting it drive our dancing is that the rhythm of a song is inherently flat. Sure, a good beat often compels us to dance, but the primary purpose of a rhythm section in a band is to keep time, and to that end it is deliberately repetitive and monotonous. If we let the timing of the song be our only guide, we might as well dance to a metronome or someone clapping.

Not only does dancing to the rhythm or timing of a song create flat, monotonous dancing, but flat, monotonous dancing in turn creates a weak foundation for partnership. As humans, when we receive the same stimulus over and over, we start to tune it out. It becomes white noise that fades into the background. The same thing happens with monotonous partner dancing: the repetitive feel of it leads both partners to tune out and detach from one another.

So how do you keep the dance interesting and engaging? A good place to start is by connecting with the variable part of the song: the melody.

The melody is where the variation is. Whereas the rhythm chugs along at a steady pace, the melody ebbs and flows with changes in both rhythm and energy. The melody is also the emotional heart of a song. Whereas rhythm provides the beat and groove for a song, melody expresses the feeling and soul of a song. Whether it's a voice or an instrument, connecting with the melody not only helps you mix things up but it also gives you emotions to incorporate into your dancing. And dancing that captures emotions is certainly more interesting and engaging.

So learn to hear the melody and learn to connect and stay connected with it in your dancing. You'll be more likely to have an exciting dance and to create an engaging partnership.

What is easiest for you to hear in a song? Where does your ear naturally go when listening while dancing? How does the genre of music affect what you hear? Teachers, what do you have your students focus on? How do you teach your students to hear different parts of the song?

Go on, slow down and get intimate...

Some songs just call for intimacy with your partner. You know what I'm talking about: those slow, drippy, emotional songs - sometimes sad, sometimes sexy, sometimes light and dreamy, sometimes down and dirty. Those songs that call for the lights to be dimmed, or the songs that make you want to kick back with a glass of wine (or scotch - your choice), or the songs that make you want some privacy.

Too often, when these songs are played, I see dancers get out onto the floor, do their 4-count starter step, and then rush out into open position and their standard patterns. To me, this is not only antithetical to the music, but also a wasted opportunity to engage with your partner on a more intimate level. I don't mean getting romantic and invading each others' space (unless, you know, that's what both of you want); I just mean taking time to connect with your partner and the music without the usual distractions of patterns and embellishments.

These kinds of songs just cry out for you to slow down and take your time. So what's the rush to move out of closed position? While the dance is danced mostly in open position - and while some people may not know how to dance comfortably in closed - there's a lot that can be done in closed. And not only is closed position more intimate, but it has the two partners' centers closer, where you can feel more of your partner's movement. And closed position forces you to strip away the fancy patterns and turns and styling and just focus on moving together with your partner to the music. Since I'm guessing you do partner dancing in part to share the experience with a partner, and in part because you like the music, what could be better than taking your time to do both of those together?

So my advice? Listen. And if the song calls for it, stay in closed position a little longer. Explore the possibilities. Take the time to engage with your partner and the music more directly.Go on, slow down and get intimate...

How do you feel about dancing in closed position? Reflecting on your own dancing, how often do you dance in closed? And how conscious are you of slowing down when the music calls for it? Teachers, how do you imbue this side of musicality in your students?

Hitting the breaks... or not

In exploring blues music, one inevitably comes across the infamous "break" - the last 8 beats of a major phrase during which the instruments build up tension that resolves with the new phrase. Sometimes this break is a hard stop of all vocals and instrumentation (what we often think of when we hear the word "break"). Other times it is a change in instrumentation (some instruments temporarily stop playing), and sometimes it's simply a big percussive crescendo that ends on the first beat of the new phrase.

Lots of dancers can feel the build up to the break and in response they hit the break hard, stopping completely and holding until the new phrase begins. If it's a hard break and the music stops, it makes sense that the dancers should likewise stop moving (of course, I know of others who may disagree). But while we occasionally encounter hard breaks (a stop of all vocals and instruments), most songs have breaks that include some vocals or instrumentation. In those cases, a hard stop might not be the most appropriate (read: musical). (NB: Even during a hard break, picking up momentum and building to the new major phrase is a great way to create tension and contrast.) But there are several different ways for interpreting the break section, depending on the nature of the break and what's occurring musically. I would argue that the four primary ways of dealing with breaks are the following:

1. Ignore the break and build up to the first beat of the new phrase.
2. Build up to the break and then stop or hold until the new phrase begins (hard break).
3. Build up to the break and then dance through the break but with less momentum (soft break).
4. Build up to and hit the break and then build momentum again to the first beat of the new phrase.

It's good to be able to do all four options, so you can adapt to whatever song is playing and so you have a wider range of options for responding to breaks, leading to more variety and different creative opportunities. And, as noted in my previous post, it's always better if you can execute in a way that is comfortable and inviting for your partner.

Of course, the idea here is that at a minimum, whether you have a hard stop or simply change your movement in some way, you should acknowledge the break in your dancing. If the music is changing during the break, then your dancing should likewise change. If you maintain the business-as-usual momentum and dance through any accents or crescendos or stops, then you're missing the break altogether; it's not musical, and it probably won't feel as good.

What is your approach to breaks? How do you describe or identify breaks? How were you taught (or how do you teach) about hitting the breaks?

Musicality done right

One of the greatest challenges of any partner dance is balancing the partnerships: the partnership with your physical partner, and the partnership with the music. Too often we sacrifice one for the other, rather than finding ways to engage both partners equally and at the same time.

The other night I worked with students on phrasing the dance to twelve-bar blues. The challenge was to be musical - to hit the phrase change but also to reflect the build up to the phrase change - and to do so in a way that was comfortable and engaging for both partners.

To do this, we practiced listening for the upcoming phrase change and picking patterns or stylings that would set up the partnership to be musical together. These selections were higher in energy and intensity but were simple enough that both partners could successfully and comfortably hit the phrase change, in some cases even providing the opportunity for each partner to hit the phrase change in their own way.

Lots of dancers can hear the phrase change coming, or recognize it when it occurs, but it takes some thought and skill to be able to plan for it, let alone do it in a way that engages your partner. Planning for the phrase change is how we avoid the last minute "attack" - the rushed and often tight movement to hit an accent or break. These "attacks" create tension and discomfort, rather than providing a comfortable and more relaxed approach that allows both partners to remain stable and to express their individual musical response to the phrase change.

How do you - as a leader or follower - engage your partner in musicality? How do you strike that balance between the partners, creating opportunities instead of commanding your partner in some way? And how do you set up things like phrase changes so that both partners can engage in a comfortable and stable way?

I Got The Blues

Blues music derives its name from “blue devils” – melancholy and sadness. Blues music in all its forms are about hard times, sometimes to express sadness, sometimes to celebrate resilience in the face of such hard times. But from a technical standpoint, blues music can be defined two ways: as a musical genre with a given style, and as a musical form with a given structure.

Blues music as a genre is defined by a few characteristics. One is the instruments themselves, usually grounded in rhythm-based instruments, such as guitar, drums, and bass, though often incorporating other instruments as well. The second is the lyrics, which, again, are often about sadness and resilience, and which reflect the call-and-response scheme of African and African American music. And there’s the walking bass line, which sometimes swings and sometimes moves up and down a progression of notes (or both). 

Blues music can also be defined as a cyclical musical form, meaning it has a repeated chord progression. Unlike ballad or song form, which has several different kinds of phrases (e.g. verse, chorus, pre-chorus, bridge, etc.), blues music is one chord progression repeated over and over. Twelve-bar blues is the most common progression, but there are many variations on twelve-bar blues, and there are other common progressions, such as eight-bar blues and sixteen-bar blues.

What I find interesting is that despite the repetition in structure, to me blues is rarely boring or monotonous. For one thing, each chord progression is a little rollercoaster, growing and building and then resolving by the end. And this rollercoaster plays out over the course of the song too: blues songs tend to grow in emotion and intensity as they progress, dropping during instrumentals and picking up for the big finish. And though the chord progression repeats, oftentimes phrases differ greatly in feel and style, mixing lyrics with instrumental solos, playing with rhythm and volume. And even within phrases there are riffs, accents, breaks, and lots of emotion behind the lyrics. 

Though more modern songs have variety in the chord progressions, I find they can often feel repetitive, because they are frequently so rhythm heavy and the rhythm is constant, and because they often don't vary much in volume or emotional intensity. Not true of all modern genres, of course - there are lots of pop ballads that have great variety in emotion and feel - but I find I feel this way about much of the "dance" music we dance to these days.

How do you define blues? What do you listen for in a song that tells you its blues? What do you like or dislike about blues? And how do you think blues music compares to more modern genres we dance to?

Layers of musicality

When I explain the abstract term "musicality" to my students, I usually break it down into three nested layers:

• General feeling of the song. Is this a slow, drippy song, or a fast, sharp song, or a groovy, mid-tempo song? This level of musicality will determine the overall shape and styling of the dance.
• Phrasing. What is the structure of the song and how does your dance reflect that? This manifests itself in the way we distinguish one phrase from the next, and how we note the change to a new phrase.
• Texture. Where are the accents? Where are the drawn out notes? What are the lyrics doing? What's happening with the rhythm and where are the riffs? This is the detailed level of musicality.

I find a lot of dancers get good at the texture dancing - using syncopations and patterns to texture their movements - but many don't learn to mix that into a broader framework of structure and feeling.

How do you think about musicality? How do you capture as much of what you're hearing into your dancing? And if you teach, how do you approach the subject? What exercises do you use to help your students to hear the music and be musical?

Top 10 Ways to Improve Your Dancing: Part 2

Sorry for the long delay, but picking up where my last post left off... (The rest of this list reorganizes - and adds to - what I taught in my last class at Arlington in August 2010, but it also includes the same material and principles.)

6. Following through. For followers, this means following momentum to its end. Too many followers slow down or stop themselves before they should. Instead, followers should go as far as they can go in any direction, and let the leaders tell them when to change direction (see #7 below). For leaders, this means using your body to direct the follower. Leaders often get the follower started without directing her to where he wants her. Once she's in motion, leaders, you need to point your body where you want her to end up. This creates a body lead through the pattern, and not just at the beginning.

7. Understand your responsibilities. I realize we're starting to get a little abstract here, but dancing is more than just the physical. It seems to me that a lot of dancers forget what their responsibilities are in the dance. Leaders are primarily responsible for changes of direction; once you set the follow in motion, your job is to signal any changes, and to do so in a clear yet comfortable way. Followers are primarily responsible for themselves and their own movement; the leader should not be in charge of moving you, but rather he should be in charge of signaling where and how you should move yourself. Too often followers move themselves through the transitions and leaders force the followers through the middle of the patterns. This is the opposite of how it should be.

8. Understand your role. Similar to understanding your responsibilities is understanding your role. (You can think of it as your tasks vs. your approach to doing your tasks.) The leader's role is to guide the follower and politely ask her to do something, or even just suggest ideas. The leader is the follower's guide - her director, her point of reference, and her support - but not her commanding officer - her dictator and overlord. Followers should respect the leader's role - his vision and intent - and respond affirmatively, but she can and should also actively participate by communicating effectively. Remember: dance is a conversation, so this should be a back and forth, but not talking over each other and not ignoring or interrupting what the other person is saying.

9. Musicality. Yeah, I know, I could write volumes on this subject, but I just want to emphasize one point here: dance is the physical expression of what we hear and feel. It's all too easy to get lost in patterns as a leader, or stylings as a follower, but remember that there's a difference between doing a dance and dancing. Doing a dance is putting a series of patterns and moves together, but has nothing to do with music, while dancing itself is moving to the music, regardless of the patterns. The trick is to take the movements of the dance and fit them to the music we're hearing. Let the music be your guide whether you're a leader or follower. Easier said than done, I know, but it's the ultimate goal we're all striving for.

10. Pay attention. I know this probably seems trite, but it needs to be explicitly stated. If everyone just paid more attention to their partners (yes, you have two - your dance partner and the music!) our dancing would be better overall. When leaders don't pay attention to the follower, they end up using her and treating her as an object rather than a person. When followers ignore the leader they interrupt the dance and create unnecessary tension. And when both partners ignore the music they stop short of having an experience where they both share in the interpretation of what they hear. Most of you know how to drive, so you know what it's like to pay attention to a lot of things at once (speedometer, radio, traffic, person in the car with you, checking your mirrors, etc.). Dancing is the same way: there's a lot going on but you've gotta try and keep your eye out. Start by paying attention to your dance partner, and then try alternating that with paying attention to the music. It gets easier over time.

What about you? Do you agree with this list? What do you think is the single most important difference between good partner dancing and great partner dancing?

Annie Get Your Gun

I'm pretty sure no one ever came home one day to say, "Wow! I had a great day! I was carjacked!" And I doubt anyone ever said, "That flight was fantastic! We were hijacked!" You know why? Because hijacking is bad.

Hijacking is stealing by stopping and coercing someone. If this doesn't sound very nice, it's because it isn't. Whether it's hijacking a car at gunpoint, hijacking a plane with the threat of explosives, or hijacking a lead during a dance. Doesn't matter. Not nice.

In terms of dancing, "hijacking" is when the follower either ignores a lead or else completely changes it from its original intention. It isn't nice. It's telling the leader, "Sorry, I don't care what you want to talk about, because we're going to talk about this." If someone were to say, "Hi, how was your day?" it would be rude to ignore the question and say, "I'm going to eat some chocolate."

A question was posed recently to a dear friend of mine, Maria Blackwell, a fantastic dancer and teacher who gives more of herself to her dance community in St. Louis than anyone else I've ever seen. Her student asked if a follower went to play, wasn't she taking over the lead? Maria smartly answered that there are rude and polite ways of interjecting - and sometimes it's a fine line which is which.

I could write a whole treatise here on partner dynamics, but suffice it to say that the way to avoid hijacking is to acknowledge the lead and follow it through, even if you give it your own spin. Taking the lead and playing with it is expressive following. Ignoring the lead and doing what you want - even if the music "calls for it" - is hijacking. And that's just rude.