Talk:West Coast Swing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dance Portal
West Coast Swing is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Dance and Dance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Sixteen count blues?

The article says that WCS was originally danced to "sixteen count Blues music". This seems to be incorrect information. Perhaps the original author confused the eight count phrasing with the 12-bar blues form? Can anyone explain why this description is correct?

Also, I note that http://www.dcult.com/Swing-Dances/West_Coast_Swing.php and http://www.swwc.org/page.asp?PID=9 appear to be word-for-word identical with this article. Is this due to a common author (seems unlikely)? Was the article copied from one of them? Or are those sites just improperly using wikipedia material and slapping their own copyright on instead of following the license?

Szarka 16:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC) szarka

The dcult page is apparently gone, but the swwc page says "See also: Wikpedia, the free encyclopedia" (with link) under the title "References". I think they can be assumed to have used the Wikipedia text, and the link back I suppose makes the it OK what the GFDL license regards. // Habj 12:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability

To the anonymous user at 192.18.42.11: Please stop reverting incorrect information. Both Lindy Hop and West Coast Swing (and pretty much every other Swing variant) mix patterns of arbitrary multiples of two. There is no difference between Lindy Hop and WCS in this respect. The rest of the article is a mess, and I don't see a good way to put that information elsewhere without a substantial rewrite. Please feel free to do so if you see a good place, though. You may also want to consider how this relates to the Wikipedia:Verifiability issue that user:Danilsuits raised below. - szarka 2005-01-17

OK, perhaps it is just me, but the contents of this article don't presently appear to meet the verifiability standard. I would recommend burning this draft and starting over.—Preceding unsigned comment added by danilsuits (talk • contribs)

I tend to agree. The article as of this date seems to reflect one person's opinion based on limited experience. - szarka
I agree. For example-- "Within the spectrum of partner dances, WCS is one of the most improvisational." Even if cited (by a promotional website), it violates NPOV, since anyone could argue for their dance, or street dancing which, like slang, loses the rules of the language.
"Lead: 1 step back with the left foot, 2 step back with right foot, 3&4 triple step and step forward with the left foot, 5&6 triple step right." That's written poorly, because if you do the 3&4 triple you're already on the left and can't step with it again! If you're saying that triple's on the left, then say it. MMetro 22:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Both I, and others, have done a lot of work on this article since the undated "burning" recommendation was posted. There are now references and links to other articles in several sections that had zero references. The "improvisation" statement can be found at a site by dance historian Richard Powers, who is on the faculty of Stanford University. That site with the "edu" in it is not promoting anything but the knowledge of dance, in my opinion. I think it is acceptable, as are some of the .com sites that feature free content on the listed page.
I would be happy to see all of the wordage on "moves", etc gone from the article. The other dances I looked at do not have such detailed lists. But I can't find a policy against it. It was all here when I came on board. Frankly, I don't much care for Funky, etc sections, either. It used to be much worse. Please state your opinions here.Steve Pastor 23:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to make some edits, based on the previous comments. I'll try to NPOV the bit about improvisation and to clarify the triple step. MMetro, if you have any suggestions on how to make the article better, please just go ahead and make the edits. --Ben James Ben 00:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I took another look at the sections in question, and I actually have no problem with the "one of the most improvisational" line or the wording of the basic step. MMetro, if you feel that anything should be changed, please make the edits yourself. I personally plan to leave the article as is. --Ben James Ben 01:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Is "3&4 triple step and step forward with the left foot" a triple step, then step forward, or triple step with the left foot forward? Since I don't dance WCS, I can't make an edit.
In the "beginning moves" section, "3&4 triple step and step forward with the left foot" is almost certainly an attempt to describe the leader's standard footwork for a push break. This being the case, the triple movement is "step, ball-change", and it is the last of these three steps that is forward with the left foot. This should not be considered an endorsement of the section in question. -- Danil Suits 13:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I also followed the Richard Powers link and found: "The geographical division is an oversimplification. So I prefer to think of it as lateral thinking vs. vertical thinking, which can happen anywhere." To say WCS is the "most improvisational" dance is still making a judgement call. BTW, though, thanks for putting the effort into the page. MMetro 00:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
If the article had said that WCS was the "most improvisational" dance, then I, too, would have a problem with NPOV wording. However, the article does not say that. Instead, it says that WCS is "one of the most improvisational" dances. That qualification is enough to make me feel that NPOV is preserved. --Ben James Ben 02:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. Still sounds like a weasel word to me. Even if WCS is one of "those dances", who decides what qualifies as most improvisational? What is WCS more improvisational than? It's better to cite evidence of improvisation. MMetro 17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a judgement call. But it is made by someone who knows social dance way more than casually. Just for kicks, here's a link which substantiates Powers' credibility. [1] Steve Pastor 19:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Argentine Tango is more improvisational than West Coast Swing (there isn't even a "basic step" or a basic pattern). So right there we know that WCS isn't "the most improvisational. Nevertheless, according to Skippy Blair, "playing" with the beat, etc, is taught at the intermediate level.[2] (With AT it is taught from the very beginning.) These guys are conviced.[3] about the highly improvisational nature of WCS. I don't know Lindy, but in the original sense, it was quite improvisational. If you google "waltz improv", you get about half the hits you do with "west coast swing improv", and most of the links are about playing waltz, not dancing it. Not mentioning the highly improvisational nature of the dance would mean that it isn't being described adequately. And, frankly, I have yet to see anything that contradicts the statement. If there was evidence to the contrary, I would certainly disregard the fact that so many people accept it, and support a more accurate statement. Steve Pastor 19:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I toned down the wording of the sentence. Again, I had no problem with the article as it was previously written. --Ben James Ben 22:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
My three "couples of cents": First, while of course the word "most" (improvisational) is always dubious, there is no doubts that WCS for advanced dancers is highly improv: while some basic patterns give an overall backbone, they are endlessly extendable and modifiable in both pattern and footwork, not to say the endless possibility for "flash and trash". Second, It is not true that existence of patterns is a difference between SCS and AT. In both of them basic patterns exist, for teaching purpose, although AT afficionados do boast that AT has no patterns, which is nonsense: AT is anything but "freestyle". (this is long topic, better not to dive into). Third, improvisations in WCS and AT are of very different character, and it is easy to argue that WCS provides more freedom if only because of the open position and the possibility of "hijacking the lead". WHile in AT the leader does have a possibility to give the lady an option to make decisions and even run on her own a bit, but I've never heard of lady actually leading: she just walks or plays within the frame the leaders lets her (if we forget the possibility of an excellent leader "post-followingf" the bad follower to repair her poor following). Finally, an advanced dancer may improv in any ballroom dance; it is only that in structrured dances the execution of tricky patterns is fun of its own. `'Míkka 23:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The lead is hijacked all the time in a Jack and Jack or Jill and Jill Lindy competition (lead is arbitrary), break steps are encouraged in ECS, and what are dance fads which are often the codification of originally improved moves? Don't forget blues and tango waltz. That's a matter of keeping a different time. Although the discussion has led to some very good reasons, it's not an encyclopedia's job to be a fan page, but to present knowledge about the subject. It's probably harder to find a social dance that is not adaptable to improv. MMetro 08:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have already acknowledged the improvisational nature of Lindy, Jack and Jill or otherwise. (and it's funny, because use of the term "hijacking" implies strict lead and follow is the expected rule unlike the philosophy found at some of the references in this article) Dance fads are not exactly included in social partner dances. If they were then we could say that all of the dancing during the hippie era, and at Greatful Dead concerts, was improvised social partner dance. Blues? (Don't get me started on "Blues dancing". Hollywood Style Lindy is another one.) Tango waltz - vals - comes under the broader heading of Argentine Tango, which, again, I've already acknowledged. Here's text from what I consider to be a fan site "West Coast Swing is the state dance of California. It's origins are definitely in Lindy Hop, but, "you've come a long way, baby!"". I ask you to try and find a verifiable, authoritative (at least as authoritative as dance historian Richard Powers P.S. Powers isn't quoted directly, but the cited page clearly supports the statement in the article.) source that contradicts the basic accuracy of the statement which is currently in the article. Steve Pastor 20:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I appreciated the change alluded to in toning down the POV a few replies back, as well as the clarification on the basic step. It now reads like I thought it should but couldn't be sure of. I'm not trying to be critical of WCS, but merely find the same fanaticism I find in other dances. NPOV is about removing those opinions from an objective evaluation of the dance. The editors have done their job if they have presented evidence fairly, and it is the reader who concludes that WCS is one of the most improvisational dances. I accept Ben James Ben's Nov 4 edit that it has been "noted" as one of the most improvisational. That's a lot different than saying it IS, and trying to persuade the reader that the statement is true. Keep that in mind as you're improving the article and things will be just fine. I like the improvements so far. After checking the rev history, I am impressed with Steve Pastor's constant efforts in eliminating opinion from the article. If there's anything I could suggest at this point, please clarify if the demonstration is "the most basic", "a basic", or "the basic step". The former, the current description, implies there may be several variant basic steps. If there are, an editorial decision has to be made as to which one is used (although I'm sure from the article that the decision has already been made). Since listing the variations would just add confusion, I suggest merely acknowledging them-- "Although there are several variations, the basic step is..." MMetro 14:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that the link to Richard Power's WCS syllabus does not state anywhere that the dance is "one of the most improvisational". In fact, it doesn't include the word "impro*" anywhere in the text. I'm rewording the text and removing the reference for the above reasons. –panda 21:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Although it is true that the word improv is not used in the article, it contains the following: "West Coast Swing is much more than a style and syllabus of figures. It embodies the West Coast attitude about dance, a mindset of freedom, ease, flexibility and infinite possibilities", "West Coast thinking therefore embraces more creativity and flexibility, to adapt to partners who are different from our own style", and "the best part, in my opinion, is that she (Skippy Blair) embraced the original lateral thinking attitude of swing. She could have turned it into a rule-based discipline but she chose instead to keep the true heart of swing"
One word that conveys all of this is improvisation. If everyone objects to this, let's come up with another word. I strongly object to throwing out one of the very best references about the character of the dance. Steve Pastor 22:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
And, it isn't just steps. It's also about timing, and how you move and a bunch of other things. The new sentence very much over simplifies things. Steve Pastor 22:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
If you want to reference someone, reference Skippy Blair. Richard Powers is far from being a dance authority on swing dances. Anyway, the Lindy Hop article doesn't make such a big deal about this (improvisation in the dance) so I don't see why it is being made into such a big issue here. (And why is there still no article about Skippy?) –panda 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Panda, I got a chance to talk to Skippy a few weeks ago when she was here in Portland, OR. I encouraged her to get some of this stuff on one or another of her web sites. She is a very busy woman, however, and also an amazing woman (POV there, my goodness, she tap danced while explaining different rhythms, and she is sharp as a tack, and she's been teaching since the 50s! Do the math.) She has now posted a biography, and of course has another page where she writes some about the early history of WCS. She has sent me emails and I've talked to her on the phone. She does not take credit for some of the things some people accuse her of taking credit for. I'm not sure if there are any other verifiable sources regarding her life and involvement with WCS. Personally, I prefer to let her "speak for herself" since there is now a link to her bio in the article. Do you know anyone in the LA area who could go to the newspaper Skippy first advertised in? It would be really cool to get a copy of that ad. Anyone?

When I first tried to find info on WCS in the article, the improv statement had already been tagged. It was in line with my experience, so I tried to find something that would support it. Powers may not be an authority on swing, but I actually see that as an advantage. Since he mostly works with other, more formal, historic dances, he sees clearly that WCS and Lindy are different (from those other dances). If you come from the swing world, it doesn't seen like a big deal. Powers and others see the changes in dance as the broader, non white US population began to accept the different, less structured, less formal, less pattern based, dances done originally by African Americans. For most of us, it is now part of the woodwork. (I wonder about the average age of the editors of the swing articles. Also, the "national outrage" over how Elvis Presley moved during some of his songs is a good example of how things have changed from the 1950s, for example.) I learned mostly traditional dances over the years: folk, country western, ballroom, or ballroom based dances. So I agree with Powers observations. Again, if the use of the word "improvisation" seems too much to some of you, I won't try to put it back in. But, I may come up with some other wording to make it clear that WCS isn't a step by the numbers kind of dance.Steve Pastor 20:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I certainly agree that improvisation is a part of WCS and have nothing against stating so in the article. However, "Within the spectrum of partner dances, WCS is one of the most improvisational" is difficult to prove (someone must have done a comparison with all possible partner dances in the world and published it) so it is best left out. It's more NPOV to simply state that one of the characteristics of the dance is improvisation or that the dancers can improvise while dancing together as a couple. Anyway, feel free to change the wording but I would recommend avoiding comparisons with other dances. (IMHO it's about time for someone to start an article on Skippy ... interested?) BTW, the reference for the 1962 "West Coast Swing" ad is wrong -- it should be http://www.swingworld.com/wcs.htm (it's pointing to her bio right now) I'll fix that. –panda 21:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I happened across this regarding dance improvisation, and thought I would place a link here for anyone who has follwed this discussion [4]. Steve Pastor 15:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Basic Step

The problem, as I see it, with this subject, is that I can't find a really good source that says definatively that the is "The Basic Step". Some people now believe that the Sugar Push is one of two Basic Steps in West Coast. The Sugar Push, or Push Break, is really pretty hard to do correctly, so I wouldn't think it is a Basic Step. But then again, some people do. I've looked at MANY sites with WCS information. For the most part, I don't consider any of them to be authoritative. The one exception is sites that are associated with Skippy Blair. She's been teaching this dance since before it was called West Coast Swing. She doesn't take credit for inventing it, or even coming up with the name. She credits the Golden State Dance Teachers Association with codifing the dance in it's current form. Her sites are not dogmatic about there being "A Basic Step". Books add nothing to the discussion. Arthur Murray's books from the 40 and 50s do not mention WCS. Laurie Haile had a book published, but it is not in the WorldCat on line resource. As recently published book "Social Dances in America..." has some incorrect information in it (Dean Collins was NOT on the cover of the New Yorker.)

Having said all of that if anyone thinks we should go with a simple 1 2 3&4 5&6 with the woman turning around to face the man... But what about the hands, and is it a left side pass or a right side pass? And how does the guy turn around? These articles aren't supposed to be dance manuals, and I think to do it justice you would have to get fairly specific. Opinions, everyone? Steve Pastor 22:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
AFAIK there is a common understanding that WCS does not have the thing called "basic step" like in cha-cha, salsa, polka, etc. That's why you cannot find it in books. And I see nothing unusual here. Tango or hip-hop (just kidding :-) do not have "basic step" either. `'Míkka>t 23:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The Sugar Push is hardly a basic step. The change of direction makes this pattern difficult even though it is generally taught in a beginner lesson. In fact, for this reason, at least one All-Star instructor teaches the left side pass before the sugar push - it is much easier for both the follower and leader to execute. If you want to include some kind of "basics", I would include several - Left Side Pass, Right Side Pass or Under Arm Turn, Sugar Push, Tuck and Whip. Most other patterns are extensions of these basic patterns when you consider how the follower gets from one end of the slot to the other (and back again). Regardless, the whole idea of including more than the pattern name in this article seems wrong, especially since as currently described, they are quite awful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.58.167 (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this lastest comment and have written before, that other dance articles don't describe steps since Wikipedia is not a "How To" manual. Does anyone object to removing Sugar Push from the beginner section, or removing all Basics, Intermediate, etc material? If you object please try to address these comments. Steve Pastor (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend keeping a basic step verified by one or more secondary sources, even if you have to attribute it to something specific, like Cal Pozo's Swing dancing tape, and from that point, have to disavow yourself from it. Many other dances are identified from their basic step, which encodes many things such as: rhythm, footwork, handfold, posture, and other elements that define the dance; so I don't think that describing the basic with detailed footwork and rhythm constitutes a how to manual. Not only have I have seen footsteps in print encyclopedias, but how else can the dance be distinguished from its cousins? Other moves, such as the sugar push, should be mentioned as variations when they are acknowledged to have significant contributions to the dance, or if the move makes significant contributions to other dances, as the sugar push has done. But, because the variation is theoretically more complicated than the basic, it should not be described as instruction. If there is any more debate that there is no such thing as the basic step, start with whatever is taught in the briefest of first lessons, to someone who knows a bit about dancing, but has never been formally introduced to West Coast Swing.
Finally, the basic should not be divided into separate lead and follow sections, since that would constitute instruction. The 2008 US Democratic primaries have resurrected the quote about Ginger Rogers doing everything Astaire did, except backwards and in heels. The couple should be assumed to be in unison, except when they are described not to be. Staying within these bounds ensures that everything stays within description of the dance, and does not become a how to webpage. MMetro (talk) 08:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspam

Obviously, there are a number of editors who have, or are friendly to, those who have commercial interest in having their websites linked to this page. Mikkalai, you've been doing most of the cleanup - which of the guidelines is relevant when removing those links Danil Suits 21:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The linkspam on all the dance pages can get pretty bad. The guideline to cite is WP:EL.--Will.i.am 10:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalisation

I have removed lots of unnecessary capitalisations - AFAIK there is no need to write Blues, Lindy Hop, Samba, Chicken Walks etc in the middle of sentences. Regarding West Coast Swing though, I hesitate. It is often abbreviaten WCS, but that does not mean it should normally be capitalised - althogh this is often done. What do you say - West Coast Swing, West Coast swing (if "West Coast" kan be presumed a proper name), West coast swing? I agree that it is very often written West Coast Swing, but when you apply that kind of logics to the rest of the text... suddenly all dance-related terms turn up capitalised in the text. // Habj 08:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In two editions of "How to Become a Good Dancer", Lindy Hop is capitalized. These books (1947 & 1954) were published by Simon and Schuster, which is still a major publishing company. This is the verifiable source for capilatizing Lindy Hop in this article.Steve Pastor 18:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This is kind of tricky because many verifiable dance sources use different forms of capitalization. If you're interested, see here for a rousing (though long) discussion of it all. The basic result of the argument was that local consensus should decide whether or not to capitalize dances (using a local Manual of Style, so to speak). With all THAT said, I believe that we're going to list both "Lindy Hop" and "lindy-hop" in the Lindy Hop article, as per the Oxford English Dictionary. I'm sure that you're much more familiar with West Coast Swing and its capitalizations. Cheers!--Will.i.am 20:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing and material deletion

The following regards edits made by Dancedesigner on November 9, 2006. There are many strongly held beliefs about West Coast Swing. Many of those beliefs do not hold up to close scrutiny. I have attempted to separate fact from fiction regarding the history of this dance. All of my edits include references. Readers of Wikipedia may check those sources to verify the accuracy of what I have written. It is very clear to me that this is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. It would be very helpful if you would list the source of the information you left behind when you deleted the relevant, researched, and referenced material text I contributed. Or, at the very least left an explanation of why you deleted the material. I will restore the deleted material. Please have references to justify future edits. Steve Pastor

The first deleted sentence was essentially the same information contained in the first and second senteneces in this article. Dean Collins brought Savoy style Lindy Hop to the LA area. That dance is NOT West Coast Swing. There are reports that there were "jitterbuggers" at the 1935 Benny Goodman engagment at the Palomar in 1935, before Dean arrived. The second deleted sentence contradicts references which lead to the conclusion that West Coast Swing not only began in the Los Angeles area, but has a continuing history there beginning in the 1940s, albeit previously under other names. Evidence to the contrary (with cited references) would be appropriate. 11.25.2006 Steve Pastor

[edit] Origin of the Slot

Sources state that the WCS slot is 3'x6' or 3'x8'. If couples dance a non slotted swing style and stay in a circle of 3' diameter, you could fit 16 couples onto a floor that is 12' by 12'. 12/3=4 in each "row", with 4 rows. Using the smaller size slot of 3'x6' you could put 12/3=4 couples in each row, but you could have only 2 rows 12/6=2. So, non slotted 12 couples, slotted 8 couples.

Even if the non slotted couples dance in a circle 4' in diameter (equals a square of 4'x4') you could fit 12/4=3 couples in 3 rows, giving 9 couples dancing a non slotted dance where only 8 slotted couples fit.

I conclude from this that the way you get more people on a dance floor is for the partners to get closer to each other, and stay that way. This is in fact what happens in Argentine Tango milongas in the center of Buenos Aires, where people are known to dance in one spot without touching other couples. There is also good ole fashion slow dancing , or buckle polishing as is done in country western places. But dancing in a slot will not in and of itself save space.

Any counter arguments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steve Pastor (talk • contribs) 19:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Looks to me to some degree that your comparison is a bit questionable. The length of the slot was not the innovation - that's the same distance that lindy hop uses in open position. So if you comparing the packing of swing dancers, you should be comparing the slot to a 6' or 8' circle. Danil Suits 15:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I hope will be a fun way to think about this. When you compress a gas, the molecules don't line up to fit the same number of molecules into less space. They just get closer to each other (at least to my knowledge), but don't give up motion in only two directions. And - I just came across another dance produced by crowded dance floors - Balboa (dance). Again, partners moved closer to each other to conserve space, rather than spontaneously not doing the same subset of moves. This seems plausible. So, what would happen if there were 9 couples doing Lindy Hop on a floor that was 12'x12'? Steve Pastor 22:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The following unreferenced text can be found at [5] in the Crowded floor section "avoid long patterns with several changes of directions/slots". I agree with this, another reason the crowded dance floor theory doesn;t hold water. Steve Pastor 17:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accented upbeat

I want to add a line to the *music* section that WCS is generally danced to music with an accented upbeat. Thoughts? 207.28.71.66 19:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this page in Wikipedia [6]. I am not a musician, but I know what I can dance to. I have no idea if I am dancing an upbeat, downbeat, backbeat, etc. Most country songs we dance to now a days have a lot of rock influence. "It has a back beat. you can't loose it"? People even do WCS to "Southern Rock" when they play it. Everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable. If you have a reliable, verifiable reference, ...which is something we should all have before puttinh things in articles. Steve Pastor 22:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)