I introduce you all to my new project: The dissection of ATS.
While I enjoy the simplicity of ATS on those who care to perform it sans "decoration", I have learned that the format doesn't entirely suit me. Neither, though, do I care to completely redesign the improv vocabulary I grew up with. Modifying the wheel-- rather than reinventing-- tends to be my style. I draw on my shoes and toss glitter on everything. "Can't leave well enough alone" is probably a good phrase here.
So this puts me in an interesting place. I get to examine each part of ATS and decide: Does it work for me? For my students? Do I like the look? Is there something similar that I can substitute?
This has already started happening. My students are taught, at the end of the choo-choo arc, to open their arms like a flower, rather than that swing-the-arms-overhead-and-down thing that FCBD does. We saw BlackSheep doing it and liked it better.
Another example of a soon-to-be-changed-in-my-format move is the "Arabic Drop Drop Drop."
The issue I kept having was twofold: 1, there's supposed to be 3 drops. Really it's more complicated than that, but in basic terms, you arabic (an undulation up in on yer toes) twice and then level down while dropping your chest 3 times. On the fourth beat you rise back up to standing. Lemme tell you, it's really hard to actually get 3 drops in 3 beats. It's also hard to chest drop when you're leveled down too far. Problem 2: Chest drops are pretty hard to begin with, especially for more inexperienced dancers or those with sizeable chests. As a result, they thrust their shoulders back and forth, which ain't graceful and ain't what the move is about.
So I hemmed and hawwed about this for a while-- maybe I should just drill it, maybe I should research it, blah blah. I went and found actual video of Fat Chance themselves actually doing it, and saw, Lo! Half the time they don't get the 3 drops in, either, especially when the song is fast. So it's not just me. It's the move. Watch here, at about 2:12 (after the arms come down-- that's the cue for the dropping):
So I decided, right then and there, that the Arabic Drop-Drop-Drop was getting the axe. Maybe not the whole move, but it's going to be trimmed or altered in some way so it's not such a pain in my ass.
Some people might get their britches in a bunch over my outright gutting of this dance form. That's fine. I could get twitchy at people who insist on wearing khakis and pastel polo shirts year-round, but I figure without people to hold the line, there's no way for me to toe (or cross, or dance atop) that line.
All the ATS vocabulary aside, this seems like a useful exercise for any dancer to do, especially if you've been taking classes/self-teaching and not questioning what you've been taught. Obviously dancing in a group situation (whether it's improv or a choreography) places certain limits on what you can change, but if you're a soloist or troupe leader, take some time to review what you do. Look in the mirror and see what you like. Something that looked great on your teacher might look crappy on you, unless you're her twin. My friend Amy Danielson (of The Gypsy Kiss) just posted a rather long article similar to this-- about questioning those things that are "right" in your mind. Link: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
Showing posts with label improv. Show all posts
Showing posts with label improv. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Friday, July 22, 2011
New Ways of Talking
I am very very fond of this set. Especially the first two pieces. The last one... not so sure. Very silly and not meant to be taken as Serious Dance, obviously, and that's fine by me. We all need some of that sometimes. And it's Unmata, so they can get away with an awful lot. I'm not going to go into whether this is bellydance or not, because A. I don't care and B. that's not the discussion right now.
A little picking apart...
I love Unmata's improv. As a student of ATS, I really enjoy seeing what people do with it. It's sort of like a cover song-- the interesting parts are both what you change what you keep.
In Unmata's case, I am agog at how well everything fits together. This goes far beyond adding in a "new" move or three. This is Amy Sigil's own style. While some core ATS can still be seen, nothing looks like "ATS with a different hat on."
This is really hard to do.
For one, it takes balls. There are about a bazillion ATS dancers, it seems, with a range of devotion from "Oh, yeah, it's fun, but whatever" to "OMG ATS IS LAW." When you learn someone else's dance style, you need to have respect-- but how you show your respect is your choice. Maybe it inspires you to emulate that style as perfectly as you can. Or maybe it inspires you to save the things you like and rebuild it from the ground up. Either one takes big brass balls.
For two, it's difficult. You can't just add in a few hip-hop moves and call it a cohesive vocabulary. That's why ATS can be a very difficult starting point. ATS proper-- Fat Chance, we're talking-- has such a specific aesthetic. You can't toss a Bollywood move in there and call it good. It'll stand out in a bad way. All your moves have to keep the same flavor, and that takes a lot of time and effort.
Other tricksy things are the technical aspects of the steps. Let's just say we're keeping the aesthetic of basic ATS but adding in steps that don't exist yet. How do you cue them? You need to make sure the cues are strong, can be viewed from the back, will not be confused with any other cue. Not only must you have a handle on your moves, but you have to know, understand and properly cue every other step, or at least every one in that half of the vocab (slow/fast). You have to know where the holes are. You have to be able to say, "Well, we don't turn our heads in the Egyptian, so that's a possible cue." You also need to avoid overlap. There's no point in having two moves that are essentially the same from the audience's standpoint. Again, you need to be able to see holes: "Hey, we don't do any fast hip circles. Let's build something off that."
For three, you need to practice the shit out of things. Watch the improv at the beginning of the clip and see: even when the cues happen, and there's sometimes that slight delay between the leader and the follower, the followers always catch up quickly. You don't much notice it unless you're looking for it. Another point-- when they're moving, arms undulating low, they're all in pace with one another. There's no competition. Everyone is on the same page. Everyone knows the music. Everyone knows to follow the leader. The inventor of the steps is on stage, and she's following the leader. She'd follow them even when they fucked up. They'd make it work. And how does it work? A metric ton of solid practicing.
You have to believe in it, too. You can't have your "own style" and not really follow through. Watch groups who dance straight ATS but have a move or two of their own-- when those moves come up in a piece, you can see the pride shining through. The pride needs to be there the entire time.
This new improv is so interesting to me because I'm working toward the same. Unmata's steps are lovely, and while I occasionally borrow from them, their aesthetic is not mine. The same goes for all the improv troupes I watch: Fat Chance, Black Sheep, Wildcard. But since I started with ATS, my performance troupe is mostly ATS, and my students know mostly ATS, I can't just shift gears straight into something new. It will take time and experience to create this new thing. I have to slowly reshape and rebuild the vocabulary to suit my vision. Yes, I just said vision. I effing hate that phrase, but it's the best I've got. And I'm tired of typing "aesthetic."
A little picking apart...
I love Unmata's improv. As a student of ATS, I really enjoy seeing what people do with it. It's sort of like a cover song-- the interesting parts are both what you change what you keep.
In Unmata's case, I am agog at how well everything fits together. This goes far beyond adding in a "new" move or three. This is Amy Sigil's own style. While some core ATS can still be seen, nothing looks like "ATS with a different hat on."
This is really hard to do.
For one, it takes balls. There are about a bazillion ATS dancers, it seems, with a range of devotion from "Oh, yeah, it's fun, but whatever" to "OMG ATS IS LAW." When you learn someone else's dance style, you need to have respect-- but how you show your respect is your choice. Maybe it inspires you to emulate that style as perfectly as you can. Or maybe it inspires you to save the things you like and rebuild it from the ground up. Either one takes big brass balls.
For two, it's difficult. You can't just add in a few hip-hop moves and call it a cohesive vocabulary. That's why ATS can be a very difficult starting point. ATS proper-- Fat Chance, we're talking-- has such a specific aesthetic. You can't toss a Bollywood move in there and call it good. It'll stand out in a bad way. All your moves have to keep the same flavor, and that takes a lot of time and effort.
Other tricksy things are the technical aspects of the steps. Let's just say we're keeping the aesthetic of basic ATS but adding in steps that don't exist yet. How do you cue them? You need to make sure the cues are strong, can be viewed from the back, will not be confused with any other cue. Not only must you have a handle on your moves, but you have to know, understand and properly cue every other step, or at least every one in that half of the vocab (slow/fast). You have to know where the holes are. You have to be able to say, "Well, we don't turn our heads in the Egyptian, so that's a possible cue." You also need to avoid overlap. There's no point in having two moves that are essentially the same from the audience's standpoint. Again, you need to be able to see holes: "Hey, we don't do any fast hip circles. Let's build something off that."
For three, you need to practice the shit out of things. Watch the improv at the beginning of the clip and see: even when the cues happen, and there's sometimes that slight delay between the leader and the follower, the followers always catch up quickly. You don't much notice it unless you're looking for it. Another point-- when they're moving, arms undulating low, they're all in pace with one another. There's no competition. Everyone is on the same page. Everyone knows the music. Everyone knows to follow the leader. The inventor of the steps is on stage, and she's following the leader. She'd follow them even when they fucked up. They'd make it work. And how does it work? A metric ton of solid practicing.
You have to believe in it, too. You can't have your "own style" and not really follow through. Watch groups who dance straight ATS but have a move or two of their own-- when those moves come up in a piece, you can see the pride shining through. The pride needs to be there the entire time.
This new improv is so interesting to me because I'm working toward the same. Unmata's steps are lovely, and while I occasionally borrow from them, their aesthetic is not mine. The same goes for all the improv troupes I watch: Fat Chance, Black Sheep, Wildcard. But since I started with ATS, my performance troupe is mostly ATS, and my students know mostly ATS, I can't just shift gears straight into something new. It will take time and experience to create this new thing. I have to slowly reshape and rebuild the vocabulary to suit my vision. Yes, I just said vision. I effing hate that phrase, but it's the best I've got. And I'm tired of typing "aesthetic."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)