On Apr 22, 7:12 pm, swingandhustle <swingandhus...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 9:16 pm, "Ron N." <rhnlo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 11:49 am, swingandhustle <swingandhus...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > Regarding the lack of Young Hustle dancers - to solve any problem, I
> > > believe we must first correctly identifying the problem space. As I
> > > see it, our problem space is really ...
>
> > The problem space is much bigger than you realize. Think
> > about how few dances there are that are currently widely
> > popular that weren't mostly codified over half-a-century
> > ago. How many are there? Salsa-On-One is the only one
> > I've seen worldwide (and some might argue that it's not
> > really a different dance than Mambo or Son). Maybe Tango
> > Nuevo. Maybe Nightclub 2-Step in the U.S. These among
> > lots of dead or passing fad dances. The odds of "tweaking"
> > an existing dance and making the new variant popular might
> > be roughly zero, rounded to the nearest whole percent.
>
> > Be glad that the Hustle still exists as an actual social
> > dance, and not something the Richard Powers has to
> > "reconstruct" for a historical demonstration.
>
> > IMHO. YMMV.
> > --
> > rhn A.T nicholson d.0.t C-o-M
>
> The dance we do is sling hustle between 120 - 135 BPM and counted 12&3
The BPM sounds near the right range for Hustle as
commonly social danced in Northern California, but
the count is far more often (and correctly IMO)
cued as "&1.2.3". I've never heard it called
"sling" Hustle, except in dance history talks.
|
