Thread: Dated methods?

I know there has been plenty of discussion over the years regarding 'poor' teachers and people who are not adequately trained etc. but what about dated methods of teaching?

What do you consider to be dated methods of teaching ME dance?

Do you think there are certain aspects we should no longer teach because they are dated?

What about music, do you keep up to date?

What moves are now considered dated?

Teaching with a pronounced tuck and a base posture that is quite squatty is dated IMO. I think it's good to make people aware of these differences - perhaps if you want a more vintage look you might use them. Similarly certain arm patterns and moves I learned long ago that I don't consciously use any more may become useful again for different music/feelings.

I don't think any music is dated! Unless you're in a very commercial environment you can dance to any music you like, whether it's 50s or 70s or 80s or last week's.

Originally Posted by zumarrad

Teaching with a pronounced tuck and a base posture that is quite squatty is dated IMO.

I would even put that into the 'unsafe' category in many cases. Having a misaligned pelvis and reducing the natural curvature of the spine as a 'base' posture is not ideal.

I agree about the sit and tuck stuff.. what about overall style and feel of the class?

I know people who have been to people who have been teaching for years and they commented that the class felt really 'dated' and still like in the 90's. I understand what they mean but I am struggling to consolidate what it is exactly which makes the whole thing feel dated.

I suppose if i am honest, walking into a class dressed in satin skirts and huge coin belts dancing to anything by Emad Sayed /Hossam Ramzy in 4x4 routines would take me straight back to the mid 1990's.

There would also be something about arm positioning i.e. a hip drop with one arm by the hip (in a cup style) and other arm stright up in the air in a very rigid fashion.

Originally Posted by NandaDncer

I would even put that into the 'unsafe' category in many cases. Having a misaligned pelvis and reducing the natural curvature of the spine as a 'base' posture is not ideal.

Indeed, but for a long time that's what people were taught as correct.

Originally Posted by caroline_afifi

What do you consider to be dated methods of teaching ME dance?

Some teachers do warm ups and cool downs that reflect older exercise styles that have since been discredited (bouncing while stretching and so on), but that's all I can think of. There are dancers whose styles have stopped at a particular point in time, but that isn't necessarily bad. I wouldn't want to learn something called "Modern Egyptian" from someone who dances like it's 1976 and she's still working at that Lebanese restaurant that closed during the Reagan administration, but as long as she conveys to her students that she's teaching a period style, and not the current one, I don't consider it a problem. You can still continue to grow as an artist without changing styles every few years, and if no one taught the older styles, they'd be largely lost, since we don't maintain any sort of comprehensive library of our history. Personally, I'd rather have a teacher who worked at being good at one moment in time than someone who was constantly "evolving" in a frantic and shallow search for relevance.

What about music, do you keep up to date?

I keep up on the ME scene, but not the Western dancer-music one as much. Again, music is part of your style, and it depends on the dancer. If you're Retro Club Gal, then keep on truckin' with that Eddie Kochak and Mohammed El Bakkar. What bugs me is when teachers think they are teaching contemporary pop music that isn't anywhere near current. If you're going for "Here's what the dance looked like in 2002," that's fine, but please don't act like a cut off Bellydance Superstars Volume 1 is the latest and greatest of anything. No, it isn't. "New" and "New to you" can be two separate concepts.

What moves are now considered dated?

Compared to someone like Randa, Souheir Zaki's dancing looks very dated, but I can still see the validity in emulating it. All of Souheir's delicate sweetness came from a different world that was less aggressive, balletic, and athletic than the one Randa dances in. There's nothing wrong with either style, though, and if it's what you like, so what? It would be a boring world if everyone chased after the same trends. I do think there is a point to movement and style that taps into the same problem as the music, though. It reflects badly on you as a teacher if you present something Dina's been doing for a decade as if it just happened for the first time yesterday.

passive stretching during warmup (please note I specified passive stretching because not everything that gets called a "stretch" is a bad warmup).

The squatting overtucked posture already mentioned.

Wrong cultural information.

One more point on music choices... I think an audience can usually tell the difference between, "I recently discovered this older song, and wanted to try my take on it," and "This was a monster hit, audiences love it, and I don't think I'll ever get tired of hearing it," and "Someone taught me a choreography to this song five years ago, and I'm kind of tired of performing it, but I'm too fearful or lazy to step out of my comfort zone and find something else." There's nothing inherently wrong with old music--it's how you use it.

I'm going to echo what Tourbeau said.
Warm ups can be dated- meaning more recent developments have found some old methods to be unsafe. This is not so good, if you don't know how to self correct these things.
As far as the dance- if one is teaching the style of a specific time period- great! Market it that way. Honestly I think it's VERY important to learn the history and development of the dance, not just what's happening today. It's an integral part of learning the culture and musicality of the dance.

When I first started classes many years ago, we all wore skirts or harem pants to class, as did the teachers. Now I wear a catsuit or mesh middle bodysuit and hipscarf so that students can see my legs and how they move, and I encourage them to do so as well.

I prefer the more vintage styles, whether it be Egyptian or American Cabaret (my favorite style). I try to explain to my students which movements are "Egyptian" style and which are "Turkish" when appropriate, and to expose them to a wide variety of musical styles.

I DON'T seek out "the latest from Cairo" because I don't really like the costumes or the styles that are popular there now. I do try to take workshops with really great instructors when I can, i.e. Leila Haddad, Amel Tafsout, Karim Nagy and incorporate my new knowledge into my classes.

Originally Posted by dunyah

When I first stated classes many years ago, we all wore skirts or harem pants to class, as did the teachers. Now I wear a catsuit or mesh middle bodysuit and hipscarf so that students can see my legs and how they move, and I encourage them to do so as well.

I agree with this too.

When I started belly dancing, there was a tendency to "dress up" for every class, and I'm not talking cute fashionable exercise togs like Sharif wear or Melodias, I'm talking giant harem pants, multiple huge skirts, coin belts, 10 lbs of jewelry, etc.

Some teachers did this, and some wore leotards/tights but tolerated students to do the dress up thing. Who can see body movements and alignment under all that?

Not to do with dance style, but teaching style. Instructors are just like anyone else--some are flexible and some not. In any area of interest there are people who may have 15 years experience that is comprised of the same one year over and over again and others who have 15 cumulative years of progressive growth.

On the dance skills and style end dated methods for me would be raks cheerleader arm positions that lack an organic arm path; ignoring melody and relying completely on rhythm; use of feet and skeleton to drive movements.

Oh man, I hate it when my skeleton starts moving without my muscles...

Originally Posted by ssipes

Oh man, I hate it when my skeleton starts moving without my muscles...

Silly girl, you know what I mean,r:;

Originally Posted by Souzan

Silly girl, you know what I mean,r:;

Actually, I never have figured out what that means, I think there was a long thread about that but I didn't participate in it.

I hope never again to see:

• Unsafe (or non-existent) warmups
• Unsafe stretches (at any time) in class
• Teacher (and students) dressed as if thay are off to a costume party rather than knuckling done to dance
• Harem schtik (other than tongue in cheek)

Or to hear:

• This is a dance by women for women
• This sacred dance can be traced back to the great Goddess Ishtar (or whoever your favourite Goddess is)
• We are gypsy dancers and just let our womenly free spirits move us
• Belly Dance has nothing to do with (dirty) Arabs
• Incorrect cultural information of any kind

Originally Posted by zumarrad

Indeed, but for a long time that's what people were taught as correct.

*nods* When I see the instruction to bend the knees and heavily tuck the pelvis I'm waiting for the 80's aerobics style warm-up to follow ;-)

I'm not an instructor, but I've got to jump in here. My instructor does exactly what you all describe as the sit and tuck position. Is this dangerous? Michelle Joyce's DVDs always remind you to "keep your tuck" as well. Is there a distinction between a right way and a wrong way to tuck? I don't want an injury!

I recently had a discussion on using the pelvic floor muscles in dance.
When I started Oriental dance 20 years ago, nobody ever had even heard of the pelvic floor - now my friend (who started about 8 years ago and with different teachers) insists that using these muscles is the best way ever to explain and execute movements.
I did feel dated. But well, I learned to dance anyway

There are certain arm and hand positions I feel are really dated. Especially the "index finger and thumb touching" position. Or "arms down on the sides and underarms out parallel to the floor". If you can picture what I mean.

Shakira. Is dated.

MEISSOUN

This one?
http://s1.mcstatic.com/thumb/2174576...ll_version.jpg

I am not sure about this butI feel it is a bit dated to claim that there is only one correct way to execute a movement. Like "a hip drop-kick is ALWAYS done like this, and you are doing it wrong". Nowadays most teachers have had several other teachers and can teach a movement in different ways to catch the different moods in the music. At least they can acknowledge other ways of doing it but say that "this is the way I like/teach it".

Originally Posted by zumarrad

Teaching with a pronounced tuck and a base posture that is quite squatty is dated IMO.

just to be clear, you're talking about a full out posterior pelvic tilt, not the neutral pelvis that feels like a tuck to most people only because they are used to a sway back/anterior pelvic tilt, correct?
http://www.efeld.com/images/phd/pelvic_tilt.gif

Originally Posted by meissoun

I recently had a discussion on using the pelvic floor muscles in dance.
When I started Oriental dance 20 years ago, nobody ever had even heard of the pelvic floor - now my friend (who started about 8 years ago and with different teachers) insists that using these muscles is the best way ever to explain and execute movements.
I did feel dated. But well, I learned to dance anyway

i'm confused, i was under the impression that the only thing you can move with your pelvic floor is you vagina. it's good for support grounding and balance, but to create a movement?

Originally Posted by raqFariha

i'm confused, i was under the impression that the only thing you can move with your pelvic floor is you vagina. it's good for support grounding and balance, but to create a movement?

I think it is one of those muscle groups (much like the diaphragm) that some will say because it doesn't directly move a bone, it's not being used in dance.

But the pelvic floor is the bottom of the "box" formed by the rest of the core (which includes the diaphragm btw) that when engaged creates intra-abdominal pressure which has a stabilizing/supporting effect during movement.

So yes, its used in dance even though it doesn't drag a bone through space when contracted.

Teacher (and students) dressed as if thay are off to a costume party rather than knuckling done to dance

I disagree with that one. A lot of students are very attracted by the costuming side of the dance, but are not in a position to perform (devoutly religious women, those lacking confidence, or those who just don't feel ready).

Turning up to class in a full-on professional costume may be a little over-kill, but a lot of the people I dance with really enjoy slapping on some bling, and find it makes class more enjoyable and puts them in the mood.

I also find it inspiring when the teacher dresses up a bit. I took a couple of classes with a woman who always appeared with wet hair and tracksuit bottoms! My current teachers both like to dress for class, and mix it up a lot. As a budding performer, that's really helpful, partly because it gives me ideas, and partly because you get to see just how dancing is affected by what you wear- a move done while wearing a 25yd skirt and a kuchi belt does not look or feel the same as when you do it in leggings and a hipscarf.

Originally Posted by ValerieVengeance

I took a couple of classes with a woman who always appeared with wet hair and tracksuit bottoms!

Sounds like a real dancer to me. (Remember ballet classes? The best were always dressed to work) With tracksuit bottoms you can see how she generates the movements.

Originally Posted by ValerieVengeance

My current teachers both like to dress for class, and mix it up a lot. As a budding performer, that's really helpful, partly because it gives me ideas, and partly because you get to see just how dancing is affected by what you wear- a move done while wearing a 25yd skirt and a kuchi belt does not look or feel the same as when you do it in leggings and a hipscarf.

And imagine the washing ... and wear and tear on the costuming.

The 'pelvic floor' was around in the UK twenty years ago and now it feels VERY dated!! ..l;,

Someone must remember Jaqueline Chapman and her 'imagine dancing holding a pencil in your V.. ' to tighten your pelvic floor and draw your figure of 8... and circles...w.:

Originally Posted by raqFariha

just to be clear, you're talking about a full out posterior pelvic tilt, not the neutral pelvis that feels like a tuck to most people only because they are used to a sway back/anterior pelvic tilt, correct?
http://www.efeld.com/images/phd/pelvic_tilt.gif

Yes. It doesn't feel like a major tuck to me but I've never been a duck-butt sort of person.

Originally Posted by ValerieVengeance

I also find it inspiring when the teacher dresses up a bit. I took a couple of classes with a woman who always appeared with wet hair and tracksuit bottoms! My current teachers both like to dress for class, and mix it up a lot. As a budding performer, that's really helpful, partly because it gives me ideas, and partly because you get to see just how dancing is affected by what you wear- a move done while wearing a 25yd skirt and a kuchi belt does not look or feel the same as when you do it in leggings and a hipscarf.

Leggings and a hipscarf and a bit of makeup and earrings ARE dressed up!

The trouble with the skirt is that students can't see your legs and you can't see theirs, and there are all manner of bad things that could be going on under there that you'll miss. Sure, you need to get a feel for dancing in the costume but not at the expense of torqued knees or other damage.

when i changed from skirts to trousers for teaching (and a strict no coin belt rule), i also introduced "kitch class", when i remember i encourage the students to dress up once in a while (and do so myself as well). so standard teaching clothes can be the yogapants plus top outfit, but i mixed it up with something more "costumey" every now and then, for varieties sake.

but i wouldnt want to teach in a skirt anymore day after day after week