Thread: Question for tribal dancers - your take on ATS/ITS?

Laura.. Everyone has done a fine job of explaining what ATS is and isn't, but if you want some specific Milwaukee/Chicago examples, here ya go:

Troupes who do ATS (FCBD style):
Trllium and Tamarind

Troupes who do ITS (either GC, BSBD, or their own style):
Blue Lotus Tribe, Hipnotic, Rakhshanda, and Gypsy Queens

Of course, the above named ITS troupes also do choreography, but when they improv, they deviate from FCBD or follow different improv formats entirely.

... and Kazoogirl... I agree with so much of what you're saying on this subject!

Originally Posted by Kathiya

i feel that too. i think ATS/ITS is a dancer's dance, in the sense that, it's great fun for the performers, but in most cases, it's kinda 'boring' for the audience (because the moves are repetitive? because the dancers aren't all perfectly in sync, too, since everyone is a fraction of a second behind the leader, so it doesn't look as polished as a group choreo might).

Funny, I would have said the opposite. Only experienced dancers might notice the repetitive nature of tribal group improv, and so I think they tend to find it more "boring" than the general public. The GP sees lots of color, movement, cool music, "exoticness", high energy, and are entertained. That is definitely what I and most fans of ATS/TGI experienced when we fell in love! So curious observation...

I prefer the term Tribal Group Improv for non-ATS group improvisation for two reasons:
1) it says it in the name:
tribal: because there can surely be non-tribal group improv
group: because there is plenty of folks calling themselves tribal today
who are soloists
improv: because there are plenty of groups calling themselves tribal
who aren't doing improv.
2) Because ITS sounds too close to ATS, and I would want any term chosen
to be clear about that distinction. It looks like a typo or sounds a mis-
pronunciation rather than a distinct name

I think it's high time that Carolena started standing up more for the term ATS being specifically the original tribal group improv format. I came from a Gypsy Caravan background originally, with Paulette being one of the original founding members of FatChance. She told me from hte very beginning that she felt that ATS was a term that was reserved for the FatChance specific format, and was not a blanket term. (At the time, "tribal" was the blanket term for other group improvisational formats. Of course now that has been hacked all to pieces, so TGI will have to do for me.) So I was taught from my baby dancer days, by an original member of FatChance who had changed her format, that ATS=FatChance. It never occurred to me that people would apply that name to anything else... so obviously it didn't bother me any when that name was reigned in by Carolena.

I understand how some people felt hurt and frustrated, but frankly, the things I have seen called ATS....by people who have clearly never studied the basis of that term AT ALL...I think it's a good thing we are getting better clarity about what that term means! There are frankly a lot of dancers to this day who should know better, but are using the term as a marketing tool, not an accurate descriptor. If I were Carolena, I would want to put the kaibosh on that right quick.

(cont'd)

Originally Posted by SaraKat

Elaborating on what Steffib just said, just for everyone's edification- there are two levels of ATS certification: General Skills and Teacher Training.
You do not need to commit to teach and perform only ATS in order to be eligible for General Skills training. I have friends who have gotten GS certified and who teach and perform other styles as well.

I have now been teacher certified in ATS--the first dancer to be dual certified as a teacher in both GC TGI and FC ATS, in fact. Obviously, it is correct that you can now be teacher certified without having to teach only ATS. This was only begun last year. I am about to go take my level 2 teacher training in a few weeks, in fact. I have really been enjoying bringing firsthand training in ATS into my group improv experience--I am a stronger teacher and dancer for it. But I do not intend to go all ATS.

I agree with another poster above (K-Lee?) that I personally feel that sticking only with ATS, and taking the "Girl Scout Oath" to never ever do anything else feels counter-intuitive to the artist experience. FOR ME. Some people find it incredibly liberating, in a way, to have a structure in which to work. I just don't work that way. I want to be able to freely explore where my artistic bliss leads me. But I must admit, I am doing so much more methodically and thoughtfully since taking my ATS training, because I recognize that the system and aesthetic that Carolena has created has been 20 years in the making, and the foundations on which movement is built within that format to make it all so seamless is a package deal--you can't just throw anything in there and expect things to have the same flow and feel. So taking that ATS basis and using it as a template with which we define any new movements or concepts takes more work and time, but creates a better end result, if that makes sense.

I don't even know if this is all relating to the original question any more, but there you go.

Maybe we haven't been watching the same dancers lol.

Originally Posted by TribalDancer

The GP sees lots of color, movement, cool music, "exoticness", high energy, and are entertained.

but they can see that in pretty much any BD number, don't they? not just ATS/ITS
I must admit this might also be partly my biased opinion lol. when i see group numbers, huuuuge pet peeve of mine is when the dancers aren't all in sync. unfortunately ATS/ITS is, by its very nature, impossible to get everyone in sync at all times, since it's a "follow the leader" game. though it's true some groups are very very close.
So maybe that's just me :) i'm not saying i don't like ATS/group improv stuff, just that, it's more likely to tick me off while watching it, than a solo improv, or a smooth group choreography.
((though, random thought, seems like a LOT of group choreo dances out on youtube for example, don't seem to think synchronization is so important. that just bugs the hell outta me lol. i don't care if you're beginners, it's not an excuse to be all dancing to a different rhythm inside your heads! make the moves simple if you must, but pleaaase be all in sync!))

I am betting we haven't. Well done group improv done well is not overly repetitive (it has to be to a degree to work, but any well done choreography has some repetition so the eyes can "rest"), and is well synched up. We often get the comment: 'That couldn't be group improv! You were so synchronized! So tight!' Becuase there is more poorly done improv out there than really well done...

That said, I liken tribal to more of a folk dance in feel than a Hollywoodized/Westernized dance. In that there is some room for personal interpretation within the movement (not much, but a teensy bit, largely based on individual body types as much as anything), and that overly precise synchrnocity can make it seem too "plastic".

For instance, while Riverdance is beautiful and amazing, it will never compare to me to seeing live performers in a pub in Ireland. Sure, the pub dancers were not as synchronized, maybe their costumes weren't as flashy or as coordinating, but there was a spirit in the dancing that transcended that technical details. Riverdance by contrast is polished to a T, costumed exquisitely; but has a plastic, even over-rehearsed quality to it that lacks the genuine, organic energy of a group just jamming in the moment. This to me is an essential difference between a folk dance and a Western dance.

This comparison I also liken to the aesthetic leanings of group dances in tribal versus cabaret. I find that most cabaret *group* dancers I know are very much into precision, matching meticulously, having everything "just so". Most tribal groups I know try very hard not to match (there are exceptions), and encourage individual expression in costuming on top of an agreed base costume. With the movement, while we have to have very precise rules about the choreography of the movement, within the movement itself there is some play in execution, so long as the overall look and feel of the movement is honored and flows as a collective.

Some far prefer the precision and "sheen" of a Western dance. And some like the dynamic energy and "roughness" of folk dance. I tend toward the latter more than the former when it comes to bellydance, though have an appreciation for both.

Does this "roughness" mean sloppy? No! With a keen and practiced eye, one can easily see the difference between an amateur or sloppy performance and a well honed and considered/rehearsed performance, while still allowing for a more organic quality to the group dynamic that tribal style demonstrates.

Bottom line, when considering these elements, it is a personal preference, and cannot be entirely attributed to the entire style as a,or even the individual group you may be seeing, as some kind of weakness or flaw in the dance. That folky, organic feel is part of the aesthetic, and it seems you just don't prefer that.

It's really exciting to me to hear that you don't have to commit to teaching ATS exclusively any more to do the teacher training-- now I am super interested in trying to do teacher training sometime down the line!

Kathiya, I think you bring up a good point by calling ATS/ITS a "follow the leader game"- but one I'd like to dispute a little.
I think this is what everyone assumes group improv must be- including a lot of people who do group improv! But to me it's more than that.
Carolena really tries to emphasize the point that the "followers" in ATS should not just mimic the leader.
While it's true that they are watching the leader to see what will come next, once a new move begins everyone should have the standard way of doing said move so ingrained in their muscle memory that they all do it the same way, at the same time.
Of course there will sometimes be little blips when transitioning between moves, but this is the reason that ATS is so structured- so that the followers aren't ever looking at the leader's back and wondering what the hell she's doing.
The moves are simple and extremely structured so that once a troupe has worked together for a significant amount of time each member can sense the smallest change in their troupemates' body language to discern what to do next. The cues should blend in with the rest of the dance to an audience member. In the end it should look more like a flock of birds flying together, rather than a bunch of kids playing Simon Says.
I know this is the ideal of what improv should be and not always the reality.

Originally Posted by TribalDancer

Does this "roughness" mean sloppy? No! With a keen and practiced eye, one can easily see the difference between an amateur or sloppy performance and a well honed and considered/rehearsed performance, while still allowing for a more organic quality to the group dynamic that tribal style demonstrates.

this i agree with :)
i really like the way you put it, too! i wouldn't have been able to phrase it so well :)

SaraKat, i might've not explained myself correctly when i was talking about "follow the leader", what you describe is exactly what i meant (that thanks to the cues, you always know just what move you're about to have to do).
but there still is that instant when the "leader" decides what s/he is going to do next, and the others don't know.
what i feel i often see when watching ATS/ITS is, the cue itself isn't necessarily visible to the public if they don't know what it is, but more often than not, the first move or so of the new set is a little wonky before everyone 'settles in' to doing it..

again, probably not the case with advanced groups who know each other well, but as TribalDancer said, there is more poorly done improv out there than really well done...

Originally Posted by zumarrad

Isn't it the case that Carolena (and cohorts?) actually developed the cued group improv style stuff and started teaching/marketing it first? Certainly, the myth seems to go:

It is the 60s. Ren Faire is invented. Belly dancers are out of control all over it so Jamila invents an "ethnic" show to corral them. Tribal, in the form of Bal Anat, is born.

One of these dancers is Masha Archer who goes off and does her own thing. One of her students, much later, is Wee Baby Carolena.

It is the 80s. Masha is over BD and wants to pursue other projects. Carolena and friends go "OH NOES!" and try doing their own thing based on what Masha taught them. Carolena can't choreograph, likes improv, but also likes the look of choreographed groups. She and pals come up with a system of cues.

It is the early 90s. FatChance appears at some belly dance events and all the dancers fall over backwards at this arcane bunch of turban wearing freaks who did not get the memo that we do Egyptian Now. Many think it is So Kewl. Tribal fever is set in motion. Ergo, Carolena is sort of the inventor of modern tribal.

This doesn't negate the fact that little groups of dancers were merrily ethnicking about on their own in different places, of course, but it seems to be the widely accepted story.

Zumarrad, I love it when you condense history.

Also love the phrase "merrily ethnicking about" which pretty much describes what I plan to do with my repertory class next season. *steals*

Here is a simple test.

ATS/ITS describe Gwahzee 2 variation......

?? I am no sure what you're getting at Angela?

Ghawazee 2 is the name of a Gypsy Caravan movement. Yet the same hip movement is also done by FatChance, but it is called Double Back and has different arms and body orientation.

They also turn differently between the two formats--GC does third turns, FC does half turns.

This is a move I learned from the Hahbi Ru videos, though, before I ever learned it from my Gypsy Caravan training, and they called it Double Back.

And we in inFusion further change it by having a different turning variation, and a combo variation.

So how does defining Ghawazee 2 tell anything? Some will know the name, some won't. Some will know the move, but under another name. Some won't use it at all, but that won't tell you if they are ITS/TGI or not because they may just not use that move in their vocabulary...

Edit: Oh and, to the original question:

Ghawazee 2 is an 8 count move move in which:

Dancer is facing front
The feet step ball-ball-flat/R-L-R
The hips lift up R, up L, left hip drops back-back onto weighted flat foot
Repeat in the opposite direction to complete the 8 counts.
Being that this is the GC move, the arms stay at table-top

(The FC version, Double Back, body faces standard 3/4 left and arms flow through alternating L-shapes that are difficult to describe in writing)

Originally Posted by Kathiya

SaraKat, i might've not explained myself correctly when i was talking about "follow the leader", what you describe is exactly what i meant (that thanks to the cues, you always know just what move you're about to have to do).
but there still is that instant when the "leader" decides what s/he is going to do next, and the others don't know.
what i feel i often see when watching ATS/ITS is, the cue itself isn't necessarily visible to the public if they don't know what it is, but more often than not, the first move or so of the new set is a little wonky before everyone 'settles in' to doing it..

I think what most ATS/ITS/TGI dancers aim for is, within the moment of dance, to eliminate that moment of cueing because the dancers have practiced so well and are so tuned into each other that you know exactly what the leader is going to do. It's happened to us, not all the time, but it's there. You hear a change in the music and you know exactly what step should come next and *BAM* you all hit it exactly. It's pretty magical, and takes a lot of work to get there.

I think it's also important to remember that while these forms are improvisational they are improvisational choreography. There is a structure happening, so it's not like "pure" improv where anything goes. Both forms can find that dance sweet spot where the music and the dancers are all working seamlessly together, it just happens in a different way.

Sara - thank you! We have a lot of fun dancing together (and we miss you Makeda!)

Dancer is facing front
The feet step ball-ball-flat/R-L-R
The hips lift up R, up L, left hip drops back-back onto weighted flat foot
Repeat in the opposite direction to complete the 8 counts.
Being that this is the GC move, the arms stay at table-top

HEE! That's called "pretty gypsy" at our school, or it was. It's a nice little combination - if it wasn't so obviously tribal I'd nick it. I know that when my teacher started to teach tribal (ATS based) one of the things she didn't like was the use of terms like "Egyptian" or "Arabic" to describe a certain movement. If that move came via GC (which it might have, since Paulette came out about that time IIRC) it may have been taught as ghawazee 2 and renamed.

Originally Posted by zumarrad

"if it wasn't so obviously tribal I'd nick it. "

Go right ahead :) I have an old vhs of some Tunisian dancers performing this same move and I learned it *mumble* years ago before ATS reached my area, so it isn't exclusively tribal :)

I don't do any kind of tribal dancing whatsoever, so maybe I'm not entitled to chime in on this thread, but here's what's confusing to me.

The standard BD history seems to be that ATS was invented more or less from American Cabaret moves (and there are whole threads about the term American Cabaret, but let's just use it to keep it simple) with distintive costuming, some Indian and Flamenco influences especially in the arm work, and of coure the cueing for the group improv. Then some tribal dancers started doing tribal style dancing as a solo act, and that became called tribal fusion.

However, what everyone seems to recognize as tribal fusion really doesn't look any more to me like ATS than does like cabaret/oriental. If I knew nothing whatsoever about bellydancing, and I saw a show of mixed styles featuring a tribal fusion dancer and an ATS troupe, I don't even think I'd connect the two.

Without any tribal training, just looking at dances I've seen through the years, it looks to me like there was ATS/ITS, and then Rachel Brice, who had training in ATS invented her own new style of dance, and that became called tribal because she'd had the tribal training before. Just curious - was their any tribal fusion style dancing like the kind we see today before Rachel Brice?

Zamira - Rachel was in Ultra Gypsy, and UG's director is Jill Parker who was a member of FCBD for years. They started out closer to FCBD and then evolved away from that. Here's a clip from 2001, you can see it's ATS core but that it's moving in a new direction (moves, size of the group, costuming, not sure if it's all choreo or not):

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydMv17AsMJo]YouTube - Ultra Gypsy[/ame]

Mihri - thanks! Sometimes I do tend to go on.

Ok, that looked like ATS, but this one not so much.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6qKYTDFfGA]YouTube - Rachel Brice and Kami Liddle - vintage 2005 Tribal Fusion[/ame]

Maybe it's just because the movements are really slow motion. Where did that arm posture come from in which the upper arms are held really close to the body, and the forearms reach out and up, with the hands tending to point down? That seems really distinctive to tribal fusion and not seen in ATS or Oriental.

Actually, my conjecture is that a lot of signature movement that Rachel Brice has was inspired Jill Parker, including the famous backbend and then fold - it is done beautifully by Carolena Nericcio and Jill on the Fat Chance Live! DVD. I always giggle when people get all excited about this move, it's an old hat to the tribal veterans ;-) And, Jill Parker has done strong shoulder articulations a long time ago, as well. She's fabulous dancer, and I have deep respect for her decision to call her very creative artistic ventures dance theatre (and not bellydance) many years ago. Big fan here.

Where did that arm posture come from in which the upper arms are held really close to the body, and the forearms reach out and up, with the hands tending to point down? That seems really distinctive to tribal fusion and not seen in ATS or Oriental.

It came from close study of the Tyrannosaurus Rex. Or possibly the praying mantis.

I *think* it might have developed just because someone did it once and thought "ooh that looks really freaky and weird. I like it!" Didn't RB say she wanted to look like an alien or an insect at one time?

There is long-term use of wilfully ugly body positions in different kinds of dance. I think it happens in butoh, for sure, and modern/contemporary choreographers often explore ugliness and have for a very long time. Nijinsky supposedly took some typical postures from psychiatric patients.

My theory is... in an effort to be the next "big thing"... tribal fusion is moving closer and closer to its American Cabaret roots.

Well, that is if you even agree with that connection in the first place, of course.

Was their any tribal fusion style dancing like the kind we see today before Rachel Brice?

Anybody ever see the male dancer Aziz? (sp) From the California scene in the early 70's I think. He out Rachels Rachel with a dark, sultry, other wordly pop and lock. I saw clips of him at Amaya's house. She is putting out a DVD of American foundational dancers that will be out soon.

Yes, there were. She took her inspiration from other dancers, like Mardi Love for instance, and definitely Jill Parker, who she danced with in UG for a time. But the difference with Rachel is, she does it so well, and has a body and counter-culture sense of style that put the package together. Isn't that true of a lot of popular artists? Not always the first, but has a package that previous artists in the genre didn't possess.

Originally Posted by Zamira

Where did that arm posture come from in which the upper arms are held really close to the body, and the forearms reach out and up, with the hands tending to point down? That seems really distinctive to tribal fusion and not seen in ATS or Oriental.

It's funny. When you are dancing that style, it almost *feels good and right*. Others i have talked to remarked the same thing. You kind of instinctively do it (whether emulating or what have you). But then, if you are not a fan of the look (I am not), when you see it on video later you go "EW! Why did that feel so good and look so baaaad?!"

Originally Posted by TribalDancer

It's funny. When you are dancing that style, it almost *feels good and right*. Others i have talked to remarked the same thing. You kind of instinctively do it (whether emulating or what have you). But then, if you are not a fan of the look (I am not), when you see it on video later you go "EW! Why did that feel so good and look so baaaad?!"

Well, it looks better on Rachel than it would on me.

Anyway, I realized I meant to start this discussion under the tribal evolution thread, not the ATS one, so I apologize if I got everyone off-topic.

Originally Posted by ceydahazine

My theory is... in an effort to be the next "big thing"... tribal fusion is moving closer and closer to its American Cabaret roots.

I've noticed that too. Local tribal shows are even using the word cabaret in their names.

Originally Posted by TribalDancer

?? I am no sure what you're getting at Angela?

Ghawazee 2 is the name of a Gypsy Caravan movement. Yet the same hip movement is also done by FatChance, but it is called Double Back and has different arms and body orientation.

They also turn differently between the two formats--GC does third turns, FC does half turns.

This is a move I learned from the Hahbi Ru videos, though, before I ever learned it from my Gypsy Caravan training, and they called it Double Back.

And we in inFusion further change it by having a different turning variation, and a combo variation.

So how does defining Ghawazee 2 tell anything? Some will know the name, some won't. Some will know the move, but under another name. Some won't use it at all, but that won't tell you if they are ITS/TGI or not because they may just not use that move in their vocabulary...

Edit: Oh and, to the original question:

Ghawazee 2 is an 8 count move move in which:

Dancer is facing front
The feet step ball-ball-flat/R-L-R
The hips lift up R, up L, left hip drops back-back onto weighted flat foot
Repeat in the opposite direction to complete the 8 counts.
Being that this is the GC move, the arms stay at table-top

(The FC version, Double Back, body faces standard 3/4 left and arms flow through alternating L-shapes that are difficult to describe in writing)

My point if there were more responses is to say that the fundamental movements are the same in ATS and ITS. The only difference is stylization and execution.

That the dance is the same dance. The steps you described are still the same steps. I found it humorous that some tribes just change the name. It is the similar problem with have with belly dance. People making up new names for the same fundamental movements.

Originally Posted by Zamira

I've noticed that too. Local tribal shows are even using the word cabaret in their names.

Yes but they seem to be using the word "cabaret" to express a dark, kind of decadent feeling, or at least some of the tribal fusion "cabaret" stuff I've seen has been like that. Almost a turn of the century bordello vibe or something. Very different from the "cabaret" belly dancing I grew up with.

Edited to add: Not your mother's belly dancing. And that's probably the point.

Angela -

I think what you have is that the devil is in the details. Sure, the moves are almost the same but the little bits of naming, execution and stylization are what make it ATS or ITS or neither and that's what matters to Carolena. So while some of us say, "Ah, it's really the same thing" she says no, it's not the same and that's what it's not ATS.

Zamira -

I agree with Dunyah, I think the term cabaret is being used in the idea of a show, not a style (which from what I can tell is why some BD/MED dancers don' t want to use cabaret to describe their style, so in a way it's not inaccurate at all).