Thread: So, are soloists out? Duos, troupes in?

In my area, many of the clubs that hired live bands and dancers are closing down or struggling to survive. I've notice a recent trend among dancers that used to dance solo improv, are now teaming up with another dancer or 2 or 3 to do choreo numbers ala BDSS. They can't get enough jobs as solo dancers anymore and have opted to go for this form of marketing, even the ME clubs!!!!!

Frankly, I'm floored and flabbergasted. Is the art of solo belly dancing to live improv, dying out??????

I have not seen this trend in my area. So, no, I don't think the art of solo bellydancing dying out, at least not in NYC.

To reply to my own post...are dancers catering to the public who want "belly dancing acts" vs. "a belly dancer"?

I've seen a little bit of this. I've also had a couple of venue owners ask me to recruit additional dancers for gigs. Hope this doesn't become a lasting trend. Not that I mind sharing the spotlight - it's just so much easier to plan a show when you don't have to coordinate costumes, music, props and other details with additional parties!

Originally Posted by SatinWorship19

I've seen a little bit of this. I've also had a couple of venue owners ask me to recruit additional dancers for gigs. Hope this doesn't become a lasting trend. Not that I mind sharing the spotlight - it's just so much easier to plan a show when you don't have to coordinate costumes, music, props and other details with additional parties!

Yes. Even a few years ago, weddings were requesting more than one dancer. Usually the dancers would try to coordinate costumes and maybe dance a few minutes together then take separate sides of the room and switch back and forth. Now I see they are actually making a concerted effort to do a choreographed act and they are marketing themselves that way. I haven't seen it so much in the clubs yet but definitely for parties and weddings.

Are these dancers being paid in equal amounts? Or are they splitting up the fee? Because if that is the case, the owners are making out big time.

Originally Posted by Fotia

Are these dancers being paid in equal amounts? Or are they splitting up the fee? Because if that is the case, the owners are making out big time.

I'm not sure how others are doing it, but the proper protocol is to make sure each dancer gets the going rate apiece. Actually, I'm doing a huge corporate event as a duo and we're charging a bit extra due to the additional "behind the scenes" work involved.

Originally Posted by norma

Now I see they are actually making a concerted effort to do a choreographed act and they are marketing themselves that way. I haven't seen it so much in the clubs yet but definitely for parties and weddings.

I've seen a little bit of this, too. Personally, it's not my cup of tea. Then again, I'm an improv aficionada and I find gratuitous "scriptedness" and anything overwrought and overchoreographed to be a huge turnoff in my little world. Just a matter of personal taste. Some people love the slick BDSS look.

I'm sure this is just a passing trend that's going on in small pockets of the Dance World, and it sure seems indicative of the BDSS trend (which itself seems to have tapered off in recent years). I'm sensing a comeback of cabaret/vintage Oriental style - I'm getting the feeling that a return to improv is not far behind

Originally Posted by SatinWorship19

I'm sure this is just a passing trend that's going on in small pockets of the Dance World, and it sure seems indicative of the BDSS trend (which itself seems to have tapered off in recent years). I'm sensing a comeback of cabaret/vintage Oriental style - I'm getting the feeling that a return to improv is not far behind

I think troupes can integrate improv. Synchronized dancing is not all a troupe can do.
To hire a troupe also depends on space, budget and occasion/audience of the venue.

I've noticed this at local shows as well. The organizers want mostly troupes now. At first I figured they thought group numbers were more exciting, but now I'm more cynical. I think that troupes pack more people into the show, not because they're necessarily better, but if there are 8 people on the stage, and each one brings a friend or relative to see, there are at least 8 more people buying tickets. I'm not sure why owners want group numbers at restaurants, though.

Originally Posted by Zamira

I think that troupes pack more people into the show, not because they're necessarily better, but if there are 8 people on the stage, and each one brings a friend or relative to see, there are at least 8 more people buying tickets. I'm not sure why owners want group numbers at restaurants, though.

That's been my working theory. Lately, when I work with club/restaurant owners, they seem more interested in 1. how large of a cheering squad I can supply on any given night and 2. whether I'm willing to do their advertising for free, than in what type of long-term benefit might come from the attraction of my shows. I guess in today's economic climate, everybody's looking to get the most bang for their entertainment/promotional budget. But it seems like just being a great entertainer might not be enough anymore

I had a restaurant owner who wanted me to supply 3 additional dancers. Of course, I quoted them the local going rate per dancer, and the guy balked. (And I quoted at the low end, too). So unless other dancers are cutting venue owners a "buy-one get one" deal, hiring a large group of dancers wouldn't seem like an economical choice. My head hurts

Originally Posted by Fotia

Are these dancers being paid in equal amounts? Or are they splitting up the fee? Because if that is the case, the owners are making out big time.

That's usually the concern I have when I see two or more dancers sharing a set at a restaurant. I mean, why would I do the same amount of work for 1/2 my price? After all, two dancers working together in what is usually an improvisation environment do need to synchronize a bit and that synchronization requires more effort than dancing alone. Hmmm . . . one possibility for a two-dancer situation could be when a teacher wants to give a student some experience and shares her set for that purpose. I dunno.

Personally, I don't mind a "floor show" style group choreography on occasion. I would miss, however, interacting with the dancer if all I ever experienced was group choreo in a staged setting; I kinda like the goofy playtime that happens with a soloist in an improv situation. That's 'cause I'm goofy and really enjoy playtime with my customers! ..g.:

Deborah

I had a gig recently that the restaurant owner asked for two other dancers in addition because, she said, it made it seem like a bigger, fancier, more "worthy" show. She didn't balk too much at the extra expense, and I think she felt like it was something above and beyond just a regular restaurant gig that patrons would feel like they were getting a lot for their money, a bit of a marketing ploy on her part.

Originally Posted by casbahdance

Personally, I don't mind a "floor show" style group choreography on occasion. I would miss, however, interacting with the dancer if all I ever experienced was group choreo in a staged setting; I kinda like the goofy playtime that happens with a soloist in an improv situation. That's 'cause I'm goofy and really enjoy playtime with my customers! ..g.:

This is exactly how I feel. There are venues where big staged choreographies can really shine. I don't think restaurants or clubs are one of them. To me, these venues are usually too small, intimate and unpredictable to be conducive to large "floor shows." And half of the magic in performing in these spaces lies in what you can do with the energy in the room.

Also, from a practical standpoint, every time I attempt to use a choreography in a restaurant, there's always at least one incident where I have to modify it on the spot - either a bumbling waiter, or an eager guest who gets up to dance or throw money.

I have no idea how they are pricing themselves. I do know what the going rate is for a solo act in my area and it's decent. $100 + in a club. Weddings private parties around $200-$300. But in Michigan's depressed economy I can't imagine they are paying at a party double the price for double the dancer. Like I said I have no clue what they are charging but I would imagine a group performance would charge less per dancer overall than a solo performance??/


And as far has hiring troupes for shows because they pack in the crowd...so true. I recently had a painful break with a long time friend for precisely this reason. She only wanted troupe dancers and no one overweight because she felt that overweight dancers would be a crowd turnoff and solo dancers were boring.

As much as I prefer solo dancing, there is something to be said for a choreographed piece, it is impressive, especially to the gp, to see everyone dancing in sync. I think shows that have multiple dancers should have some choreography, but then solos as well so each dancer can show their specialty. Of course, it depends on the number of dancers. Usually 3 is plenty, I think! It makes for an interesting show and the dancers don't have to work as hard.

In my world, duos and troupes aren't paid any less per dancer than soloists. Why would we be? We are soloists -- if we charged less for our group work than for our solo work we'd be undercutting ourselves. What would be the point?

If the organizer wants a soloist, I'm hired as a soloist. If she's looking for a group performance, it's because she wants to offer her guests a different kind of experience. The latter is going to have different requirements in terms of rehearsal time and logistics, and it's priced accordingly. I've never been asked by a restaurant or club to put a group show together -- it's always been corporate or private party work for invited guests, so the theory that troupes are hired to put more butts in seats doesn't hold up.

And yes, the shows still include solo improv along with some group choreographies. It isn't either-or.

A while back, I was told that 'one dancer wasn't enough to make the show interesting'. I think that people will try to get as much as they possibly can.

Honestly, I prefer solo dancers as a general rule. I think even if you have the best trained dancers in the world, as soon as you have more than one, the dance has to be slightly simplified and less nuanced in order for the dancers to be in synch. Even if it's subtle, one person can pause and draw out a note for effect or tilt the head a certain way if they feel it in the moment, but even a subtle thing like that done by one person in a group choreography or cued improv just looks a little off.

Originally Posted by SatinWorship19

I'm sure this is just a passing trend that's going on in small pockets of the Dance World, and it sure seems indicative of the BDSS trend (which itself seems to have tapered off in recent years).

That would be consistent with the trend appearing in the general public, because it might take them a couple of years to catch up to what the dance community has been doing. Even though dancers might be losing interest in BDSS, the rest of the world may just be finding out about it.

Audience--recruiting aside, I think there is the perception that groups offer more variety, particularly when performing for people who don't have a cultural appreciation of the dance. A lot of solo dancers are hesitant to go too folkloric for a GP gig, and in the absence of that, "variety" in a solo routine becomes about how many props you can use, because an audience doesn't have to know very much about belly dance to tell the difference between finger cymbals and a sword.

Let's be honest, we're all dancers here, and dance geeks at that. To a GP audience, all drum solos sort of sound the same, all slow music sort of sounds the same, and they don't know squat about stylistic variations. While we could watch a performance and think, "I really liked the way she used a Lebanese stylization for the up-tempo opener, switched to a classic Egyptian orientale style for the Umm Kalthoum piece, and ended with a very modern, Randa-inspired drum solo," a GP audience watched that same routine and saw a blur of sequins and beads alternating between jiggling and snaky while weird foreign music played. At least if you present multiple dancers, an uneducated audience can see variety by telling the performers apart.

However, if you want to be really cynical, you have to bring in the idea that far too many lower-level pros simply do not have the skills, talent, and presentation to hold an audience's attention by themselves for a whole set. Twenty minutes of mediocrity is a long time, even if you aren't a connoisseur of the dance and don't know any better. A set split between two or three performers means maybe you are only enduring six minutes of any one dancer before someone else has a turn. Of course, if you hire a large troupe of amateurish dancers who perform as a unit, then that increases your chances of getting a schadenfreude moment out of the experience, and sometimes that can be perversely entertaining in itself.

When you cast pearls before swine, some swine will prefer the pack of plastic pearls from Michael's over the small strand of Akoyas. Quantity over quality, in other words.

Pricing -- I'd expect adding a second dancer to cost *slightly* less than twice as much. Because my price includes the costs of marketing, time spent negotiating, etc. The customer should only be paying that portion of the fee once. I'd expect subsequent dancers to cost 75-100% of the cost of the first dancer, maybe. (the higher end of the range if the dancers need to rehearse choreo together, lower end if they're just showing up and working the rooms separately).

I can see why a large venue might want to fill up space with multiple dancers. Or a competitive event organizer might think 'They had a bellydancer at their event. I'll have five bellydancers at mine!' There's nothing inherently *wrong* with that kind of thinking, and there is an excitement factor, for a GP audience, to seeing a swarm of dancers enter.

There are definitely situations where dancers who aren't quite pro-quality prefer to stick to the safety of group performance. Those should be called 'student troupes' and shouldn't be performing pro gigs, IMO. Any troupe marketing themselves in pro venues should be composed of capable pros. There's not necessarily anything sub-par about a dancer who enjoys the group energy of performing in a troupe.

Mixing up groups and soloists is another great way to vary the energy levels in the show. In my experience, only STUDENT groups really raise the number of seats sold. By the time we go pro, our friends/family are so bored with the whole thing they're not buying many tickets any more. But a student can draw 5-10 audience members, and a group of students can fill a theater. That seems mercenary only if you forget that without those seats being filled, there would be no show at all. Sponsors can't afford to foot all the bills and who wants to perform for an empty house?

Restaurants/clubs aren't charitable arts institutions. If they don't make money, they won't stay open. These are not typically high-margin businesses, they're usually labors of love for the owners, who rarely achieve anything beyond a middle-class income from them. I don't begrudge them making whatever decisions pay off for them financially, that's their job -- to provide their customers with whatever experiences the customers want. The customers demonstrate what they want by giving the business their dollars. *shrugs*

(my personal biases.. I prefer to see solo dancing 90% of the time, but enjoy the visual stimulation of a group number on occasion. I run a student troupe but we do NOT do pro gigs as a group.)

Originally Posted by Zamira

Honestly, I prefer solo dancers as a general rule. I think even if you have the best trained dancers in the world, as soon as you have more than one, the dance has to be slightly simplified and less nuanced in order for the dancers to be in synch. Even if it's subtle, one person can pause and draw out a note for effect or tilt the head a certain way if they feel it in the moment, but even a subtle thing like that done by one person in a group choreography or cued improv just looks a little off.

I agree!

Originally Posted by casbahdance

That's usually the concern I have when I see two or more dancers sharing a set at a restaurant. I mean, why would I do the same amount of work for 1/2 my price? After all, two dancers working together in what is usually an improvisation environment do need to synchronize a bit and that synchronization requires more effort than dancing alone. Hmmm . . . one possibility for a two-dancer situation could be when a teacher wants to give a student some experience and shares her set for that purpose. I dunno.

Personally, I don't mind a "floor show" style group choreography on occasion. I would miss, however, interacting with the dancer if all I ever experienced was group choreo in a staged setting; I kinda like the goofy playtime that happens with a soloist in an improv situation. That's 'cause I'm goofy and really enjoy playtime with my customers! ..g.:

Deborah

Where I live, Smoke is a troupe that does all improv. I can't imagine them doing any choreography at all. In some instances, troupes who have performed had to split the pot. And in other instances, sometimes an instructor's troupe will fill in for the instructor and get nothing!

I see mostly solo stuff in my area other than I believe one ATS group that does something at a club and I see troupe stuff at bigger events and parties. I have seen restaurants have more than one dancer, but they have them dance seperately a half hour or hour apart.

Personally I always prefer seeing a solo act in restaurant settings and seeing the bigger choreographed numbers in shows.

In my area many weddings and upscale events book multiple dancers. Some dancers have even started marketing themselves as "group packages" (at fair prices) as well as selling their solo services individually.

I've seen weddings with up to 4 dancers.

Most of these events have one semi-choreographed routine (wings or shamadan) and then the dancers kind of take turns around around the room or on stage.

Does I think this means soloists are out? No, not by a long shot. Retaurants where dancers perform between tables will almost always just want a single dancer. Ditto for hookah bars and clubs.

If you want to find a partner to work with by all means, I think it's a great idea but you both should charge standard price for each dancer.

I've seen minor discounts for more then one dancer, but both dancers usually agree on the price. Even if I'm the one contacted to work with another dancer there is a very good chance that somewhere down the line she will contact me and I would rather split cost on both occasions then take a larger cut.

I just always find it funny when restaurant and club owners ask me for multiple dancers, I quote a reasonable fee for that many dancers (which is within the normal going rate and usually on the low end of the sliding scale), and they act surprised by the price.

PSA of the day: Belly dancers are not toilet paper. You don't save money buying in "bulk!" ..l;,

Corporate event organizers and wedding planners, not surprisingly, are always amenable to paying extra for more dancers. Multiple dancers are almost always necessary when you need to "fill" a large event facility and entertain a bigger crowd.

I also think that groups of dancers are popular now because of videos like Beyonce's Single Ladies or shows like SYTYCD or ABDC (not so much BDSS, I still don't think the GP knows them yet. Also, how many acronyms can I pack into one sentence?)

Suddenly, dancing in general is hot again, and group dancing even more so.

Norma, it always seems to me that you are much too categorical about either or, saying the good stuff is dying out, the real thing and you sure have some real good bd to offer, but all markets for all products want always new things. It only shows there is interest. Troupes and new show formats (which also may be not only boring and overchoreographed line dancing but also intelligent group-acts with artistic value) may draw other, new people, into bellydance and there'll be always a percentage of those who want to get down to the real thing.
But feeling and appreciating the nuances, I think Tourbeau put this so well, we can only expect from people who are really into it, real bellydance lovers or Arab music lovers. It requires a lot of study to be able to see or hear the differences...

Originally Posted by SatinWorship19

PSA of the day: Belly dancers are not toilet paper. You don't save money buying in "bulk!" ..l;,

I've written this one down!

..l;,..g.:..l;,..g.:..l;,

Deborah

Originally Posted by Nouria

Norma, it always seems to me that you are much too categorical about either or, saying the good stuff is dying out, the real thing and you sure have some real good bd to offer, but all markets for all products want always new things. It only shows there is interest. Troupes and new show formats (which also may be not only boring and overchoreographed line dancing but also intelligent group-acts with artistic value) may draw other, new people, into bellydance and there'll be always a percentage of those who want to get down to the real thing.
But feeling and appreciating the nuances, I think Tourbeau put this so well, we can only expect from people who are really into it, real bellydance lovers or Arab music lovers. It requires a lot of study to be able to see or hear the differences...

Well I do think the belly dancing that I know and love is a dying art. How many dancers out there now have the opportunity to see a live solo dancer, with a live band do a 30 minute floor show every week? I like seeing good duets and group work myself at shows, but as a group choreographer I know first hand that the you have to dance to the lowest common demoninator and individualism is out and conformity is in. I personally, don't think that's a good thing in general. I certainly hope that solo style type dancing will live on, but if the venues to find work become less and less as more people want group acts I fear dancers won't want to achieve the skill level it takes to become a good solo artist. It's great that the GP is becoming more exposed to BD but I can see where eventually, BD gets so diluted and watered down that soon it won't resemble anything remotely resembling BD except perhaps the costumes and few hip drops here and there. Heck, I'm already seeing it.