Thread: How Important are "What Style" Discossions - and - are they even accurate?

I'm a little distressed by this style thing.

Note, I've been hearing this since I started performing in the early 1970's. There was "West Coast/East Coast," (the latter wore beads, this made one "SO New York,")

But, the real problem was "Turkish" v "Arabic."

Given that the real issue is the music, and the music totally overlaps in most cases, crossing not only national but political, ethnic, regional boundaries as well as centuries of time - it's both limiting and inaccurate to try and define what is what.

Example: the "step and lift." That was originally described when I was a student as the "tsiftitelli step." Now it's called the "basic Arabic."

Well, it's both. Hitting out and up works with Turkish music, but also all kinds of Arab music including Egyptian - it's a natural move. Claiming that "down and in, down and in" is the only proper way to dance to Arabic music (and there are tons of different styles of Arab music as well as Turkish music) is not correct and it has helped created an artificial style.

Watching movies of ghawazee dancers but also Golden Age Egyptian dancers, one sees moves that are often described as Turkish. This is logical considering the fact that Egypt was long a part of the Ottoman world and, a great deal of Egyptian music is influenced by Turkish music and of course, Turkish music has among its many styles, an "Arabesque" style.

But also - these are natural moves so why wouldn't dancers use them?

Also, describing American dancers as this or that - Amcab for example - when in fact we're highly individual, we don't all dance alike and many of us worked exclusively with and primarily for M.E. audiences - is similarly misleading.

I think you can draw some lines between raqs sharqi - oriental dance - and ATS, tribal fusion etc. If nothing else the music and the use of group choreography is a pretty clear indicator of a new and truly different form.

Beyond that - I think that we can go too far with this and it limits us as artists and, as I say in at least one case, that of certain modern "Egyptian" styles, it's created quite an artificial style that doesn't feel free, earthy and natural anymore at all - people are so busy trying to do it "right" that they are not dancing expressively, they're dancing like cookies from the cutter and it looks uptight.

OK fire away.

Originally Posted by Elibelinde

I'm a little distressed by this style thing.

Note, I've been hearing this since I started performing in the early 1970's. There was "West Coast/East Coast," (the latter wore beads, this made one "SO New York,")

But, the real problem was "Turkish" v "Arabic."

Given that the real issue is the music, and the music totally overlaps in most cases, crossing not only national but political, ethnic, regional boundaries as well as centuries of time - it's both limiting and inaccurate to try and define what is what.

Example: the "step and lift." That was originally described when I was a student as the "tsiftitelli step." Now it's called the "basic Arabic."

Well, it's both. Hitting out and up works with Turkish music, but also all kinds of Arab music including Egyptian - it's a natural move. Claiming that "down and in, down and in" is the only proper way to dance to Arabic music (and there are tons of different styles of Arab music as well as Turkish music) is not correct and it has helped created an artificial style.

Watching movies of ghawazee dancers but also Golden Age Egyptian dancers, one sees moves that are often described as Turkish. This is logical considering the fact that Egypt was long a part of the Ottoman world and, a great deal of Egyptian music is influenced by Turkish music and of course, Turkish music has among its many styles, an "Arabesque" style.

But also - these are natural moves so why wouldn't dancers use them?

Also, describing American dancers as this or that - Amcab for example - when in fact we're highly individual, we don't all dance alike and many of us worked exclusively with and primarily for M.E. audiences - is similarly misleading.

I think you can draw some lines between raqs sharqi - oriental dance - and ATS, tribal fusion etc. If nothing else the music and the use of group choreography is a pretty clear indicator of a new and truly different form.

Beyond that - I think that we can go too far with this and it limits us as artists and, as I say in at least one case, that of certain modern "Egyptian" styles, it's created quite an artificial style that doesn't feel free, earthy and natural anymore at all - people are so busy trying to do it "right" that they are not dancing expressively, they're dancing like cookies from the cutter and it looks uptight.

OK fire away.

iam still going over the "used to be" or the "once upon a time" there were dancers who sewed etc...wtf! we still do!

What she said - of course we still sew - we can make gorgeous costumes and fit them perfectly - plus, they will be unique.

Also, here's a case in point, total misunderstanding about Turkish dance in general but also about two dancers, Sandra and Michelle Joyce, in particular - note, Sandra dancing NOT bubblegum and not to a Turkish song, in the clip:

Sandra and Michelle Joyce are Turkish-inspired?

PS. I don't think people understand much about Turkish music.

I suggest a week or six spent listening to it, buy a whole bunch of music and also, there are some fabulous CD's available now, from the Soviet Middle East which includes Central Asian lands (the Turks originally came from far to the East of Modern Turkey in the 10th century.)

Also, Yo Yo Ma has published several CD's of music from the Silk Road, some traditional and some modern. The Silk Road of course went all the way from the shores of the Mediterranean to China, which traded with Japan; one branch went to India. All along the Silk Road people traveled, traded, married and migrated.

So, Turkish music is extremely layered and complex and consists of many styles including very high classical styles, Arabesque styles, the Rom music, minority music (Kurdish, Jewish etc), music from the Ottoman courts, Armenian music - in turn of course it influenced people from Vienna to al-Andalus and was influenced by them as well.

I think understanding broad stylistic differences is helpful in educating the public that there *are* many different styles, assisting dancers in customizing a performance for specific events, and helping potential students understand exactly what they will be learning. It does influence my decisions on taking workshops, because I know what I am more interested in.

It is interesting to me personally, but then, if I could, I'd have a genealogy of the dance spread across my wall- I love finding out who studied with whom, where someone draws a particular influence, etc.

It's not particularly helpful if I'm just dancing around the house, or even at most performances (which don't have an opportunity to share anything about what style you are doing) but it does have it's uses. I don't think it can or should completely define any particular dancer. I reserve the right to do what I feel in the moment, no matter how anyone has me pegged!

Hi, how cool that you bring this up.

According to my experience there are dancers that follow "what feels natural" and then there are dancers that dedicate themselves to "exploring the options within the confine of a style". I think either one can result in great dancing. I do think that the latter at times can be more representative of a cultural identity and tradtion, however.

More than anything it is how a dancer aligns his/her body that determines what will feel natural. I was trained in Northern Europe where we have a heavy Egyptian influence and the body alignment is very different than in Southern California, where I am now based, where the influence has been more Turkish/Lebanese/Greek/Hollywood(Turkish). I work on the conversion of alignment every day with my students, and also myself as I explore the "local traditions" for my own education.

I think of it as a binary code or a fuse box, the old ones you know with the switches. Depending on what switch is at 1 or 0 you give certain permissions for movement in your body - that then are percieved as natural and organic.

As far as the necessity of stylistic definition; I think that it is not mandatory or essential to categorize oneself. However, how your body manifests based on your alignment and musicality and kinetic logic you will lean one way or another on purpose or subconciously (sp?).

My personal conviction is that a dancer is free to do whatever they like within the choices that they make, but that I aim for the alignment and understanding that leaves me with the most options for what I do. So, I appreciate when a dancer commits to a direction, whatever that direction may be. I as a viewer will sense blockages in a dancer's body if he/she is restricted from accessing ultimate mobility, range and strength. How concious I am of this depends on my effort to investigate the matter - and also of my knowledge of anatomy and movement.

As far as Egyptian being down and in...Egyptian based work extends down and to center for the most part. Turkish based work extends side to side and forward. What determins which of these commitments a dancer can make is their alignment and what permissions the chosen alignment gives.

The step touch movement that you describe goes - in Turkish:
step 1 (down beat)
drop heel 2
twist 3 (accent)

The same concept in Egyptian dance:
step 1 (down beat)
accent up (up beat)

It may seem like a minor variation, but when manifested throughout one's skill and vocabulary, this does make for a rather palpable difference.

Hope that contributes to the discussion :)

DaVid

Originally Posted by Elibelinde

What she said - of course we still sew - we can make gorgeous costumes and fit them perfectly - plus, they will be unique.

Also, here's a case in point, total misunderstanding about Turkish dance in general but also about two dancers, Sandra and Michelle Joyce, in particular - note, Sandra dancing NOT bubblegum and not to a Turkish song, in the clip:

Sandra and Michelle Joyce are Turkish-inspired?

Conceptually these dancers - and many others in the US - commit more to the esthetic of Turkish alignment, emphasis and musicality eventhough the music use and superficial logic may not indicate so. Both great dancers though, just making an observation.

Sorry to be scattered, it seems as if I replied to your intial post first, then another post - yet forgot to reply to your thread title question!

How important are "what style" discussions?
They are important for conceptual, analytical and educational purposes. Whether others have them on our behalf or we have these discussions with ourselves to enhance our grasp on our own work - they can be of great value.

Are they even accurate?
That depends on how the question formulated, what the purpose of the question is and whether the question asks about traditional accuracy, stylistic consistency, conceptual definition, contextual definition or definition of musical aknowledgement.

Cheers :D

Originally Posted by Elibelinde

Given that the real issue is the music, and the music totally overlaps in most cases, crossing not only national but political, ethnic, regional boundaries as well as centuries of time - it's both limiting and inaccurate to try and define what is what.

I would argue that even a pan-Arabic song like Ya Mustafa, when played by a Greek band will sound different than when played by a Lebanese band, and different again when played by Egyptians. Since Turkish music comes from an altogether different musical tradition, I would expect Turkish musicians to also have their own "style" when playing -- but Turkish music has not been a strong area of study for me, so I could be wrong.

Example: the "step and lift." That was originally described when I was a student as the "tsiftitelli step." Now it's called the "basic Arabic."

Basic Egyptian in Salimpour terminology, although it's usually done as a step and twist. :) I know it as step-touch, with a hip accent. Alternately, it can be a touch-step, depending upon what accent in the music you're playing up.

Claiming that "down and in, down and in" is the only proper way to dance to Arabic music (and there are tons of different styles of Arab music as well as Turkish music) is not correct and it has helped created an artificial style.

I'm not sure that anyone is claiming there is one "proper" way to dance to any music -- when I've studied with Morocco, Sahra Kent, Shareen el Safy and ... well, anybody who ever danced with or under the tutelage of "native" dancers, they've always been quick to say "this is my experience of how it was like when I was learning." Shareen and Morocco both go to great lengths to describe how Mona might do something one way, but Nagwa had a completely different way of doing it. And NONE of them ever interpreted the music exactly the same as any other -- but there was still a sort of "feeling" to how they were hearing the music that seems consistent at least inside specific time frames. Now the way they "hear" the music is very hard to verbally describe (at least for me) but it's what leads me to isolate visually a certain "Egyptian Style."

Suhaila and Sausan have often talked about the emotion difference between hitting the downbeat and the upbeat of the music. It's something I've been looking at in a lot of Shaabi music lately, and depending upon which one you choose, it really gives your dancing a different overall feeling. Choosing one or the other can either slightly retard or slightly accelerate the perceived "pace" you keep with the music, which gives the dancing a different look and feel.

I have heard one well-known instructor say the only difference between the styles is "stylization," and based on my own study and my own experience, I believe this to be untrue. (If you define stylization as how the dancer hears and interprets the music, then sure, but that's not usually how it's used.)

Watching movies of ghawazee dancers but also Golden Age Egyptian dancers, one sees moves that are often described as Turkish.

Apart from very specific region- or culturally-specific gestures, I hate it when people say "this is a Turkish move" or "this is an Egyptian move" because that turns the description back around to talking about dance as though it were a collection of "moves" rather than a synthesis of music and movement.

Also, describing American dancers as this or that - Amcab for example - when in fact we're highly individual, we don't all dance alike and many of us worked exclusively with and primarily for M.E. audiences - is similarly misleading.

True, but... LOL. Personally when I describe a dancer as a particular style, it's because of how she interprets the music. BUT this is such a vague and nebulous kind of thing to say, so it's hard to defend.

Not all "AmCab" (sorry for the term) dancers look alike, but in my eyes they tend to share more characteristics in common with each other than they do with say, Egyptian Golden Age dancers. Part of this is the structure of the AmCab show, the music chosen, the order and pace of the show, the use of certain props over others, etc. Part of it is the band, too. The Chris Kalogerson Orchestra isn't going to sound anything like Fifi's ensemble from the Esmaila concert.

I will defend AmCab as "Authentic" with my dying breath. Eddie Kochak music is authentic. It's not authentic Nubian music, and it's not authentic Saidi music maybe, but it's definitely authentic to a culture, a time, and a place, just as much as the Saidi mizmar band music.

cont

sorry for the length :(

Beyond that - I think that we can go too far with this and it limits us as artists and, as I say in at least one case, that of certain modern "Egyptian" styles, it's created quite an artificial style that doesn't feel free, earthy and natural anymore at all

I'd love it if you could expand on this idea -- 'cause I'm not sure I totally understand what you mean. Can you name dancers without stepping on toes? I'm curious about the idea of an "artificial style."

Also, do you think the overwhelming influence of Reda has had any effect on this idea of an artificial style?

people are so busy trying to do it "right" that they are not dancing expressively, they're dancing like cookies from the cutter and it looks uptight.

I agree whole-heartedly here. I think a lot of us have gone through a period where we were really afraid we wouldn't be "Egyptian enough" or whatever genre, and finally decided that we were "American Mongrel" in style (thank Lauren for the name!) and although probably heavily influenced by certain dancers and certain styles, still our own unique creation, with our own unique ACCENT. But still dancing a dance that would be easily recognizable by Uncle Abdul.

Maybe the soul-searching and style-searching is just part of how we grow as dancers?

But some feel the style discussions are too limiting, and I respect people who bow out of those and don't claim adherence to any particular school of thought -- as long as that person isn't claiming to be an authority on a particular style of dance, AND they recognize that in order to discuss nuances of dance FORM, we have to be able to categorize and at least attempt to define and name it. We can't really discuss X without defining what X is Not.

I consider "what style is" discussions not as a form of us vs. them (OK, that can be part of the discussion, but I tend to not focus on that for myself). Rather, they help me understand what I like and why, and when done well and insightfully, they help me appreciate the branches of the bellydance tree that I am not drawn to. Last winter, I attended two weekend events that focussed on comparing and contrasting Turkish and Egyptian, and it was very educational to me. The instructors used the time to show how their style is different, but in a constructive way. Even though Turkish is my love, I came away with a much deeper understanding, respect and enjoyment for Egyptian.

@ David, on the subtle differences in body carriages and step emphasis:

I agree with you about this, and I teach the accents accordingly.

It can be quite a profound distinction in terms of how the music "looks."

By the same token, I think the way the feet strike the earth can alter a step enormously and so can upper body carriage.

But - I also feel that we need to be careful about being too dogmatic. There are times when Egyptian dancers accent the hip on "up", it's clear from watching film.

Similarly, things have changed in the past few decades. For example, I posted 3 clips of Nesrin Topkapi on the thread about Sandra and Michelle Joyce - she's doing several variations, none exactly alike - in fact in one she's performing a cane dance -

but in none is she wearing zills. Zills were de rigeure for Turkish dancers when I started performing.

Ditto, Egyptian style. It's evolved a great deal in 30, 40 years don't you think?

Originally Posted by steffib

I consider "what style is" discussions not as a form of us vs. them (OK, that can be part of the discussion, but I tend to not focus on that for myself). Rather, they help me understand what I like and why, and when done well and insightfully, they help me appreciate the branches of the bellydance tree that I am not drawn to. Last winter, I attended two weekend events that focussed on comparing and contrasting Turkish and Egyptian, and it was very educational to me. The instructors used the time to show how their style is different, but in a constructive way. Even though Turkish is my love, I came away with a much deeper understanding, respect and enjoyment for Egyptian.

Well I guess I actually lived through this process, working with both branches of the tree so to speak - learning there WAS an Arabic style TOO was an experience:)

Aziyade, I love your thoughtful comments -

I want to respond to your question about Reda. I think this is part of it.

Note I love his art.

But, it reminds me of when a flamenco song or a Sephardic song or an old Hungarian song, so forth, will be performed by an operatic soprano. It isn't the same art any more, because of the skill level or different skill set of the performer, the impact of the music is quite different. It's not longer the original. It may be beautiful but it is no longer of the people.

One of the most interesting aspects of the Carlos Saura film of the de Falla ballet el Amor Brujo is the music. Three gypsy (Rom) songs are written into the ballet score which is classical. But these three songs are performed in the film by Rocio Jurado in a folkloric style, not a "ballet" style if you will - first a classical version:



Then, the Jurado version - which absolutely gives me chills - ps this music was a huge reason I started working with flamenco -

Now - the song is the same - but the way it's sung - it may seem subtle but the difference is huge - to me anyway

Originally Posted by Elibelinde

@ David, on the subtle differences in body carriages and step emphasis:

I agree with you about this, and I teach the accents accordingly.

It can be quite a profound distinction in terms of how the music "looks."

By the same token, I think the way the feet strike the earth can alter a step enormously and so can upper body carriage.

But - I also feel that we need to be careful about being too dogmatic. There are times when Egyptian dancers accent the hip on "up", it's clear from watching film.

Similarly, things have changed in the past few decades. For example, I posted 3 clips of Nesrin Topkapi on the thread about Sandra and Michelle Joyce - she's doing several variations, none exactly alike - in fact in one she's performing a cane dance -

but in none is she wearing zills. Zills were de rigeure for Turkish dancers when I started performing.

Ditto, Egyptian style. It's evolved a great deal in 30, 40 years don't you think?

Oh, there is definitely development in any style otherwise it will die out or be surpassed. However, there is an underlaying logic that continues to be present no matter how the style continues to develop. Emphasis, intent and focus in the movement for example. Even in an accent up in Egyptian style one will sense the weight settling in the heel of the weighted foot (accent L, weight R). So in essence, one is still going down to the ground even though the visual effect is an upward movement.

Yes, I agree. The timing of the foot placement and weight changes are very much the foundation of how everything manifests throughout the body.

How the dancer centers his/her weight in their body and feet make a definite difference to how they sense their work in their body and memorize the sensation of the work (proprioception).

These subtle differences are in fact not that subtle to the dancer, although they may mean nothing to the audience member in theory - they do change the audience members' experience as well.

cont.

I think that the grandure of Nesrin Topkapi and her stylistic presentation plays a big role in whether she would use zills or not. Zills are either an instrument to show ability on, or an aknowledgement of folkloric/rural roots - I would argue, even in Turkish style (?)(Maybe it depends on the style played like in Egyptian culture...zikhr/sufi style is different than other styles for example)... Zagat were all the rage in the early 80's in Egypt too, in fact, many dancer still use them frequently. However, the dancers we are exposed to do not... mainly because they ARE a folkloric instrument and the dancer shows their grandure by having a zagat player in their orchestra instead of playing them themselves. I think the case would be the same in the Turkish context...I'm sure I could get Patrisha to chime in on this and add to that discussion.

I also think that a lot of immigrant groups often times represent rural or maybe even suburban values and esthetics. Not to go off track, but I experience this in Punjabi dances as well. The classical and disciplinary information is often not what is observed by the immigrant groups, rather the impression of what is seen visually is what is professed. (see: Bhangra by Bollywood industry VS traditional Bhangra, see: folk based Turkish VS Classical Turkish).

:) I'm really enjoying this conversation, btw :D

Originally Posted by aziyade

I would argue that even a pan-Arabic song like Ya Mustafa, when played by a Greek band will sound different than when played by a Lebanese band, and different again when played by Egyptians. Since Turkish music comes from an altogether different musical tradition, I would expect Turkish musicians to also have their own "style" when playing -- but Turkish music has not been a strong area of study for me, so I could be wrong.

I agree with you 100%!

Deborah

Originally Posted by Elibelinde

Aziyade, I love your thoughtful comments -

I want to respond to your question about Reda. I think this is part of it.

Note I love his art.

But, it reminds me of when a flamenco song or a Sephardic song or an old Hungarian song, so forth, will be performed by an operatic soprano. It isn't the same art any more, because of the skill level or different skill set of the performer, the impact of the music is quite different. It's not longer the original. It may be beautiful but it is no longer of the people.

Now - the song is the same - but the way it's sung - it may seem subtle but the difference is huge - to me anyway

Kinda like "Layla" by Derek and the Dominos and the acoustic, solo version of Eric Clapton? Same song. Sounds and feels very different. Love 'em both.

Deborah

my friend used to ask her Arabic teacher "what's the rule for this type of grammar?" to which the teacher would think for a second, then reply in her heavy accent "you'll know."

Regarding the first question in the post:
I think discussions of identifying style are important for students and professionals because even though many movements appear similar, the cultural and regional flavors are quite different.

Just as many countries have similar foods, the dishes are prepared with regional variations. The same holds true for dance movements. This is how I explain it to my students.

For pros, the differences become much more critical when doing private events and tailoring your shows to the tastes of your clients.

Originally Posted by Elibelinde

Example: the "step and lift." That was originally described when I was a student as the "tsiftitelli step." Now it's called the "basic Arabic."

This isn't so much "style" as terminology. Just about every major teacher has a "basic" step - guess what - they are all different. And none that I've come aross would be described as "step and lift".

That said, some moves are more common in one style of dance than another. But I don't think you can put all of the Arab world in one basket! And I strongly suspect the same with Turkish dance - other than broad brush generalities.

Originally Posted by Elibelinde

Also, describing American dancers as this or that - Amcab for example - when in fact we're highly individual, we don't all dance alike and many of us worked exclusively with and primarily for M.E. audiences - is similarly misleading.

But there are some similarities. Most AmCam dancers would never be mistaken for native Egyptians for instance.

Originally Posted by Elibelinde

Beyond that - I think that we can go too far with this and it limits us as artists and, as I say in at least one case, that of certain modern "Egyptian" styles, it's created quite an artificial style that doesn't feel free, earthy and natural anymore at all - people are so busy trying to do it "right" that they are not dancing expressively, they're dancing like cookies from the cutter and it looks uptight.

Not sure if dance should be "free, earthy and natural" - that is an imposition that can be put on it. More of a problem is when the dancers cease to dance and just spit back something they learnt by rote. You can dance within a style and still express your own personality. Appearing like a clone suggests to me that the dancer doesn't really know the style well enough.

But "how important are What Style Discussions? I think they are important in that people need to realize there are a range of styles. Many are quite distinct. That learning about them is part of the dancer's education. Personally, I believe a minimum step for beginner to intermediate is to understand this and apply it to interpretting the music (with acceptable technique of course). Without the discussion, many beginners fall under the misunderstanding that belly dance is just a bunch of moves - and so can never leave their beginner status.

How important are "What Style" Discussions - and - are they even accurate?
Important - Well, discussions are like family - some parts we love, some we hate, some we cut some slack, some we go tooth & nail.
In the end, we need them - to keep the juices flowing, to exchange ideas, to re examine deeply embedded concepts, to be part of something.
Accurate - Discussions of style can expose inaccuracies, lead to investigation, and back to the source paths.
Confusing - Hell yeah.
Like families. [note *families are not necessarily just your "relatives"]

Originally Posted by kashmir

Just about every major teacher has a "basic" step - guess what - they are all different. And none that I've come aross would be described as "step and lift".

You got me chuckling with that one, Kashmir! I use the "formal" term "walking hip lift" as the name for it, but it is most definitely a "step-lift" and I use "step-lift" to direct students while teaching. It's very common terminology in southern California.

Step with the left foot (beat 1)
Point with the right foot and simultaneously lift the right hip (beat 2)
if one should desire to continue the pattern, since the right foot is now available, then one would
Step with the right foot (beat 3) then
Point with the left foot and simultaneously lift the left hip (beat 4)

(of course, a dancer could just as easily lift the hip on 1, step on 2, point-and-lift on 3, and step on 4)

Either way, the hip lifts on the unweighted leg.

That said, some moves are more common in one style of dance than another. But I don't think you can put all of the Arab world in one basket! And I strongly suspect the same with Turkish dance - other than broad brush generalities.

Yes!

But there are some similarities. Most AmCam dancers would never be mistaken for native Egyptians for instance.

Yes, again!

But "how important are What Style Discussions? I think they are important in that people need to realize there are a range of styles. Many are quite distinct. That learning about them is part of the dancer's education. Personally, I believe a minimum step for beginner to intermediate is to understand this and apply it to interpretting the music (with acceptable technique of course). Without the discussion, many beginners fall under the misunderstanding that belly dance is just a bunch of moves - and so can never leave their beginner status.

I agree!

Deborah

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Elibelinde

Given that the real issue is the music, and the music totally overlaps in most cases, crossing not only national but political, ethnic, regional boundaries as well as centuries of time - it's both limiting and inaccurate to try and define what is what.

In some cases but why is this any different from say a German composer and an Austrian composer? it is where the person/musician comes from and their cultural references... this is what makes it what it is.

Example: the "step and lift." That was originally described when I was a student as the "tsiftitelli step." Now it's called the "basic Arabic."

What a ridiculous and non-descript term! who invents these things? I remember in the Uk we had this quarter turn step called an 'Arabic walk'..yes Arabs walk around in circles stepping forward and back.. every little class group at a haflah had this in each dance as least 3 times..it took me years to figure out it was from a Saidi pattern.

Well, it's both. Hitting out and up works with Turkish music, but also all kinds of Arab music including Egyptian - it's a natural move. Claiming that "down and in, down and in" is the only proper way to dance to Arabic music (and there are tons of different styles of Arab music as well as Turkish music) is not correct and it has helped created an artificial style.

Somebody made this up years ago..I am sure. I agree we really do have to revise some of these things.

Watching movies of ghawazee dancers but also Golden Age Egyptian dancers, one sees moves that are often described as Turkish. This is logical considering the fact that Egypt was long a part of the Ottoman world and, a great deal of Egyptian music is influenced by Turkish music and of course, Turkish music has among its many styles, an "Arabesque" style.

This dance cannot be purely defined by a 'move'.

But also - these are natural moves so why wouldn't dancers use them?

Dancers in the ME do what they want when they want, they know where they come from and dont give a hoot. They are secure with their identity, the problem comes outside of those countries with people trying to define what it is and isnt for the purpose of teaching.. this also applies to ex-pats and people of Arab decent born outside of the Arab world.. so much twaddle is created for the sake of teaching.

Beyond that - I think that we can go too far with this and it limits us as artists and, as I say in at least one case, that of certain modern "Egyptian" styles, it's created quite an artificial style that doesn't feel free, earthy and natural anymore at all - people are so busy trying to do it "right" that they are not dancing expressively, they're dancing like cookies from the cutter and it looks uptight.

OK fire away.

The modern Cairo style which is now the major export is a spin off of many things and Reda style Folkloric has a strong hand in there.

International interpretations of this are often very fussy and elegant and technically driven. One teacher I know who is Cairo based recently reffered to it as 'elegant is the new boring'.

With regards to styles, these things are determined largely by the music and the individual.. people from Turkey can master Egyptian dance like anyone else.. but this should not be confused and called Turkish dance. There is a different feel and shift in Turkish (Lebanese has this similar shift)people in those countries can be can be influended like anyone else.

Similarly, I can tell when a dancer in Cairo is not from Cairo despite the fact they are dancing Egyptian (this includes those from Lebanon, Syria and other Arab countries). Some people master it so well you can not really tell any difference at all, but usually people have their own cultural genetic print stamped on it.

I've been watching these discussions and kind of shaking my head. It was so much easier 30 + years ago. Back then there was a distinction between East Coast and West Coast. Then in Detroit, we were in our own separate world and heavily sunk into the Middle Eastern culture which at that time was primarily Greek, Lebanese, Egyptian, Tunisian and Armenian. So there were the "Greek" clubs and the "Arabic Clubs". The only other distinction was between Caberet and Folkloric.

In reading all these discussions about style, I often wonder how someone would describe my style, because I fit all the categories (except for tribal/ATS) but at the same time I dont fit in anyone of the categories either.

I definitely can see "stylistic" differences say from a dancer who studied in Brazil vs. a dancer who studied in Russia or in the US. But I don't think that creates a different style. Each region has its own teachers and teachers pass down what they have learned to their students so there is bound to similiarties and differences from region to region because there isn't one "Great Belly Dancer Master Wizard of OZ" that we all follow and try to copy. I think the what makes belly dance so beautiful is that it is a dance that is meant to accomodate individual expression. Every person listens to music differently. My teacher and I would get into so many arguments when she would tell me I was off the beat. (Usually she was right!) But as I got more experienced I figured out that we were listening to and accenting different parts of the music. It was a breakthrough for both of us.

Over the last few years I've attended a few workshops by some big name modern Egyptian teachers (a la Reda style). Frankly, I found it a very unnatural way to belly dancer. I would get totally lost in choreography because I was trained to listen to the music for phrasing and timing and not count out steps. So I would hear a wigglely,whiney, twisty sound and want to do a wigglely, whiney, twisty type of movement and everyone else did a step up, or a step down.

I think these discussions will always go on as long as we try to pigeon-hole belly dance and turn it into a form of dance like ballet where each step has a specific name and the step is executed in a specific way. In my mind, the steps aren't what are important. That's not to say tecnique isn't important for the professional dancer. But the average person in the middle east has never taken a belly dance lesson but if they hear a song they like, they will get up and dance. It may not be up to our professional standards but they are dancing and would probably be shocked to hear that according to the Belly Dance Rules, that's not belly dance, or whatever term they choose to call it. I know many refer to is Arabic dance or Oriental dance.

(Sorry for grammer and spelling errors. I've been under extreme emotional stress with several family crisises going on.)

And yes, different bands will play the same song completely different. I have danced to Raks Mustapha by both Arabic bands and Greek bands, and the sound and feel are completely different because of instrumentation and interpretation but the melody is exactly the same. A good example is to listen to a Greek version of Ta Mavria Matia Sou, then Abdel Halim's, Neptidi M'neim el Hikaya.

I suspect some of the desire to distinguish yourself (at least in an environment like this) is to try to establish a presence regarding intention. I think many interpret "I dance X style" as a declaration that you're not just flopping around doing any old thing, but that you have made an effort to specialize in something--you care about the history, the music, and the details behind your dancing. Sometimes it can be a rather shallow bid for credibility (I won't speculate how many dancers say they are "Egyptian" or "Turkish" without really having put much effort into the pronouncement), but more often than not, I want to believe there are sincere motives behind the choice to specialize.

The idea of "AmCab" is a little more complicated. On one hand, you have purists who are devoted to preserving the vintage style and see it as just as adamantly worthy as the styles that have a ME country's name attached to them, and there are people who use the term out of a refusal to take a side because they intentionally seek the creative freedom to pick and choose across boundaries. OTOH, there are dancers hiding their shortcomings behind the "AmCab" label, too. Fortunately, the I-take-every-workshop-that-comes-to-town-and-put-them-in-a-mental-blender-because-I-don't-see-why-these-differences-matter-when-I'm-just-here-to-have-fun students aren't as common on a forum like this. There's a certain presumption that if you're on a place like Bhuz or OD.net, you do want to put that kind of effort and attention into your dancing.

After a point, most students will pick a side. It's almost impossible not to. In most areas, the multicultural nightclubs are gone, and our educational system isn't set up NOT to focus (and it's heavily biased toward Egyptian). Some have the personal resources to keep loading their plates at the buffet indefinitely, but others find that they either don't want to or they choose to specialize out of necessity.

I don't think it is wrong to specialize. Dancers who delve deeply and focus singularly are vital to keeping track of those subtle differences between styles that are in danger of being lost to globalization within their lands of origin, and to apathy within the dance community, because the bottom layers of our student pyramid (which make up the bulk of our population) will never commit enough to care very much about such things. I don't have a problem with someone wanting to do Westernized-Pan-Middle-Eastern dance (or however you want to name "not-specialized" dance), but we see a lot of new students who come to their first class with a gross lack of understanding of how varied the cultures of the Middle East are. If these sorts of distinctions of ethnic specialization in the dance open their window onto a world where two-thirds of the Mediterranean coast represent more than a homogenous blob of caramel-skinned, camel-owning religious extremists, then perhaps that in itself gives our hair splitting merit.

I think that most of the source of confusion about belly dance styles comes from the way people learn about them.

Too many people try to piece together "gestaults" about the dance styles from tidbits of information or verbal descriptions given to them by teachers and other dancers. Thus, you get hodgepodge piles of "this move is Turkish", Egyptian music is ______", Turkish costumes have long fringe, etc. etc.

Soon the student dancer has a mountain of such factoids, but it never translates into real knowledge about the dance styles. This is not only because of the incomplete nature of the factoids, but because half of the factoid mountain is likely to be false or at least not true in all cases, and the confusion factor increases.

IMO the only really effective way to learn about these styles is to study them in their whole form -- listening to different ethnicities of music, watching videography of native dancers, etc. -- extensively and to the point where you basically immerse yourself in dance and music one style at a time until understanding begins to form. Combined with verbal or written information from reliable sources, such study leads to much more accurate understandings of the dance forms.