Thread: The BIG debate

Can we be specific about the debate on Burley and Belly?

Can it be fused successfully? Should it be?
How will either form be fused to its' benefit?
What problems will be caused by confusion?
Can performances of both forms exist comfortably side by side in a show? In What situation would you find it successful/appropraite? If any?
How might burlesque damage the progression of belly dance in your country?

I understand the origin and meaning of the burlesque and I do know it didn't start with Little Egypt but Lynda Thompson(?) but for many Little Egypt and similar acts were forever entangled in the USA.
You can educate me as to the evolution of Am Cab.
Would those dancers of the 50s and 60s in the USA be happy with the blending of the two?
Are US Egyptian style dancers and Tribal dancers happy with the fusion?
Do US dancers see it as a natural mating process ?

To me ,what belly dancers over here do is a reflection, often very pale I admit , of what dancers in Egypt and Turkey do.
What Burlesque dancers do is what Lynda did and Immodesty Blaise does.
I do not understand the blend nor do I think it does either a favour.
Burlesque is fun, skilled at its' best but not as accessable or as social as belly dance.
If we start to confuse women and the interested men about what belly dance is, we will suffer.
And as to the GP and their attitude to us, I fear all will be lost!!!!!
There may be you glamour girls out there who not want to see the less than perfect or not so young belly dance. Project the wrong image and they'll think belly dance is not for them. Very few women like me or my students would dream of doing Burlesque and certainly not in public but they are getting used to the idea that belly dance is for them because of how I and most UK teachers pitch it as an option for them !
I have done a Burlesque workshop and loved it and frankly I have got the attitude but it's not an option for the 60 year old. I do firmly believe belly dance is because of it's social nature and its' variety of moves and formats.
Finally : Long Live Burlesque!
Long Live Belly Dance!..g.:

Burlesque is about teasing and titillation and theatre. Some say that belly dance can hold parts of its development in burlesque, insomuch as the use of veil, the two piece costume, the glittery glitzy side, the cabaret side and it's development from early Hollywood years. It's all intermeshed at some level, but I feel belly dance has developed in its own right on the 'cabaret' side, and that the burlesque has been dropped to a greater extent with only a fragment of 'showmanship' left as homage to its influence. The modern day burlesque we see is much more sexual than the stuff being done by the likes of Gypsy Rose Lee...though obviously there was saucy stuff being done by less commercial burlesque dancers at that time. Personally, Burlesque has it's place in the dance just as bellydance has its place, but for bellydance to attain respect, recognition and elevation by the dance world as a bone fide art form, it has to jettison fusion with the likes of strip tease.

Why do women love burlesque so much? Perhaps because they feel empowered and sexy and in control...it's a bit like dressing up as a kid in adult clothes because it makes you feel 'grown up' and important. It takes you outside of reality, away from the mundane drabness of your every day life, and somewhere where you can be gorgeous and desirable and special. And why not?

Originally Posted by kharis_UK

Why do women love burlesque so much? Perhaps because they feel empowered and sexy and in control...it's a bit like dressing up as a kid in adult clothes because it makes you feel 'grown up' and important. It takes you outside of reality, away from the mundane drabness of your every day life, and somewhere where you can be gorgeous and desirable and special. And why not?

Indeed. I'd say the same about bellydance. There is an obvious crossover appeal between the two dance forms, regardless of how much or how little shared history they have. Sunshine said elsewhere that Princess Farhana's burlesque workshop sold out within a week - there is a market for bellydancers who want to learn burlesque, why shouldn't promoters tap into that?

When it comes to performing I'd rather not see the two fused .p:: , but I don't have a problem with them sharing a stage, especially when it can be made clear which performance belongs to which genre. Not that there should be any confusion, I find it hard to see many similarities between, say, Randa and Dita Von Teese, apart from them both being fabulously sexy women on a stage.

Sorry, Liz, I don't think I even answered a fraction of your questions!

Originally Posted by Emma

Indeed. I'd say the same about bellydance.

Absolutely. That's part of it's appeal to the majority.

Originally Posted by Emma

Sunshine said elsewhere that Princess Farhana's burlesque workshop sold out within a week - there is a market for bellydancers who want to learn burlesque, why shouldn't promoters tap into that?

It's not just bellydancers who want that.

Originally Posted by Emma

When it comes to performing I'd rather not see the two fused .p:: , but I don't have a problem with them sharing a stage, especially when it can be made clear which performance belongs to which genre.

This is where, I think, the objections come from. Not that burlesque shouldn't share the stage,, but that the two are fused to such an extent that the GP equate bellydance with stripping. Bellydance is still very much looked down upon by some people, and I, for one, get sick of trying to educate people. I've had two occasions where I've tried to teach on school or church premises, and both times I was told no, we don't allow stripping and no, we don't accept pole dancers. Burlesque fused with bellydance just damages it's reputation as a dance form that should be accredited by now.

I think there are benefits to cross training with the two and using what you've learned in one form to strengthen the other, but that there's simply not much reason I can see to fuse them.

Both forms are sexy enough without needing in-fusions and BD doesn't need anything that re-enforces the stripping connotations folks have.

Same stage, cool with me.
Venues where both are done but clearly presented as two different things, cool with me.
People who do both and can clearly draw the difference between em, cool with me.
People who fuse them? I've yet to find anyone who makes me think that this works to the advantage of the dance/BD

This discussion is bringing back a memory for me.

I was contacted by the director of a show my friend acted in, comedy improv show. He told me that my friend had told him that I was a burlesque dancer and he was going to be putting on a comedy show that would use burlesque. So he hoped I could work with him on it.

I was so confused. "But..I'm a bellydancer? Not a burlesque dancer. I like burlesque, but I don't do it." Luckily I do have a friend who is a really good burlesque dancer/choreographer as well as a show producer in her own right, so I put them in touch and now there is going to be a fun little vaudeville show in my town called "Burlesque me to vaudeville".

But I realize now - this all happened because my friend got burly and belly confused! I did send the director to my restaurant to see me & other bellydancers perform and while he loved the bellydancing, he realized pretty quickly that it wasn't burlesque and didn't fit with his idea for the show.

Burlesque is the art of stripping and seducing at the same time. I personally think it is a brilliant art form.

Bellydance is an art of interpreting music with our bodies. Sometimes it comes across more sensous than other times. To me there is nothing the same about these acts. The only thing that is remotley similar for these two is they both have a shimmy and swaying hips. Other than that, one art is dancing and the other is taking off your clothes in a seductive manner. (There is an art to this).
So, I don't think it should be fused together b/c we spend so much time worrying about educating non bellydancers that we don't take our clothes off, so why would we want to fuse the two together? I tend to think that fusion dancers and tribal dancers may tend to lean to burly fusion more than Egyptian style dancers would. It just wouldn't look right to be doing a Egyptian performance and than all the sudden start slowly taking off our bedlah to Tahtil Shibak or a burly song.
Clearly in my eyes the two should not be fused together.

Michelle, your post made me realize how downright impossible belly-burly fusion would be, with the way most of us attach our bedlah or costumes with a vengeance - double-sided tape, pins, multiple hooks & eyes. We'd be struggling with those haltar tops for way longer than the audience would stand for. I mean, if I need help to get my bedlah on, how am I going to get it off?

How artfully can we remove a diaper pin?

dana danana danananana <flings pin off into the audience> ...oh my god I'm so sorry, my safety pin stabbed you in the eye!

The movement vocabulary for Burly and Belly is darn near identical. The difference is the music, and the INTENT and the STAGING, and of course the COSTUMING or lack of it. :)

Burly is widely viewed as something sort of trivial and cute. Trite, harmless fun, but not terribly serious. Is this how you would want Bellydance to be thought of?

I prefer for the two art forms to remain very separated.

Analogy...

When teaching the bust shimmy to beginners I demonstrate the first bent at the waist with bosom swinging in pendulous abandon with a cheesy grin on my face. I then straighten up to full regal height, while I lift my chest and chin and smile like a saint on a pedestal. Lights go on all over the room.

The attitude and the intent makes this dance what it is, not the body parts used. To put both on the same stage during the same venue equates in my mind with putting Michaelangelo's David on display with Mapplethorpe photos. It is an insensitive non sequitar at best and at worst, extremely insulting to the people who gave life to this art form originally.

Originally Posted by anala

Analogy...

To put both on the same stage during the same venue equates in my mind with putting Michaelangelo's David on display with Mapplethorpe photos.

Oh, dear. Now you've done it. .w.:

I love to see artists take two forms of dance (where the artist is well-versed in both forms) and fuse it into something entirely special, new and unique. There is great freedom to our self-expression, and in some cases fusion can elevate a dance form into something spectacular!

In other cases however, fusion can be undermining to the art due to already established stereotypes and negative preconceived notions. A belly/burlesque combination can create much confusion in an already biased public. Many times, as stated in previous posts, we encounter organizations and individuals who believe belly dance to be another side of stripping. All other arguments aside, that is really the crux of the matter. And a potent reason for not melding the two.

Do they belong on the same stage? The great benefit is that if there were confusion prior to the show about the similarities of the two dances, there wouldn't be at the end! Although they may share feminine movements, as Aziyade said, the intent, costuming, etc. is completely different and will be viewed as such.

When performing ME dance, we are given an opportunity to share a gorgeous style of dance and in many cases a very positive and human face to the middle east with westerners who would otherwise not see it. Let's do our part to keep it as it is intended to be, for now anyway :). - Sabra*

putting Michaelangelo's David on display with Mapplethorpe photos

Hot, homoerotic representation of hot men by talented gay artists? I see no real conflict of interest, myself.

Re belly/burley: I suspect I'd be quite good at burlesque if it wasn't for the strip-tease aspect. I love mid-20th century cheese, and I did a dance to Tom Waits with a chair once. BUT there are two aspects that concern me regarding burley/belly. One, it equates BD to stripping which is not only something a lot of people have tried to overcome but something already embedded quite powerfully in our culture's construction of east/west. There are *still* people who think belly dancing is for seducing sultans in harems, and that middle eastern women are all probably steaming hot sex goddesses locked up behind veils by their oppressive evil Muslim husbands who need rescuing. This is one of the key reasons I think we have to be very careful about how we present belly dance, because whether we like it or not we represent another culture. It's no wonder a lot of people run in the direction of fusion, because that responsibility is too great.

Two, it's not a matter of "cheapening" our dance, but just that I don't think it needs it. If you want to be sexy through belly dance, do it. If you want to be sexy through burley, do it. As someone who's been belly dancing ten years and only touched the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Egyptian dance (my personal favourite), not to mention every other kind of ME dance under the sun, why would I want to run around fusing it with burley when I can't even do the real thing yet? I still have so much to learn!

It's a free world and art comes in many forms. If you have a calling to express yourself fusing different sorts of dance, then I think you should do so without reservation. I've seen some great fusion!

Burly and belly on the same stage? Well, I think that depends on the venue... but in most cases - no. But I see MED as a traditional dance. It's doubtful you'd find many venues offering Portuguese, Celtic or Chinese dancing on stage with burly...

The only time I'm really bothered is when people don't market what they're doing accurately because it makes it harder to distinguish what we ARE doing. If you do put it on the same stage (still don't see any reason to do that, but to each their own), call it as it is, is all...

I like hot homoerotic porn as much as the next guy...I mean girl...no well...you know what I mean. (The guys are way hotter in gay porn...why is that? ).

But let each market have it's own base of support and dont presume that they are so close in aspect that the audience for one will be thrilled to see the other.

Ice Hockey followed by Ice Dancing...hey - there is a natural for you...lets sell tickets so people can see both events...they both are done in real cold rooms? Ok...try this one on...there is eatery I just cant go to...The Golden Pig Stye or some such...the food smells of Chinese/Mexican/Italian..all great foods but not when cooked in the same kitchen. It just aint kosher....

I think Burly is fun. Obviously, I think Belly is fun, or I wouldn't be doing it. LOL!

I don't think there is really any NEED to fuse them. They're great! They're fabulous! Let them each have their own stage! And yes, this means that I really don't agree with having burly and belly presented separately on the same stage. And if you are presenting different dance forms on the same stage, make it clear that is what is going on: don't call it a Bellydance Show when it is really a show of many different (and equally entertaining) dance forms.

*puts on asbestos knickers*

I just think that the Bellydance community is being asked to make more and more and MORE room under our umbrella for these fusions and separate dance forms. There's almost no room left under there for those of us who do straight up M.E. Dance.

What's next? And why do we have to embrace them as part of the M.E. Dance community? Not that whatever is next won't be cool and interesting to watch and a helluva lotta fun to do, but...why is it up to OUR community to support it and give it a stage? M.E. Dance has worked hard to bring itself up to where it stands today, everyone involved has done whatever they could to support workshops, professional dancers, costumers, musicians - why does it fall to us to support other dance forms like burlesque or hip hop or gothic dance? I'm not saying sour grapes to them, but at some point things are diluted to the point that it is unrecognizeable as M.E. Dance and at that point it becomes something different and therefore should naturally split off.

As someone very near and dear to me said recently: Never forget that when you walk out on stage there is someone in the audience who is seeing this for the first time. If you walk out there right after a burlesque performance, you will solidify in that new viewer's mind as the same thing as burley. And, from everything I hear from many many people we are trying to get this dance form elevated to the art status it deserves - at this rate we are not doing ourselves any favors by diluting it with fusion after fusion after fusion and confusing the issue of what we are doing by presenting it alongside other dance forms that the general public clearly does not see as an art all under the umbrella of "Bellydance".

I just think that the Bellydance community is being asked to make more and more and MORE room under our umbrella for these fusions and separate dance forms. There's almost no room left under there for those of us who do straight up M.E. Dance.

That's how I feel too. And while I'm prepared to admit that part of my discomfort lies in being old and crap and not able to spend as much money on international study as the fusionistas in my neck of the woods, I also feel incredibly frustrated with the sense of entitlement many fusion dancers seem to have to do anything and everything they want and call it belly dance.

It's not entirely their fault - Am Cab is famously a mishmash at its heart, and when North American fusion stars call what they do belly dance, then others in the rest of the world can't be blamed for following suit. But the line has to be drawn somewhere. I'm tired of feeling marginalised. I'm tired of the insinuations that I'm a stuffy traditionalist because I don't dance the latest TF trends. I'm very much NOT a traditionalist. I know full well that what I do, and particularly what I teach, is not strictly "traditional" BD and that it doesn't look like what "they" do, primarily because I'm teaching a core curriculum and can't push dancers into certain kinds of styling because of the need for them to learn basics. What I am is a critical transculturalist. Which means that I believe all culture is inherently mixed, but that it is important to recognise power inequalities within cultural exchange, ie not to steamroller over the ME just because "belly dance" is an English language term.

The only thing I can hope, in all honesty, is that ten or less years from now there's going to be a massive movement of dance called "tribal fusion" or "fusion tribal" that has nothing remotely tribal about it other than a token cowrie fall, which will totally dominate, and all the TFs will flail and rail about the injustice and misnomering of it all, and I will laugh quietly to myself from my spot in the fat old oriental dancers' home.

another thing that separates the two, is that mid east dance/belly dance, comes from a culture/spiritual base.
my 2 cents

One problem I have with seeing belly and burly on the same stage - even when the distinction between the two styles is made clearly - is it's still linking the two art forms. If it was a dance showcase sort of thing, with belly, burly, tap, jazz, contemporary, Serbian, Greek, Indian, etc. etc. well, okay then. It's not linking the two styles, as a range of artforms is present.

Having belly and burly performed at the same show seems to blur the already blurry lines - and we run into the danger of ME dance being seen as a warm up act for the more sexually explicit burly performers.

Don't get me wrong, I think burly is fun and I'd love to see a live, professional show, I just don't want to see it linked with ME dance.

ETA: by 'sexually explicit', I know that burly is not so much about nudity as the anticipation of nudity...but it is more sexually explicit than belly dance, which has *nothing* to do with getting our kit off.

Can we have a show in London where you have Ballet and Burley on the same stage? Perhaps!
A show with Riverdance and Burley
A show with Highland dancing and Burley
Morris dancing and Burley..now there's an image to conjure with!

I look forward to Michael Flatulence's burlesque fusion. High-larious, that will be.

Originally Posted by zamora

another thing that separates the two, is that mid east dance/belly dance, comes from a culture/spiritual base.
my 2 cents

That's right, ME dance is culture first... and always

Zum, point me towards the home for decrepit oriental dancers

RE Burlesque:

I Do think it's cool that US dancers have such a long, rich history of entertainment and ethnic diversity from which to draw inspiration from.

I Don't think it's cool that the trend hoppers around the world are just waiting to see what the next big thing is so they can jump on board and be "different".

It continues to baffle me as to why someone would bother to study ME dance if they aren't actually interested in ME dance...

Originally Posted by NandaDncer

It continues to baffle me as to why someone would bother to study ME dance if they aren't actually interested in ME dance...

WORD

And I don't get the people who say they love the dance but don't like the music

huh?

If burlesque and "belly dancing" share some common "history" in the U.S. it is only because strippers borrowed the "harem girl" shtick and costuming. ("You gotta have a gimmick.") There is nothing about their movement that is the same in terms of intention, culture or spirituality, as Zamora mentioned. Just because all women have the same body parts doesn't mean they are doing the same dance when they shimmy.

Burlesque's history in the U.S. was that it was "naughty" and mainly for the entertainment of men. "Belly dance" came here first at the Chicago World's Fair (then there were lots of imitators after that in the vaudeville stages), then in ethnic nightclubs where immigrants from the Middle East sough a little taste of home.

Burlesque has NOTHING to do with real belly dancing. For them the belly dance aspect was a gimmick, nothing more.

I think I'm beginning to agree with Morocco, the famous teacher/dancer from NYC, who does not use the term belly dancing. I never agreed with her in the past, but now I see her logic. It's the only way to distinguish the real thing from all the imitations. Raqs Sharqi anyone? Or in my case ARS - American Raqs Sharqi. Uh oh, that doesn't make a good acronym! ..c::

Originally Posted by dunyah

Raqs Sharqi anyone? Or in my case ARS - American Raqs Sharqi. Uh oh, that doesn't make a good acronym! ..c::

LMFAO ..l;, love the ARS

I just have one little question (I'm a newbie at figuring out what has influenced American Cabaret). Does that mean that Raqs Sharki is the true form of what we call "bellydance"? Or should there also be a term for American Turkish Dance as well?

Burlesque has NOTHING to do with real belly dancing. For them the belly dance aspect was a gimmick, nothing more.

I want to think you're right, Dunyah. I'm just curious whether the burlesque community at-large feels there should be a distinction. I would think burlesque performers would want to see a distinction because they would want to preserve their own art form. I had an interaction recently, though, that made me question this at least in terms of my local community.

I have some friends that perform in a burlesque/fetish troupe. Some representatives of their group approached a local cafe about performing there. This cafe has hosted bellydance nights a few times a year for several years, however, their ownership is very conservative fundamentalist Christian and several employees have made it clear that they do not like the bellydance nights. I suspect they only keep it in the schedule because they make so much money off of it.

So this burlesque/fetish group approached the cafe about performing there and couldn't understand why they were rejected immediately because "they have bellydancing, so why wouldn't they have us?" I'm not sure if they used the perceived bellydancing connection in their presentation with the cafe management, but I hope they did not.

ETA: I guess what gets me the most is--they seem to think that the two art forms are so similar that hosting one would lead to hosting the other.

Originally Posted by dunyah

If burlesque and "belly dancing" share some common "history" in the U.S. it is only because strippers borrowed the "harem girl" shtick and costuming. ("You gotta have a gimmick.") There is nothing about their movement that is the same in terms of intention, culture or spirituality, as Zamora mentioned. Just because all women have the same body parts doesn't mean they are doing the same dance when they shimmy.

Burlesque's history in the U.S. was that it was "naughty" and mainly for the entertainment of men. "Belly dance" came here first at the Chicago World's Fair (then there were lots of imitators after that in the vaudeville stages), then in ethnic nightclubs where immigrants from the Middle East sough a little taste of home.

Burlesque has NOTHING to do with real belly dancing. For them the belly dance aspect was a gimmick, nothing more.

I think I'm beginning to agree with Morocco, the famous teacher/dancer from NYC, who does not use the term belly dancing. I never agreed with her in the past, but now I see her logic. It's the only way to distinguish the real thing from all the imitations. Raqs Sharqi anyone? Or in my case ARS - American Raqs Sharqi. Uh oh, that doesn't make a good acronym! ..c::

The term Raqs Sharqi is all well and good, and it may be a more correct term for solo Oriental dance. HOWEVER, when you speak with the GP about the dance form or someone asks you what kind of dance you do, and you say Raqs Sharqi - they hear "Rocks Sharki." So do we do something involving rocks and sharks or do we do belly dance? One term may not be entirely accurate, and the other may be, but one is a simple answer, and the other will get you a quizzical expression and a "huh?" every time.

Advertise your classes, performances, and website with the tags Raqs Sharqi, leaving out all reference to belly dance. How many students, clients, or hits will you get?

Like it or not (and make NO mistake, I LIKE it), Belly Dance is the term we have, it's here to stay, and I embrace it as a traditional-style dancer. NO ONE - not fusionistas, burly girls, or Raqs Nazis, is going to take it from me.

Originally Posted by rachelw

I want to think you're right, Dunyah. I'm just curious whether the burlesque community at-large feels there should be a distinction. I would think burlesque performers would want to see a distinction because they would want to preserve their own art form. I had an interaction recently, though, that made me question this at least in terms of my local community.

I have some friends that perform in a burlesque/fetish troupe. Some representatives of their group approached a local cafe about performing there. This cafe has hosted bellydance nights a few times a year for several years, however, their ownership is very conservative fundamentalist Christian and several employees have made it clear that they do not like the bellydance nights. I suspect they only keep it in the schedule because they make so much money off of it.

So this burlesque/fetish group approached the cafe about performing there and couldn't understand why they were rejected immediately because "they have bellydancing, so why wouldn't they have us?" I'm not sure if they used the perceived bellydancing connection in their presentation with the cafe management, but I hope they did not.

I suspect your cafe also found belly dance innocuous enough though to let it continue. I think burley/fetish might be a step to far!

What is important is the cultural aspect of ME dance, the regard in which we hold the music and movement. See discussion on Orienteldancer.net regarding a comedy sketch to OK and one point of view that anything goes.w.:
Burley does NOT have that as you say. Neither does it have the social aspect that is we all, male and female, young and old can get up and bop ME style to popular ME music. We love the sounds, the rhythmns, the passion even if we have to research the meaning to it all. We can, alongside Arab people either at home or "over there", dance and enjoy.

Raks Sharki as a theatrical experience we do perform and it can be done either with taste or a dollop of sleaze. I ,for one, can cope and even enjoy a bit of sleaze here and there in our dance but it needs the right time and venue.

In our society we are trying to say this is an artistic,welcoming, family friendly if at times sensual dance you can watch with comfort and join in who ever you are. We will do our cause no favour by matching it with some Western forms of entertainment no matter how good they are.

Originally Posted by damariz

I just have one little question (I'm a newbie at figuring out what has influenced American Cabaret). Does that mean that Raqs Sharki is the true form of what we call "bellydance"? Or should there also be a term for American Turkish Dance as well?

Hi Damariz! In Arabic, the term "raqs sharqi" means "dance of the East" - as opposed to the types of European-style dancing that was done in music halls. (Ie, as opposed to French cancan, Ziegfeld follies, etc.) When Badia Masabni started presenting theatricalized traditional "raqs baladi" (dance of the villages) in her nightclub, she needed a name to describe the new dance to differentiate it from the European material her audiences were accustomed to. So the term "raqs sharqi" arose.

In Turkey, the term is "Oryantal tansi" which also means "dance of the East".

So, you could say "Eastern dance" or "Oriental dance" and be correct with reference to both the Turkish version of our dance and the Egyptian/Lebanese versions. Most people (including me) who want to use the English name for raqs sharqi say "Oriental".

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled debate about burlesque...