Thread: Local,Super,International Pro

I haven’t been on bhuz for the last few weeks much, but was on much of yesterday trying to catch up on old posts. I see there is a big "PRO" debate going on in one form or another. I think there needs to be a separation of what type of pro are you. We can’t all go from student to pro and have it mean the same thing. Some of us don’t get the same opportunities as other, and some just don’t have the belly scene that others do. It is hard to compare a pro from DC and San Diego to a pro from Podunk back town. This is what I propose. We label dancers that are dancing for pay in 3 ways.

(p.s. Im sorry if this is being discussed or has been already, it has just been on my mind and wanted to share my thoughts)

Local Pro- A dancers that has obviously struck out on her own, is making a decent amount of $ dancing in her town whether that town be D.C. or Podunk back woods. Their skill is good enough to entertain an audience, and keep a steady gig. Maybe she is an ok dancer maybe she is great, Possibly teaching classes, But you won’t see then touring anytime soon......

Super Pro Revised- A dancer who is all of the above but they have impeccable skill, they have the ability to dance for living because they are that good. Their schedule is full, they wear pro-couture costumes and are skillful in several different styles, props, have an impressive resume etc, Are teaching classes, touring the U.S. with workshops and shows, you see their flawless advertisements on bhuz, and in magazines like Zhagareet, they competed and placed in competitions, possible have an instructional DVD, or are featured in a major performance DVD, like Belly Dance O Rama or Temptations of Belly dance etc.....

International Pro- Dancers like Suhaila, DaVid, Jim Boz, Dondi, Jillina...........HIGH quality dancers, BIG NAMES and they are BIG because they are that good....... need I say more?


OK Have at it, What do you think?

I never thought about it in those terms, but I think that's a pretty good breakdown.

Thanks, I hope others agree........

It is an interesting breakdown, but I think there has to be a level between local pro and super pro. I know a lot of dancers who travel around the country to teach workshops and perform but still have a day job as well.

I tend to think that professional has to do with the quality of what you provide skill, knowledge, demeanor, and entertainment-wise. There are many professionals in the arts fields that have day jobs - it is pretty normal to be fairly accomplished as an artist and still have a job to help pay the bills.

Originally Posted by annwyn

they are dancing for a living because they are that good.

Sorry, but this is not a criteria for quality.
No matter how good I will ever be - I never WANT to live only from dancing.

First of all, it's not a secure income. Workshops get cancelled - yes, and it happens to really good dancers too for reasons nobody can explain.

Then I like to have a different career because I have other talents than dancing too :-) And it's a steady pay which I need because I like to travel a lot.

Thirdly I have refused to teach weekly classes so far (the bread and butter of the full time dancer) and will do so in the future because workshops are my preferred format of teaching. And yes, because I like to travel a lot

There are people out there who are not that phenomenal but have their own studio and no other job. Maybe because they are the only teachers in their area or whatever.

But I have heard similar statements like: "She's a teacher, so she must be good". - "Oh, she has her own studio, she must be good!"

MEISSOUN

Ok great these are good points so maybe I should revise the super pro to say something more like this

Super Pro - A dancer who is all of the above but they have impeccable skill, they have the ability to dance for a living because they are that good. (Their schedule is full, they wear pro-couture costumes and are skillful in several different styles, props, have an impressive resume etc, Are teaching classes, touring the U.S. with workshops and shows, you see their flawless advertisements on bhuz, and in magazines like Zhagareet, they competed and placed in competitions, possible have an instructional DVD, or are featured in a major performance DVD, like Belly Dance O Rama or Temptations of Belly dance etc.....

Can we have the:
Fo-Pro(Faux-Prof) who dances for a plate of pasta at the local Greek/Italian?Turkish?
She's usually the first to tell you she's a "pro" and you aren't 'cos you only dance at haflas..g.:

Originally Posted by annwyn

Ok great these are good points so maybe I should revise the super pro to say something more like this

Super Pro - A dancer who is all of the above but they have impeccable skill, they have the ability to dance for a living because they are that good. (Their schedule is full, they wear pro-couture costumes and are skillful in several different styles, props, have an impressive resume etc, Are teaching classes, touring the U.S. with workshops and shows, you see their flawless advertisements on bhuz, and in magazines like Zhagareet, they competed and placed in competitions, possible have an instructional DVD, or are featured in a major performance DVD, like Belly Dance O Rama or Temptations of Belly dance etc.....

Not sure - there are also some local pros who dance at that skill level, but have no interest in touring or teaching for a living, so it isn't so much the dance ability that determines it. There are also some major touring dancers who *can't* make a living from dance due to their home location or other reason. (For myself, no matter how wonderful of a dancer I ever become, I can't see giving up my day job entirely - I am an anthropologist/researcher and I wouldn't give that up to move to LA or NY or somewhere with a huge $$ flow availability.)

I think this is the difficulty with setting up levels within pro - b/c one person's local pro might easily be a super pro if they chose. There isn't always a skill difference between the three categories you mentioned. Sometimes it is a personal choice or marketing decision which moves us into motive.

Thinking about it, I usually think of dancers in a lot more categories when I need to describe their type of professional. At a minimum when someone asks me about a particular pro dancer, I will describe them as:

1. Performer (local, regional, national, international)
2. Instructor (local, regional, national, international)
3. Dance Style (Egyptian, Lebanese, Turkish, American Orientale, ATS, TF, etc.)

but I don't use these to describe their skill levels - just their type of professional focus.

Definitely an interesting topic. Thanks for posting!

Originally Posted by annwyn

Super Pro - A dancer who is all of the above but they have impeccable skill, they have the ability to dance for a living because they are that good. (Their schedule is full, they wear pro-couture costumes and are skillful in several different styles, props, have an impressive resume etc, Are teaching classes, touring the U.S. with workshops and shows, you see their flawless advertisements on bhuz, and in magazines like Zhagareet, they competed and placed in competitions, possible have an instructional DVD, or are featured in a major performance DVD, like Belly Dance O Rama or Temptations of Belly dance etc.....

I think winning competitions and putting out DVDs (or at least the ability to do so) are necessary but not sufficient conditions. There are too many dancers out there who have won trophies and who have DVDs on the market--but really shouldn't have--to make these criteria for one's pro status without qualifiers.

Competitions: Top-tier established performers often skip the competition circuit. (How many wins do Raqia Hassan and Morocco have?) Winning is also a matter of the quality and number of your competitors. Most contests only have one winner per category--no matter how good the field is--and, alas, sometimes judging bias can be a factor in choosing a winner. I'm not saying that competitions are fixed, only that if you had a large field of equivalently good dancers, a panel might prefer some styles over others, and a different group of judges might award the prizes differently. (There is enough variation in Middle Eastern dance that you can get into an "apples and oranges" situation between the various styles.) And what happens if, as a competitor, you luck into a small field? If they give three trophies in a category that only has five performers, Third Place may go to someone who would still be ranked third worst in a field of twelve.

DVDs: If you want to keep it in your criteria, I'd suggest that you at least find a way to indicate that there is some consensus of quality and respect associated with a dancer's DVD (content AND production values)! In this day, any bozo can make a DVD, and there are some pretty frightful ones out there, not to mention the fact that the market is heavily loaded with videos from dancers being pimped by Miles and the BD Superstars project (which, IMHO, only means they've met Miles' definition of what a "Super Pro" is, not that they're necessarily the best of the best).

Also, how about a category for "Top Local Pro," you know, for dancers who are better than the local teachers and restaurant dancers, who teach regional workshops, but haven't quite made (or are content not making) a national name for themselves? It seems like there are plenty of dancers who are better than "Local Pro" but not quite "Super Pro" quality.

Sniff- Fo-Pro(Faux-Prof) that means we acknowledge them.......

Top Local pro is a good category- I think that there needs to de definite disctinction between levels of pro other wise suzie nipple tassels and suhaila get put in the same category........

I personally will hold someone to a certain standard if they tell me they dance at local haflas, I'll hold them to a different standard if they tell me they dance at the local falafel house and teach classes, yet another standard if they're marketing themselves regionally for workshops, and a standard that's higher still if they're issuing DVDs and marketing themselves nationally/internationally on Bhuz and in national magazines.

Sure, someone could be meeting the highest standards and dancing only at haflas for personal reasons. But that constitutes an exception, not a need to revise the standards.

Originally Posted by Lauren_

Sure, someone could be meeting the highest standards and dancing only at haflas for personal reasons. But that constitutes an exception, not a need to revise the standards.

I totaly agree, which is why I mentioned that their skill be "good enough to entertain", " Win competitions" " dvd quality" "International quality"

I know that not every one will fit a category, but I really think that there needs to be some seperation, especially with all the talk about "pro" here on bhuz. A local pro could be suzie nipple tassels or some one that has amazing skill, but still where they are in their career is more where I am trying to make the seperation.

Right. Like I know local dancers who I consider 'international star' quality. And nationally famous DVD producers I think of as 'local instructor' quality. And of course, hobbyists who are good enough to be 'local pros'.

So...it's a measure of quality, not necessarily standing in the community.

We all get a certain image in our heads if I say 'She's good enough to tour and do DVDs' or 'She's really more of a good local restaurant dancer.' Has nothing to do with where someone's career stands, but how high-quality their work is.

Originally Posted by Lauren_

We all get a certain image in our heads if I say 'She's good enough to tour and do DVDs' or 'She's really more of a good local restaurant dancer.' Has nothing to do with where someone's career stands, but how high-quality their work is.

This is a good point also. It is hard to draw the line between these, though I do think it is very important, especially with students, they say WOW she is a PRO, but I dance just as good as her. This is why I think that the Local pro is a necessary category, so that is discourages students from going from student to thinking they are the next jillina over night........which ultimately is where we get the SNT.

"So...it's a measure of quality, not necessarily standing in the community."

It is also hard to meausre quality, who is the measurer? Every one has different standards, To get from local to super pro one would assume that your skill needs to be good enough to carry you through. Local pro includes both the SNT and the quality local pros. I know that isnt what every one wants to hear, but I think unfortunately they both fall in this category. I would also assume that only the quality dancers would rise from Local to super. The SNT would be stuck at Local Pro becuse of lack of skill.........but that doenst mean that all local dancers lack skill....

Originally Posted by Lauren_

Right. Like I know local dancers who I consider 'international star' quality. And nationally famous DVD producers I think of as 'local instructor' quality. And of course, hobbyists who are good enough to be 'local pros'.

So...it's a measure of quality, not necessarily standing in the community.

Yeah, some of the measures of 'success' in a category don't fit so well in Australia. Very few of our dancers have their own websites, unless they also have a dance school, and even fewer bother to put out DVDs. There are a few dancers that teach in interstate festivals, but it's rarely the case that a dancer goes on a Jillina-style workshop tour across the country.

So here, it's possible to have a dancer whose skills and stage presence are as good as a BDSS (a good one!), but who doesn't have a website, DVD or teach interstate more than a few times a year.

But within the 'local pro' category, which perhaps most of our dancers would fall, there's definitely a well clear distinction between those dancers everyone acknowledges are fabulous, those that are next-level-down good, and those that are ameteurish.

Having said that, I think it's entirely valid that there are different 'levels' and requirements of pro dancers. What passes muster entertaining the GP at a party wouldn't necessarily be sufficient to wow a discerning bellydance audience.

or how about a dancer that says "I am muy professional" but she cannot break down the 3/4 shimmy, and even cannot perform it. I met this girl at a workshop. I was blown away...

Originally Posted by lizajuk

Can we have the:
Fo-Pro(Faux-Prof) who dances for a plate of pasta at the local Greek/Italian?Turkish?
She's usually the first to tell you she's a "pro" and you aren't 'cos you only dance at haflas..g.:

I always looked at as you do with any other celebrity named as a pro. If you can perform at a rate where your sole income is funded by your talent, then you are a pro regardless of how good you may be. Dance as with any other field has those who are highly demanded and those who aren't. Think of it as Marilyn Monroe-many believe she didn't possess any talent, yet she succeeded very well in the entertainment industry. Would you say Barry White wasn't a professional singer because he couldn't hit a high note? For the most part it's a matter of personal opinion I have seen highly demanded professionals who's performances I've seen and failed to understand why they were so highly demanded.

I know this has already been said, and has very little to do with the categories, but by these descriptions I know a few "Local Pros" who in my opinion are as good as and occasionally better dancers than a few of the "International Pros".

I just hope we don't get too caught up in these categories and labels to appreciate quality wherever we find it.

Funny; I've been thinking in terms of "local pro" and "big name" lately too!

I think the distinction between local pros and big names is that they are selling to different markets. The two categories certainly have different minimum requirements, but I think that's just a function of what those markets want from the dancer.

A local pro is selling to the general public. They, ultimately, want to be entertained. So a local pro's most important qualifications are strong performance skills and good, but not necessarily remarkable, technique.

A big name is primarily marketing to other dancers. What their market wants is to become a great dancer too. So your most important qualification is being impressive to other dancers in some way: stellar technique, great musicality, "ethnic correctness", innovative style, prop mastery, whatever.

(That's not to say that we don't also enjoy watching big names, but, while that may be what makes us fans, it's not what we pay them for most often. We pay them for the videos, workshops, etc. that teach us to be like them.)


And those just set the *minimum* standards; they don't indicate an individual dancer's skill level. There are certainly local dancers that I think are incredible (some of the ladies here in Boston continue to astound me), and big names who impress me, but don't make me swoon.