LA vs NY Hustle
Tom Robertson
Dave <sewwe...@cyberus.ca> wrote:
>Can someone tell me the characteristic differences between the two (LA and
>NY)? Which one is generally accepted in C/W dance? What C/W music would
>be suitable for dancing hustle? Any other words of wisdom would be
>appreciated.
Basically, what you need to know is NY hustle **rules**, and should be
learned by everybody! :)
From my experience (particularly limited on the LA side), there can be
technical and stylistic differences between what's called "NY" and "LA"
hustle. (I'm sure everybody in LA doesn't dance hustle the same way, any
more than everybody dances the same in NY.) However, if you want to learn
hustle for C/W or any other venue, you can learn it from a good teacher no
matter what their style, LA, NY, Detroit, or whatever. It can be helpful to
learn from teachers used by hustlers in your area, so you can be learning
some of the same things together. Here in the Boston area the country
teachers I know of teach NY style hustle. At Hustle USA people from all
parts of the country successfully dance together; it's all basically
3-count hustle with hopefully good lead-follow technique.
As far as differences: the characteristic that most distinguishes NY hustle
for me is long lines -- the follower doing smooth, powerful, flowing moves
(punctuated by rapid turns at the ends of the slot) with typically extended
arm styling. (Although from they're from California, Deborah Hampton and
David Sarul's instructional tape is a good example; you would also see good
examples on the Hustle USA tapes.) The leader can be relatively stationary
in the center of the slot, or the leader can be continuously moving the
slot around the floor. The best leaders are able to lead followers in these
flowing moves, and dance themselves impressively. All this is, of course,
space permitting; anyone who dances hustle in NY also knows how to dance
compactly.
I think LA style emphasizes more compact, complex moves. I think these
dancers are less interested in traveling, and they focus more on
impressive wraps and turns. This is also characteristic of Barry Douglas's
Detroit Hustle. We've also discussed in this forum a difference in timing
of the lead between LA and NY style, and that around LA you might be more
likely to have people counting 12&3 (also Barry's count) versus in NY,
&123.
Tom Robertson
Mike Corbett
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:33:47 -0500, Tom Robertson <trob...@aaec.com>
wrote:
>Dave <sewwe...@cyberus.ca> wrote:
>
>>Can someone tell me the characteristic differences between the two (LA and
>>NY)? Which one is generally accepted in C/W dance? What C/W music would
>>be suitable for dancing hustle? Any other words of wisdom would be
>>appreciated.
>
>Basically, what you need to know is NY hustle **rules**, and should be
>learned by everybody! :)
>snip
> At Hustle USA people from all
>parts of the country successfully dance together; it's all basically
>3-count hustle with hopefully good lead-follow technique.
Excellent point.
> We've also discussed in this forum a difference in timing
>of the lead between LA and NY style, and that around LA you might be more
>likely to have people counting 12&3 (also Barry's count) versus in NY,
>&123.
>
>Tom Robertson
As indicated by the fact that people from all over the country or
North America, for that matter can successfully dance hustle together
at Hustle USA or anywhere else, it's clear that regardless of the
style or method of counting, hustle is basically a three count dance
that can be done successfully by any to hustlers with good lead-follow
technique.
Although Hustle is a common social dance at many C/W events today, it
is neither a C/W competition dance or C/W in any other way. The C/W
instructor's knowledge of the dance and instruction methods originate
with Hustle instructors, not with anything C/W in nature.
Any widely respected Hustle instructor in your area can teach the
dance so that a competent dancer can learn to Hustle with any other
competent dancer. No need to worry about what is "generally accepted"
by the C/W crowd, in my experience.
Mike Corbett - Sunnyvale
r...@nicholson.com
>Dave <sewwe...@cyberus.ca> allegedly wrote:
>>Can someone tell me the characteristic differences between the two
>>Any other words of wisdom would be appreciated.
(From my observations of having danced Hustle in LA and NYC only a
few times apiece ...)
Most all Hustle dancers from all parts of the country can dance with each
other, whatever their style and whatever they happen to have learned as
the "count" (but most NYC instructors that I've met count Hustle "&123".)
There do seem to be slight stylistic differences between the better LA
and NYC Hustle dancers, but these differences seem far less than the
typical differences between the intermediate and the good Hustle
dancers from any one area.
LA Hustle seems to be more strongly influenced by WCS and swustle.
A higher percentage of LA area followers tend to anchor their Hustle
coaster ("3&1"), which, to my eye, makes their Hustle look smaller or
lagged. I hear more fast temp 90's techno music at California Hustle
dances.
I've heard more slower tempo 80's style disco music at NYC Hustle
dances than in CA. I think the slower music encourages the NYC
followers to spend more time extending lines and playing with the
music. I've seen slightly more vertical arm styling among NYC Hustle
followers (arm straight up and locked when not spinning). Fewer NYC
Hustle dancers seem to dance in a strict slot.
One style that I've seem almost only among a few better NYC style
dancers is a spiked middle coaster step. The "&" step of the "3&1" is
taken with a definite vertical component, like a fast heel pound in
step-dancing. Sometimes this is followed by a forward kick on the "1",
but many good dancers from other areas do this also.
I let go of one NYC pro and she danced in circles (actually a rotating
slot) around me until I could figure out how to pick her back up.
As for Hustle danced at C/W events, my experience is limited to seeing
this in Northern California, where it seems mostly the same as regular
California Hustle, and very influenced by the WCS instructors.
Just my random observations...
--
Ron Nicholson r...@nicholson.com http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/
#include <canonical.disclaimer> // only my own opinions, etc.
Victor Eijkhout
Tom Robertson <trob...@aaec.com> writes:
> Basically, what you need to know is NY hustle **rules**, and should be
> learned by everybody! :)
Hee. Dream on.
> 3-count hustle with hopefully good lead-follow technique.
One would hope so.
However, there is a fundamental difference in lead timing between
NY and LA hustle. I can only do crtain NY moves by applying LA
lead technique.
In a nutshell: NY tells you to lead on 2. Strange, because
they do a lot of moves where on 2 there is no contact, or
where the follower is turning on 2. Leading in the middle of
a turn is a bad idea.
Maybe that's why LA hustle has more complicated turns: it leads
during the setup for the turn. I would appreciate a good explantion
of why you would lead on 2 (in the &123 timing).
> space permitting; anyone who dances hustle in NY also knows how to dance
> compactly.
If you put it so categorically:
Tell that to my partner who was punched in the face so badly that
we basically had to cut the evening short. And this was at a hustle dance
in New York city. But bad arm styling reigns on both coasts.
I'm not sure where the misconception that in hustle you have to
stick out your arms comes from. I've heard such diverse
teachers as Melanie Roberts and the Ariases explain that you
trail the arm, not stick it out.
--
Victor Eijkhout
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way
to factor large prime numbers." -- Bill Gates from "The Road Ahead," p. 265.
Charles Koeppen
Victor Eijkhout wrote:
>In a nutshell: NY tells you to lead on 2. Strange, because
>they do a lot of moves where on 2 there is no contact, or
>where the follower is turning on 2. Leading in the middle of
>a turn is a bad idea.
The lead actually starts on the & before the 2, I've noticed that
many people call this leading on 2. And it works fine for
a follower's left 1 1/2 turn, which is common in both NY and LA
hustle.
>Maybe that's why LA hustle has more complicated turns: it leads
>during the setup for the turn. I would appreciate a good explantion
>of why you would lead on 2 (in the &123 timing).
The reason for leading on the 2 is because you want to allow the
follower to do her check-step. You lead when that's done. As far as
the more complicated turns in LA hustle, I haven't seen them as being
more complicated at the intermediate level and there they're almost always
just another variant of a follower's 1 1/2 left turn. At advanced levels
NY hustle turns get complicated too. There's more personalization at
advanced levels and a particular teacher will have his or her own
signature moves so there are different moves being taught between the
two different styles, but I'm reluctant to believe that one style has
more complicated turns.
Now, can you explain why you think it's better to lead the next
figure before the last one ends, which is what you are doing if
you lead before the 2 of a &123 count but are using the popular LA 12&3
count?
>But bad arm styling reigns on both coasts. I'm not sure where the
>misconception that in hustle you have to stick out your arms comes from.
I think we can blame this on John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever.
And Hideehole wrote:
>The NY style hustle is generally more free flowing (traveling in any direction
>across the floor),
Most of the well-known NY teachers are teaching it slotted now. I have
noticed that a lot of people don't try to maintain a slot though, so
it's easy to get this impression if you watch dancers who learned before
the trend of teaching it slotted.
>danced to slower music (allowing for more syncopations),
Maybe the music is slower, I haven't danced enough on the West coast to
say whether this is true. But syncopations?! No way, at least not in and
around NYC.
>and the NY style allows the man to do "more dancing" (turns, etc.).
I'm not sure this is true, the few moves I know that have the leader
turning came from both LA and NY style teachers.
>To me, when I watch the two styles, the LA style remindes me of Swing,
>and the NY style remindes me more of Waltz.
I think the waltz look would be the result of not clearly distinguishing
the beginning and end of figures. Or maybe because of less advanced
dancers feeling the pulse of their 3 beat count rather than the
groupings of 2 in the music. The former would be an interpretive thing
that I know is sometimes looked down upon, and the latter is just not
the best dancing. Neither is unique to NY hustle.
Charlie
Richard Parker
>in New York city. But bad arm styling reigns on both coasts.
>I'm not sure where the misconception that in hustle you have to
>stick out your arms comes from. I've heard such diverse
>teachers as Melanie Roberts and the Ariases explain that you
>trail the arm, not stick it out.
I think I understand how a woman trails her arm, that is as your body
leaves a space on the dance floor your arm can extend into that space
and not likely hit anyone. What about for the men, do they match her
arm position and timing?
Rich Parker
Victor Eijkhout
Charles Koeppen <ckoe...@vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> The lead actually starts on the & before the 2, I've noticed that
> many people call this leading on 2.
Take a workshop from Jamie Arias, and hear his mantra "1 connect 2
lead 3". In a way he may be leading before the 1, in your terms :-)
> The reason for leading on the 2 is because you want to allow the
> follower to do her check-step.
A woman is not a wooden stick. You can increase tension while
she actually holds back and does that syncopation. Just like
in swing, where you lead on & before 1, but the follower
can still do a hesitation, and replace 12 by (hold1)&2.
> the more complicated turns in LA hustle, I haven't seen them as being
> more complicated at the intermediate level and there they're almost always
> just another variant of a follower's 1 1/2 left turn.
I have the hardest time getting NY followers into a 2 1/2 left turn.
They all "know" that move doesn't exist, so they break contact
or stop themselves after 1 1/2.
> Now, can you explain why you think it's better to lead the next
> figure before the last one ends, which is what you are doing if
> you lead before the 2 of a &123 count but are using the popular LA 12&3
> count?
The other day I was following hustle with a leader who was leading
on 2. It's exhausting, because the follower has to propel themself
much more than if you would actually get a lead on that left foot
forward step. I think I get the follower to do much longer lines
when leading on (my) 3 and letting her float through the rest
of the pattern, then letting her stand still on that beat and
getting all the action out of the lead on (my) 1.
--
Victor Eijkhout
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way
to factor large prime numbers." -- Bill Gates from "The Road Ahead," p. 265.
a
Charles Koeppen
Getting back to one of the original questions of the person who started
this thread: "what kind of hustle are the CW people doing?", I notice
that in Bob Bahr's video he's wearing boots and jeans, looking kind of CW
(but without the hat), and says it was taped at the dance ranch in MO. I only
have the intermediate and advanced tape so I don't know what style of hustle
he may have said it was on the beginning tape, but his partner seems to be
using coaster-steps infrequently, sometimes he's stopping the patterns
after the check-step but almost always starts them on the check-step,
and he uses both the &123 and 12&3 counts plus a quick-quick-slow-slow
timing mnemonic. So it looks to me as though either the CW people are
blending the two styles or that Bob Bahr's is just making the tape more
suited to people with diverse backgrounds. I purchased my copies because
Angel Figueroa (a NYC teacher) was promoting them and using moves from
them in some of his workshops. Yet there seems to be a distinctive CW
look in Bob Bahr's movement. Considering everything, I'm pretty much
convinced that the bulk of the difference in the styles (LA, NYC, and
maybe CW) is much more subtle than any particular moves or coaster vs.
rock-step.
Charlie
BDorin18
A response by David Sarul (one of the co-sponsers of Hustle USA Dance
Championships, Inc.) to Ron Nicholson's question.
It is ever so apparant the East Coast style of Hustle has progressed in the
'90's using different elements of circular, slotted, traveling, diagonal,
rotational, mirror-image, closed and open, visual lead and follow, floor dance
technique. This style of Hustle, primarily done throughout the East Coast, is
now infiltrating the West Coast Hustle which previously had been a slotted,
rotational, traveling dance.
In regards to the timing aspects of "&1,2,3" this gives Hustle more of a Latin
rythmic style, and more syncopations in the lead and and followers footsteps.
The "1,2, &3" influence gives it more of a West Coast Swing style and
technique.
Many of the East Coast elements are starting to be taught in the LA and Orange
County area by my wife, Debra Hampton, and myself.
If you're interested in a brief article about the evolution of Hustle,from
The Hustle Newsletter (issue February 29, 1995), you're welcome to contact me
and leave a message at 1-800-924-8785 (Hustle USA Dance Championships, Inc.)
Ron Nicholson
bdor...@aol.com (BDorin18) allegedly wrote:
> A response by David Sarul (one of the co-sponsers of
> Hustle USA Dance Championships, Inc.) to Ron Nicholson's question.
Well, it wasn't my question.
I believe the original question was:
==
="Linda Corke" <sewwe...@cyberus.ca> wrote:
=> Can someone tell me the characteristic differences between the
=> two (LA and NY)? Which one is generally accepted in C/W dance?
=> ...
=> Dave
==
So, it might have been from someone named Dave or Linda (or both!)
BDorin18 (quoting Davie Sarul) further adds:
> In regards to the timing aspects of "&1,2,3" this gives Hustle
> more of a Latin rythmic style,
> and more syncopations in the lead and and followers footsteps.
> The "1,2, &3" influence gives it more of a West Coast Swing
> style and technique.
Out in California, it does seem to be mostly the WCS instructors
who are pushing the 12&3 or 12&345&6 count. Most of the ballroom
latin competitor/coaches (that I've met) teach Hustle using the
&123 count. Wonder whether the style difference comes from
the count, or (more likely) who's teaching the dance.
My opinion is that the &123 count allows body accents both on
and off the meter accent, which allows more freedom of
interpretation than just strict duple meter syncopations.
Ron Nicholson
Prone2xs <pron...@aol.com> allegedly wrote:
>I hate to tell you but it doesn't make any difference how you count
>the dance, it's the same thing. It's like counting 2 step Slow, Slow,
>Quick, Quick vs. Quick, Quick, Slow, Slow vs. 1,2,3, Slow. It's all
>the same thing....
Interesting. If the above hypothesis is correct then it shouldn't make
any difference to teach beginning CW2S counted like hustle e.g. "3&1_2_"
instead of QQSS. Anyone believe that many experienced CW dance
instructors would agree with this?
--
James Marshall
In article <6ct6t2$q0n$1...@murrow.corp.sgi.com> r...@waltz.mti.sgi.com (Ron Nicholson) writes:
>Prone2xs <pron...@aol.com> allegedly wrote:
>>I hate to tell you but it doesn't make any difference how you count
>>the dance, it's the same thing. It's like counting 2 step Slow, Slow,
>>Quick, Quick vs. Quick, Quick, Slow, Slow vs. 1,2,3, Slow. It's all
>>the same thing....
>Interesting. If the above hypothesis is correct then it shouldn't make
>any difference to teach beginning CW2S counted like hustle e.g. "3&1_2_"
>instead of QQSS. Anyone believe that many experienced CW dance
>instructors would agree with this?
Well, I don't know about 2 Step and don't know much about hustle for that
matter either. But, this is a comment/question that I've been kind of
wondering about. It seems to me that different counts could actually end
up with different patterns of quick and slow steps. I'm guessing that with
either count, the step forward (on LF for man) is the 1 beat. OK, well,
unless I'm mistaken then, in a 12&3 count, the LF forward is slow, RF back is
quick, LF back / rock step is quick, RF forward is slow. If the rock step
is considered the last two steps (LF back and RF forward), then you have one
step as quick and one step as slow. If counting as &123 (which is really
like 123& since the count is repeated, thus splitting the third beat of the
count), then the LF step forward on one is slow, RF back is slow, LF back /
rock step is quick, RF forward is quick. Taking the rocks step as the last
two steps of the count, they are now both quick steps. So, it looks to me
like the 12&3 count is actually different from the &123/123& count. Does
this make sense or am I completely off base here?
--
. . . . -- James Marshall (CAS) . .
,. -- )-- , , . -- )-- , mars...@astro.umd.edu ., .
' ' http://www.astro.umd.edu/~marshall
"Equations are living things." .
Mike Corbett
On 24 Feb 1998 16:25:56 GMT, mars...@astro.umd.edu (James Marshall)
wrote:
I don't know about *completely* off base, but I would suggest thinking
of it this way. The basic hustle pattern consists of 4 weight changes
that take place in the time span of three beats of 4/4 (4 beats per
measure) music. Therefore, the weight changes equate to 2 eighth
notes and two quarter notes.
Regardless of the words you use while counting, two things do not
change. First, the eighth and quarter note weight changes are placed
in the same spot in the dance pattern. Second, the count of 1 does
not consistently equate to the first beat of a measure of music. It
can't. Assuming the first 1 you count using either counting method is
actually a 1 in the music, regardless of where you start the count or
dance, the next beat of music that comes after the 3 is a 4. The
process of dancing a 3 count pattern to 4/4 time signature music is
called "dancing across" the music.
When dancing hustle basic 3 beat patterns or 6 beat, if you will, we
simply repeat the two quarter notes and two eighth notes until we
either change the pattern intentionally or the music stops.
The numbers you count or words you use to "voice cue" or mentally
denote a weight change only effect the look and feel of the dance to
the extent that we each mentally allow them to. There is great
variation in how many dancers allow this mental attachment to a
counting method to effect their dance. I am neither expressing
approval or disapproval of that. I'm simply stating that I find it
unnecessary.
If the instructor properly teaches the student what to do with each
eighth and quarter note weight change, there is no difference in the
result.
The purpose or justification for counting to six instead of four is to
acknowledge that only half the repeating patterns begin on a down-beat
(the 1 or 3 beat in each measure of music). It takes six beats to get
back to stepping for 1 on a downbeat. Most good hustle music puts
sufficient emphasis on each beat of music that for social dancing, I
personally find no real benefit in counting to 6 but I see no harm
either.
When I dance hustle socially, I tend to begin my pattern as if
counting 1,2&3. When I know my partner is likely to be more familiar
with beginning with the eighth note weight change instead of the
quarter note, I'll go ahead and start that way. It makes no
difference to me. Once I'm started I'm just using the quarter and
eighth note weight changes repetitively. My leads occur at the same
point in time relative to the actual repetitive weight changes.
The subject of "hustle count" was beat to death at least twice in
1997. Refer to Deja News and query rec.arts.dance on subject of
"Hustle" "Hustle count" or "counting Hustle" if you have a strong
constitution.
Mike Corbett - Sunnyvale
Ron Nicholson
Prone2xs <pron...@aol.com> wrote:
> [r...@sgi.com wrote:]
>>Interesting. If the above hypothesis is correct then it shouldn't make
>>any difference to teach beginning CW2S counted like hustle e.g. "3&1_2_"
>>instead of QQSS. Anyone believe that many experienced CW dance
>>instructors would agree with this?
>
I wasn't talking about counting Hustle like CW2S.
I was talking about counting CW2S like Hustle.
You have a problem with that? [rhetorical question] If so, why?
Victor Eijkhout
mars...@astro.umd.edu (James Marshall) writes:
> unless I'm mistaken then, in a 12&3 count, the LF forward is slow, RF back is
> quick, LF back / rock step is quick, RF forward is slow.
Et cetera. I'll take your word for it.
> If counting as &123 (which is really
> like 123& since the count is repeated, thus splitting the third beat of the
> count), then the LF step forward on one is slow,
Woa Nellie!
In &123 you step LF on &, and *RF* on 1.
To translate between 12&3 and &123 you have to count 23&1 or &312
to get the same rhythm but in the other count. As I told someone
a few days ago: "Just start with &112&3" :-)
Mike Corbett
On 24 Feb 1998 19:22:39 GMT, r...@waltz.mti.sgi.com (Ron Nicholson)
wrote:
>Prone2xs <pron...@aol.com> wrote:
>> [r...@sgi.com wrote:]
>>>Interesting. If the above hypothesis is correct then it shouldn't make
>>>any difference to teach beginning CW2S counted like hustle e.g. "3&1_2_"
>>>instead of QQSS. Anyone believe that many experienced CW dance
>>>instructors would agree with this?
>>
>>What are you talking about? I didn't say you count hustle like 2-step.
>
>I wasn't talking about counting Hustle like CW2S.
>I was talking about counting CW2S like Hustle.
>
>You have a problem with that? [rhetorical question] If so, why?
Not directed to me, however, we've gone round and round on this too.
CW 2Step is danced to 6 beats of 4/4 music, not 3, unless one
intentionally dances 2 Step "double time" or in 3 beats.
To count 2 Step 1&2,3 whiled dancing to 6 beats of music is to count
attach the 1/4, 1/4, 1/2, 1/2, (as in notes) weight changes to a
combination of eighths and quarters instead.
To count Hustle &1,2,3 vs 1,2&3 maintains the correct timing of the
weight change relative to the musical note value. In the hustle
example you deal with preference and perception issues, whereas in
your two step example (exception noted) you deal with correct vs
incorrect count relative to the music.
A more relevant comparison was the original. Counting 1,2,3, Slow or
QQSS or 1,2,3 ,5 or SSQQ all work fine for 2 Step. (provided that if
you use SSQQ as the count that one understands the basic accents and
pattern ends belong on the second slow.) Compared to counting Hustle
&1,2,3 or 1,2&3 both work fine provided one understands the proper
placement of the basic accents within the pattern.
Either 2 Step count or either Hustle count uses the proper number of
beats and the proper number of quicks and slows. With accents
properly placed within the pattern the counting methods *within* each
dance are functionally interchangeable. Interchanging the counting
method between the two dances is not functional because it
acknowledges an incorrect number of musical beats.
IMHO, voice cues and counting for dance are which match the musical
timing are more useful than those that ignore it. The negative effect
of counting 2 Step 1&2,3, when dancing to six beats of music is to
give the dancer an incorrect perception of the relationship between
the dance and the music. It does not prevent the beginner from
dancing properly but makes progress related to musical connection more
difficult.
Mike Corbett - Sunnyvale
Victor Eijkhout
Woops. Missed this one the first time around.
rdpa...@earthlink.net (Richard Parker) writes:
> I think I understand how a woman trails her arm, that is as your body
> leaves a space on the dance floor your arm can extend into that space
> and not likely hit anyone. What about for the men, do they match her
> arm position and timing?
Well, since the guy doesn't move much he obviously can't trail.
The bit of arm styling that I learned was explained to me as being
an extension, in the sense of 'extrapolation', of your body motion
during the pattern. As you go through the pattern, your torso
does a sort of miniature body roll (someone posted about this
some months ago. Don't remember who) that ends -- naturally --
at the end of the pattern -- which is on beat 1 if you count
the wrong way :-) Anyway, you can let the end of this body
motion continue through your arm motion.
That does mean that you stick your arm in space where there was
nothing before, so be careful.
cauce....@vo.cnchost.com
See ye here, corb...@concentric.net (Mike Corbett) crafted the following words:
>On 24 Feb 1998 19:22:39 GMT, r...@waltz.mti.sgi.com (Ron Nicholson)
>wrote:
>
>>Prone2xs <pron...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> [r...@sgi.com wrote:]
>>>>Interesting. If the above hypothesis is correct then it shouldn't make
>>>>any difference to teach beginning CW2S counted like hustle e.g. "3&1_2_"
>>>>instead of QQSS. Anyone believe that many experienced CW dance
>>>>instructors would agree with this?
>>>
>>>What are you talking about? I didn't say you count hustle like 2-step.
>>
>>I wasn't talking about counting Hustle like CW2S.
>>I was talking about counting CW2S like Hustle.
>>
>>You have a problem with that? [rhetorical question] If so, why?
>
>Not directed to me, however, we've gone round and round on this too.
>CW 2Step is danced to 6 beats of 4/4 music, not 3, unless one
>intentionally dances 2 Step "double time" or in 3 beats.
>
There is no functional difference (and we've hashed this out before too).
The music goes Boom Bah Boom Bah Boom Bah Boom Bah. Is that 2 measures of 4
quarter notes each or one measure of 8 eighth notes each? Unless you see the
sheet music you can't know so it doesn't matter.
What if it's Boom ana Bah ana Boom ana Bah ana Boom ana Bah ana Boom ana Bah
ana? Are these now different notes?
What matters is that both dances have 2 steps that are "quick" and danced twice
as fast as the slower steps that are "slow" and take 2 "beats" which are 2
quarter notes or 2 eighth notes or 2 sixteenth notes... The notations and the
number of beats is an arbitrary way of breaking up lots of notes into smaller
segments that are easier to read when playing.
Just because a "slow" step in hustle is far faster than a "slow" step in
two-step doesn't mean that the hustle step *necessarily* takes less of a measure
by only taking a single quarter note compared to 2 quarter notes for the
two-step slow step, the musical notation is unknown when you are dancing...
jc (being pedantic today)
All email sent to the address used for this post is deleted unread
(although headers may be used in my spam filters). To reach my real
email box, send to personal@ at the above domain.
Victor Eijkhout
cauce....@vo.cnchost.com writes:
> Just because a "slow" step in hustle is far faster than a "slow" step in
> two-step
Not "far" faster. A slow in hustle (supposing you count hustle qqss
or something like that) is 1 beat @ 120bpm is .5 second (note the dimension
of this number: it's independent of the definition of beat!)
A slow in two-step is 2 beats @ 180bpm is .67 second.
I found the other day that I use 4 different steps in hustle:
1 & 1/2 beat (normal) 2 beats (sometimes) 1/4 beat (rarely).
> jc (being pedantic today)
Victor (doing timing runs today)
Ernest Wheeler
Read Skippy Blair article in Coutry Calendar this month on how to count
hustle.
Great article.
Ernie.
Ron Nicholson wrote:
>
> Prone2xs <pron...@aol.com> wrote:
> > [r...@sgi.com wrote:]
> >>Interesting. If the above hypothesis is correct then it shouldn't make
> >>any difference to teach beginning CW2S counted like hustle e.g. "3&1_2_"
> >>instead of QQSS. Anyone believe that many experienced CW dance
> >>instructors would agree with this?
> >
> >What are you talking about? I didn't say you count hustle like 2-step.
>
> I wasn't talking about counting Hustle like CW2S.
> I was talking about counting CW2S like Hustle.
>
> You have a problem with that? [rhetorical question] If so, why?
>