Meditatin’ is a series for small random thoughts about swing dancing.

Note: This piece discusses swing dancing from the point of view of the swing dance artist, not the swing dance hobbyist. Meaning, there are many people who have a recreational love of swing dance, and do not desire necessarily to grow and develop an individual voice as much as play with physics and enjoy the simple pleasure of social dancing with people. I deeply appreciate these dancers and their right to dance for the simple joy of it (they also help pay my rent, so there are several different levels on which I love and respect them). This essay, however, is mainly geared towards those who wish to express themselves artistically through swing dance.

Jazz & The Academy

I recently met a woman who had learned to play a classical piano piece just by listening to it over and over again, without ever having learned anything else about piano. She impressed a piano teacher one time by playing the piece beautifully — but what really impressed the teacher was how she was able to do so with such an inefficient fingering method.

In his book Jazz: The American Theme Song, James Lincoln Collier discusses how the academy affected individuality in jazz music. At the beginning of the jazz era, musicians were self-taught, and from that emerged a great variety of individual voices. For instance, take Louis Armstrong: “Pops” had a little formal musical education growing up, but he learned almost everything else he knew about the trumpet and cornet by himself and by talking to others, most of whom had learned via the same methods. To reach his skill levels took a great deal of practice, play, and listening — listening for what sounds worked and what sounds didn’t. Now, Armstrong, the greatest single influence on jazz music, actually had bad embouchure — well, perhaps it’s more appropriate to say he had an embouchure that was unhealthy for his mouth. The force with which he played led to a lot of lip troubles, and it’s even suspected that as time went on, he sang a lot more because it was too painful for him to play trumpet (as discussed in Jazz: The American Theme Song).

Most jazz musicians were like Pops in that they would try really hard to come up with an individual sound, an individual voice. (I, like most of them, believe it is even integral to jazz that a great musician have an individual voice.) And, like Armstrong, many of the original jazz musicians learned to play without a lot of training, so they employed a wide variety of techniques and methods. Those techniques and methods helped shape their individual voices, because some techniques led to certain ways of playing, and others led to other ways. However, since many of those players were reinventing embouchure and fingering, it’s understandable that what might have worked in the short term was not well suited to decades of daily practice and playing. To some extent a lot of practice will help smooth over roughness and make actions more efficient, but on the other hand, practicing doesn’t make perfect; it makes permanent. And if, say, your method of playing a high F involves a lot of force and more tension than required, then it’s only a matter of time before you’re going to wear out your lips.

Over time, however, the academy has changed the way jazz works: As Collier describes, most in the modern era learn jazz in a conservatory or through training — where they teach the healthiest embouchure, the best fingering, and where students study jazz scales and how the music works to a very wide extent. Then there comes a point where teachers try to get their students to improvise, to foster an individual voice. The problem is, these attempts at individuality don’t sound very different from one another — not nearly as different as the great swing tenors or other instrumentalists sounded different from one another during the time in jazz when there were no conservatories. Because students of the modern era have all learned the same approach, they aren’t going to sound very different until one of them goes away and spends some time alone long enough to try an approach that isn’t taught. Or unless one of them is lucky enough to bend their horn accidentally in a way that produces a different sound. (Dizzy Gillespie’s trumpet was accidentally bent at a party. He really liked the sound of it, though, and decided to have his future trumpets made with that bend. However, it was only one part of his individual sound; the rest was all his hard work alone.)

Anyway, by giving modern students the best embouchure, giving them the best fingering, and opening the world of jazz music theory to them, educators have given modern jazz musicians the gift of having sorted through all the bad and unhealthy embouchures, fingerings, and theories in favor of those that allow players the maximum freedom and ability to play well. These students should technically be able to play their instruments for most of their lives happily and without injury. Ironically, though, even the most wide-open-to-interpretation choice has limits, because it cuts out all the other possibilities that come from less healthy embouchure or strange fingerings. Though this thought goes a lot further than we have room for here, the limitations of the other methods are an integral part of their individuality.

Jazz Dance & The Classroom

You can easily see the parallels to swing dancing. First off, I believe just as individuality is integral to the great jazz musician’s voice, so is individuality to the great jazz dance artist’s voice, including Lindy Hop and Bal-Swing — anything danced to jazz music should have that same individual spirit. This opinion is already shared by the scene as a whole, I believe. Our favorite original dancers — Frankie Manning, Jewel McGowan, Al Minns, Leon James, Jean Veloz, Dean Collins, Hal Takier, Irene Thomas — all have very strong individual voices. I believe most of the original dancers prized individuality as well. Original Southern California Lindy Hopper and Bal-Swing dancer Anne Mills, for instance, said that she thought all the dancers in her youth who tried to dance like Dean & Jewel as a path to greatness were missing the point of what it meant to be great.

So, to get some examples of individuality from the original swing era, look at the differences in dancing between the Whitey’s Lindy Hoppers and Shorty George and Big Bea. Both of these dance styles were on the same ballroom floor at the same time. Or, look at 1938′s Venice Beach clip and see the vast difference between the dancing of Jack Helwig (the guy in white) and Hal Takier (the guy in white top and black pants).

On the modern dance floor, you don’t see dancers this refined in their movement that look this different from one another. That’s because modern dancers get to an advanced level by learning in classes and watching YouTube videos of other dancers, almost all of whom have learned their technique in classes. Though many teachers may appear to have different technique philosophies and principles at work, most of them are pretty similar when compared to the kind of techniques that aren’t taught in classes, or the obviously strange techniques that a lot of dancers did in the old movies. The result: Individual voices today don’t look as different from each other as those of the original dancers did.

But, most of these modern techniques were chosen and are taught for a good reason: they work well and allow dancers to do a lot of cool things with them. (I want to note here as well that some teachers, like Kate and me and possibly many others, try to really impress upon students the joy and empowerment that comes with individualism. But more on that later.)

What Does It Mean For Us?

So, anyway, on the surface it looks like we in jazz dance have a pretty similar situation to what they have in jazz music. However, I think there are some benefits to this evolution for our scene that may not be evident unless you look closely for them.

First off, is this lack of really different voices in jazz dancing a big enough problem we should worry about it or try to dramatically change it? Sure, we’re missing out on some inspirational voices coming from new, exciting, different techniques. However, at the same time, because of our shared techniques, we can dance with almost anyone in our scene, in our country, and even across the world who has learned Lindy Hop in the classroom. And, we can do some pretty amazing stuff in those social dancing Jack-and-Jills. So, perhaps, if we’ve lost any inspiration from seeing a lot of different styles on the dance floor, we’ve gained quite a lot in the amount of inspiration we can get from the large amount of social dancing partners, and how much we can create with those partners.

We know for a fact the original dancers had a much harder time of it; Southern California Lindy Hopper Irene Thomas had big problems dancing with the New York leaders. Hal Takier couldn’t really dance his desired individual style with anyone but his partners (and even that was after had had taught it to them). With others, he danced a much-less-Hal version of Lindy and Bal. As my editor Chelsea put it when she was reading this draft, “There are trade-offs that come with any choice, whether that be individuality at the potential cost of efficiency (and perhaps longevity, like Louis Armstrong at the trumpet) or adherence to common standards at the potential cost of having a hyper-distinct individual voice. So it becomes not a matter of making the right choice but more one of making the right choice to align with your personal values as a dancer.” (It was an editor’s note, not something she said over drinks. But it sums it up nicely, I think.)

Secondly, individuality exists on multiple levels, and I think some make the mistake of only looking for individuality on the obvious levels.

For instance, let’s say you have three tree leaves: a green oak leaf, a green maple leaf, and a bright red maple leaf. Yes, the oak leaf is a different type of leaf than the others, but the maple leaves are themselves different from each other in their color. The oak leaf and the green maple leaf are different shapes but similar in color, making the red maple leaf different from them in that aspect. So all three leaves are powerful individuals; it’s just that the differences between them all exist on different levels (here, species vs. color).

In order for us to appreciate the different expressions of individuality, however, we have had to shift focus. If you put all the greats of the original era on a stage, made them wear masks and then stood three hundred feet away, you could still probably make out all the different styles. Today if we did the same with modern greats, it’d be trickier. You’d be able to do it at a hundred feet away, maybe. (All this is hypothetical, but you get the idea.) But I currently don’t think it’s a big deal if we have to shift focus. After all, a big difference is not necessarily better than smaller, more subtle differences.

I’m a big fan of the idea that, living in the modern world, we have the great advantage of being able to choose the best parts of today and yesterday to inspire how we live our lives (or in this case, dance our dance). Our superior technique does allow us to play with some pretty extreme forms of individuality. I would argue that at this point, it’s more so the lack of focusing on being individualistic that’s stopping people. I’m not sure how much the modern scene is stressing this point. The general dancing I see leads me to believe it could be mentioned in classes and in general discussion a lot more, and perhaps given a little more consideration in contest judging.

And, what’s more, is that we today can be more purposeful in how we choose to be individualistic; a lot of the original dancers didn’t have the same options. Although the dance floors of the original swing era were full, those pushing the boundaries of the dance may not have had many others on the floor to inspire them, and probably would not have been able to travel much to see what other dancers in other parts of the nation were doing. They only knew what they made up and what their local friends who also hadn’t been anywhere did. Today, though, a dancer can have the whole world at their fingertips thanks to the Internet.

This ability to increase individuality in our dance comes from a few places. Aside from having it be more a part of people’s discussions about dance, teachers obviously play a huge role in changing the scene’s perspective. And, not just professional teachers — on the whole, it is the local teachers who are probably much more influential, as they account for most people’s introduction to swing dancing, and thus can dramatically shape the way those students view it.

There are a few specific Swungover posts coming on individuality and teaching, but I wanted to briefly talk a little bit more about how I’ve worked towards reinforcing the power of individuality in the way I teach. In technique classes for instance, Kate and I try to explain different techniques and the pros and cons those techniques offer, always reinforcing that dancers make their own choices for what they want. In content classes, we teach that often the pieces of the moves are what’s important (to combat students going out and doing nothing but that one class move), or the technique we’re showing in the moves leads to more choices for them, and often we try to offer multiple options and why one might choose those options. If we do teach something that is an example of our individual voices, we mention what aspects of it reinforce our individuality and talk about its individuality as one of the important aspects of the move. Another option is creativity classes, where people work in groups and bounce ideas off of each other, and then showcase their inventions against others’. This always shows how individual each partnership is. And recently, I’ve done a few entire classes on a simple way to begin finding one’s individual voice that I’m very proud of.

Possibly more important, though, is the overall change to the language I use in teaching; for one small instance, almost never is there the right answer anymore; instead, it’s this answer gives you this effect, for these reasons, implying that there are often other answers that give you other effects. Sure, we have chosen what we think are the best ones for us, and we like to explain why, but that doesn’t mean that’s the only option to our students. And it’s important for us to make that clear. These, and many other subtle but important changes, are very empowering both to me as a teacher, and, I think, to my students.

Finally, I’m a big proponent of students often working on their dancing not in classes to discover new ideas for themselves. Put away YouTube for a few weeks, stand in an empty room with some space, and see what you, and only you, think. At some point, invite some friends along to join and see what you all come up with together, focusing on how each individual does it their way. Once those seeds of individuality are planted, taking classes and workshops and watching YouTube are powerful ways to grow them, rather than stifle them.

Recently Nick Williams posted on Facebook, “Balboa people, we need to talk. What do you think Pure Balboa is?” He was partly frustrated by what people do in “Pure Balboa” contests, which I agree is often not what most of us Bal-Swing instructors think of as Pure Balboa. Anyway, I responded to the post with roughly the following, which I thought was a good quick response to people in general who wonder about what Pure Balboa is, and why it’s a different dance than Bal-Swing.

When I was coming up in Bal-Swing competitions, some would have (and still do have) “Pure Balboa” rounds. At the time, around 2003, I remember the main source of advice: “Pure Balboa means chest to chest. Don’t open up.” There may have been some more complicated advice given to me, but “just stay chest to chest” was what stuck with me (and you can tell in my early “Pure Balboa” contests). I now happily understand much more about the important difference between the two dances that the old timers called Balboa & Bal-Swing.

A dance should exist for a reason. By which I mean, it should have a nature to it that makes it its own dance and not something else. Balboa’s nature was shaped by its surroundings: It was a dance done on a packed floor, hence chest to chest. On a packed floor, no one can see your footwork; hence, it’s not a dance for showing off footwork. On a packed floor, no one spectates the dance; hence it is not a spectator’s dance; it is meant to be shared between the partnership and no one else. Pure Balboa was a date dance, done in coat and tie and skirts and heels; hence one of its goals is efficiency and not sweating all over your partner. These very literal boundaries gave the dance its identity and help shaped other aspects of its style: those boundaries also made it natural to shuffle the feet a lot, and play with rhythms and weight changes and small direction changes, to make things exciting. So you see, Pure Balboa has a very specific nature.

UPDATE: Upon further thought and discussion with Balboa instructors and historians at the Balboa Experiment, I have some slight updates to the description above. Though Pure Balboa was not a dance for being flashy or showing off, many couples still cared what they looked like. And many had very stern opinions about what looked like Balboa and what didn’t. So, it’s not correct to say it is only a dance about partnership connection. However, it was still not a spectator’s dance in the sense that it was supposed to wow or entertain. Many of them just appreciated looking good and felt it should have a certain aesthetic. (5/16/13)

Check out the dancing in this list of original (Pure) Balboa dancers to see this in action. [*]

Now, at some point in the 1930s, dancers of the open and expressive dance called “Swing” started throwing the Balboa steps they knew or saw into their growing collection of steps. (Note: Swing’s nature is open expression of both partner and individual, and is much more a spectator’s dance.) This was the beginning of Swing becoming what we know today as Bal-Swing. But, don’t be fooled by the joined name. It was the dance Swing that converted Balboa into steps fitting its expressive and somewhat wild nature much more so than the other way around. Here’s why this is important: Almost every single one of us in the modern scene is actually a Swing dancer who also knows a little about Pure Balboa, not a Pure Balboa dancer. I can’t think of anyone — surely no more than a handful of people — who have dedicated their dancing career to doing Pure Balboa and almost only Pure Balboa, according to the nature of the dance described earlier.

Modern contests often have Pure Balboa sections to honor the sibling (if you can call it that) dance of Bal-Swing and perhaps a desire to help “keep it alive.” But perhaps it’s too esoteric to have “Pure Balboa” contests or prelims, especially when most of the competitors are expected to understand what makes Pure Balboa its own dance different from Bal-Swing, but are apparently rarely explicitly told what that is by competition organizers or in their classes. (I’ve heard stories that many of the original dancers were even confused when they were told that we have Pure Balboa contests — they think we missed the point. Based on the nature of Pure Balboa described above, there can be a point in having contestants do it, but only to test their knowledge and/or give the audience a demonstration of it. Unfortunately, if students do not have the appropriate knowledge of it, then that means you will have a misleading demonstration of it.)

The result of all of this is that most competitors in a modern “Pure Balboa” heat simply do what I think of as “closed position Bal-Swing.” They attract attention, they do super fancy individual stuff, and they even have drops and lifts; they just happen to keep their partner chest to chest. (Some judges I know don’t even count the section, others treat it like it’s simply a Bal-Swing contest, and yet others give extra points for Pure Balboa, but otherwise don’t count it in their ultimate scoring.)

Some people have questioned that this dancing is merely us evolving the dance, and describe it as “Pure Balboa then vs. Pure Balboa now” — but I think that’s a false way of looking at it. Sure, we can certainly change and evolve a dance form and still keep its nature, like we have with Bal-Swing and Lindy Hop. But once you change the nature of a dance, I think you are officially no longer doing it; you are doing something else. (Hence the modern dancer doing flashy footwork and attention-grabbing individual dancing chest-to-chest is actually doing “closed position Bal-Swing” much more so than “Pure Balboa.”)

But it’s not all those dancers’ fault, and perhaps it’s hardly their fault at all. If we as teachers and organizers expect others to know what we mean when we say “Pure Balboa,” then it’s our responsibility to make it obvious. I know Kate and I and several of our peer instructors talk openly about making sure we are doing this. And I know many of the top Bal-Swing competitions have discussed (and will continue to discuss) this matter with their teachers and staff. So, I think we are working towards preserving the nature of the dance known as Pure Balboa while we grow it and evolve it.

I would like to end with something that really made me reassess things when I was coming up as a competitor. It’s Nick Williams and Denise Paulino Phelan doing a “Pure Balboa” round in (I believe) one of the Balboa Rendezvous contests. If you watch it as a Bal-Swing dancer or a Lindy Hopper, you’re going to miss a lot of what’s going on. But if you watch it like a Pure Balboa dancer, looking for subtlety in rhythm and weight shifts, and in musicality and partnership, almost all of it from the knees down, I think you’ll see how this is modern dancing that still very much captures the nature of Pure Balboa.

Nick & Denise doing Pure Balboa

[*] — It may appear that many of the people in these clips are just doing basics. However, I think to many Pure Balboa dancers, they didn’t really think of dancing basics as “dancing a basic.” This is obvious when you try to get original Balboa dancer Dean Raftery to do his “basic” the same way twice in a row. I think for them, every basic was full of subtle changes. Sure, they may appear to be doing step-step-hold-step, but if you look close enough… because of accent, shuffling, counterbody, triples, small traveling — Yes, they are doing “basics,” but they’re dancing those basics.

I think a lot of original dancers danced their basics in a continual “butterfly effect.” By “butterfly effect” I mean that theory of how a butterfly flapping its wings in India leads to a series of events that causes a hurricane in the Pacific, or the course of a skeptical monologue by a sketchy scientist in Jurassic Park. But, simply put, one tiny weight change difference at the beginning of a basic will have a ripple effect that will change the course of the basic in terms of weight changes, accents, shuffles, etc. — which is one theory on why original dancers like Dean Raftery and countless others have a hard time duplicating their “basics” the same way twice in a row.

So, here’s a list of people we teachers may mention in Bal-Swing and Balboa classes, and links to their dancing. (A Lindy Hopper’s list for both Harlem and Southern California is in the works.)

Who’s Who in (Pure) Balboa.

Who’s Who in Bal-Swing Leaders.

Who’s Who in Bal-Swing Followers.

This entire project is dedicated to Dwight Lupardis, who helped save and document many aspects of Balboa & Bal-Swing through the art of film, research, and the type of obsession that we here at Swungover appreciate.

The photo of Snookie & Roy is courtesy of Beth Grover.

Teachers often mention original dancers in class; however, those names may easily be forgotten between leaving the workshop and getting to YouTube. So, to make it a little easier, this is a list of original Balboa followers often mentioned in classes, with links to clips of their dancing (other sections for Lindy Hoppers coming as well). This will take some time to fully complete, what with all the biography information and clips, but I figured it’d be kinda neat to construct it in front of people’s eyes.

These entries will grow with biographical information over time. Not all the dancers will have a wealth of information, but we’ll try to get what we can. (Also, it is simply the nature of the history that I have so much more information on leaders than followers. I’m dedicated, however, to getting more information on the followers in this post.) So, enjoy! Names are listed in alphabetical order, so aside from a special section on the “Most Influential,” order does not signify importance. Names may be added, so if you’d like to recommend someone, feel free to mention their name in the comments. Please note: Marge Takier and Lila Desatoff began dancing after the original swing era. However, you can see plenty of Marge’s dancing in Hal Takier’s video and Lila’s in Willie Desatoff’s video.

As always, we strive to be unbiased and accurate. As much of this is an oral history, there may be some mistakes. If you see there is an error, please notify us with the error and any references for the correction and we will try to rectify the situation immediately.

NOTE: One doesn’t tend to look at original followers for moves, but instead for movement. Sure, there are some footwork variations and occasionally even full-body styling in these clips. But those are few and far between for original followers. Instead, the original followers are defined much more by their movement — like the intricacies of how they put their foot into and out of the floor, their timing, their posture, their pulse, their shuffle, and the way they flow through movement.

Bal-Swing: Most Influential

NATALIE ESPARZA
Natalie Esparza was an original-era Swing and Lindy dancer. Years after the war, she dragged her niece to learn Lindy Hop from her good friend Dean Collins. To little Mary Anne Nuñez, the rest was history.

MARIE FIDO
(Still collecting information on Marie. There isn’t much.).

INEZ THOMPSON
Inez Thompson’s husband, Ed, apparently first saw his future wife when she was standing up on a library ladder. He noticed her legs and asked her out. Ed and Inez primarily danced what they called Balboa (what we call “Pure Balboa” today), though they learned some Bal-Swing later in life. Inez is known for her smooth movement, and her almost-always bent knees are a striking part of her style, considering very few other influential Bal-Swing followers danced that way.

Betty Takier dancing with her husband, Hal, in a Ray Rand Swingers performance.

BETTY TAKIER
The first wife of dance legend Hal Takier, Betty helped invent many of the unique trick steps the partnership had. After the swing era, however, she soon quit dancing. His death in 2012 brought focus to her styling once again in the classroom.

Also Notable

VENNA ARCHER
Venna Archer was one of the original Ray Rand Swingers, the only follower of the group who can be seen dancing in her older age (that I know of). More info on Venna hopefully coming.

SNOOKIE BISHOP
More info on Snookie coming. As far as the clip goes, don’t blink.

MARION GOLDY
Marion Goldy and Jack Arkin won the great “Swingeroo” contest in 1939, probably the largest swing dance contest to ever exist. The beat out other famous competitors like Hal and Betty, Roy and Snookie, and Dean and Jewel. History has shown that though Jack and Marion had fancy steps and clean dancing, it’s the dancers with that as well as more individual style that have influenced the modern scene more. They can also be seen in the background of Naughty But Nice. More information coming.

Snookie Bishop in a photo-shoot with Roy Damron. Photo courtesy of Beth Grover.

PATTI LACEY
Patti Lacey and her partner Ray Hirsch were not exactly what you (or they) would call Bal-Swing dancers, or really any label whatsoever. They worked specifically towards the flashy, wild, and zany dancing expected in films, no matter what dance a step came from — so the lines where Bal-Swing, Shag, and Lindy are drawn are hard to pin-point in a lot of their dancing. However, the second piece of footage in this clip is of them dancing in the film Among the Living, but you only see their feet. They are the couple on the left. And, fascinatingly, they are dancing nothing but Bal-Swing for an extended period of time, showing that they did know what it meant to do the dance Bal-Swing. (In that clip they later go on to dance clearly nothing but Lindy and later still a short section with nothing but Shag.)

MARY McCASLIN
Mary was Maxie Dorf’s partner in the 1930s while in the Ray Rand swingers. You can see a photo spread of Maxie and her here.

JEWEL McGOWAN
Ironically, the most famous Bal-Swing dancer in the modern swing scene is Jewel McGowan. The reason it’s ironic is she is hardly known for her Bal-swing, but her Lindy Hop: When Dean Collins came to California and brought his New Jersey style Lindy Hop with him, the only followers around danced SoCal Swing (aka “Swing” aka “LA Swing,” the early form of Bal-Swing). Jewel McGowan was one of these followers. Now, there’s hardly any footage of her doing Bal-Swing, but if you watch her Lindy Hop, you can see how Bal-Swing greatly affected the way she interpreted Lindy Hop. Thus, part of the magic of Jewel’s Lindy Hop was her unique Bal-Swing approach to it. I questioned if I should include her in the ‘most influential’ section above. However, very few Bal-Swing teachers mention Jewel McGowan in class and focus on an aspect of her dancing, unless it’s a class about Bal-Swing and Lindy Hop differences and similarities, and very few instructor followers have mentioned Jewel as a Bal-swing influence. Hence, the “more notable” category. (However, in the upcoming post on Lindy Hoppers, she will probably be at the top of the list as the single most influential original Lindy Hop follower of the last 15 years. Almost every single Lindy Hop follower instructor has her as an influence, whether they know it or not.) Jewel died in the 1950s of cancer.

IRENE THOMAS
Though she spent all of her movie screen time as a Lindy Hopper, the Lindy-famous Southern California dancer Irene Thomas was also a Swing dancer, in the Bal-Swing sense of the word. She danced with all the greats in the swing era. Here is some footage of her dancing her unique style of Bal-Swing. She is still alive today.

FREDA ANGELA WYCKOFF
Freda is still with us today. She danced in almost every southern California ballroom in the 1930s and danced in movies throughout the 40s and 50s including Don’t Knock The Rock.

This project is dedicated to Dwight Lupardis, the original Balboa historian whose passion for the dance helped save it and the memory of its dancers for future generations in the form of the film The Balboa Project, where many of the clips in this post come from.

Teachers often mention original dancers in class; however, those names may easily be forgotten between leaving the workshop and getting to YouTube. So, to make it a little easier, this is a list of original Balboa leaders often mentioned in classes, with links to clips of their dancing (other sections for Lindy Hoppers coming as well). This will take some time to fully complete, what with all the biography information and clips, but I figured it’d be kinda neat to construct it in front of people’s eyes.

This project is dedicated to Dwight Lupardis, the original Balboa historian whose passion for the dance helped save it in the form of the film The Balboa Project, where many of the clips in this project come from.

Bal-Swing: Most Influential

WILLIE DESATOFF
“Finesse, Finesse, Finesse.”
(1921 – 2005) William John “Willie” Desatoff grew up in a Russian neighborhood of Los Angeles, graduated from LA’s Roosevelt High School in 1940, and served in the Coast Guard during WWII. He then spent his life as a carpenter. He was widely considered one of the greatest Balboa-Swing dancers by his peers in both his youth and old age. He was unique among most of the original dancers in his desire to break down and teach Balboa and Bal-Swing, even in his young age. He is known as one of the best for his smoothness, his rhythm and syncopation, his refinement of everything he did, and the powerful individualism of his style. Several modern Balboa dancers and instructors learned from him personally, including David Rehm, Randy Maestretti and Kara Britt, Nick Williams, and more (Kate and I were honored to have had an opportunity to work with him shortly before his death). His widow and wife of 20 years, Lila Desatoff, appears in the final dance scene of the clip. Read his obituary, written by David Rehm, here.

MAXIE DORF
“It’s a natural move.”
(1921 – 2000) Maxie Dorf was one of “the Big Four,” the nickname for the Ray Rand Swingers, a performance group of Swing (the LA dance that combined with Balboa to form Bal-Swing) dancers that included Hal Takier, Lolly Wise, and Gil Fernandez. His main partner in his youth was Mary McCasslin. During WWII he was a Navy photographer, responsible for several well-known war photographs, and even went to the North Pole in his travels. After the war, he held several occupations, including school yearbook photographer and casino card-dealer. When Sylvia Sykes first desired to learn Balboa and Bal-Swing, Dean Collins told her that Maxie Dorf was the person to ask. She has a memorable story about not being able to find Maxie, until, sadly, he was announced as a pallbearer at Dean Collins’s funeral. Maxie taught Sylvia his style and philosophy of Balboa, which she has passed on to the world. They performed many demos together, several of which are in the clip above. Maxie is known as one of the greatest for his flow, the sophistication of his solo and partnership movement, his signature moves like “Maxie’s Slide” and “Maxie’s Stop Step,” his use of Out & In as a major area of play, his powerful pulse, and his unique ability to, as Sylvia calls it, “dance inside the music.”

HAL TAKIER
“Hooooooooooo!”
(1917 – 2012) Harold “Hal” Chavoor Takier began dancing when he was 18 years old and a student at California Polytech High. He and his first wife, Betty Roser, were partners known for their individual style and the many flashy trick steps they invented. He met his second wife and widow, Marge, in the 1950s and she became his new partner. We could say a lot more about Hal, but you can read it all here.

Also Notable

JACK ARKIN
Jack Arkin and his partner Marion Goldy won the great “Swingeroo” contest in 1939, probably the largest swing dance contest to ever exist, against Hal and Betty, Roy and Snookie, and Dean and Jewel. (Thanks, Peter Loggins, for the article.) History has shown that though Jack and his partner had fancy steps and clean dancing, the dancers that have influenced the modern scene the most have that as well as more individual style. As the film demonstrates, they also occasionally did some shag moves and solo performance dancing. The move in this clip where he touches the floor we call “Three Little Words” in honor of Jack’s dancing in the clip (it’s the name of the song playing.) Jack and his partner can also be seen in the background of Naughty But Nice. More information coming.

BOB ASHLEY
More on Bob coming soon, both bio and dancing. Irene Thomas remembered Bob as one of the best Bal-Swing dancers of the Swing era. He does mostly Lindy in films; however, you can catch a tiny amount of him doing Balboa (from the head up) in the clip. He’s the blondish guy to the left of the column in “The Country Club” section of the clip who does a toss-out and some out & ins.

BART BARTOLO
“Keep It Casual”
(19?? – 2013) Lou “Bart” Bartolo was one of the younger kids compared to the other original dancers, but he learned Bal-Swing and Lindy Hop from the best, including Willie Desatoff, Hal Takier, Maxie Dorf, and Dean Collins. He had no official partner, but did often dance with Natalie Esparza in several performances and jams.

Roy Damron, looking suave as always.

JACK HELWIG
Jack Helwig is the guy in all white dancing in the 1938 Venice Beach Dance Clip, a powerfully individual dancer, as well as a sharp dresser. His partner in the films is Genevieve Grazis, who later went by the name Jenny Gray and was in quite a few films as a Lindy Hopper. Not much more is known about him, and his main claim to fame for the modern era is his dancing in the Beach Clip.

RAY HIRSCH
Ray Hirsch is still with us today. He and his partner Patti Lacey were not exactly what you (or they) would call Bal-Swing dancers, or really any label whatsoever. They worked specifically towards the flashy, wild, and zany dancing expected in films, no matter what dance a step came from — so the lines where Bal-Swing, Shag, and Lindy are drawn are hard to pin-point in a lot of their dancing on film. For instance just watch the first part of the clip. (Ray is in the dark blazer and light pants.) However, the second piece of footage in this clip is of them dancing from the film Among the Living, but you only see their feet. They are the couple on the left. And they are dancing nothing but Bal-Swing for an extended period of time, showing that they did know what it meant to do the dance Bal-Swing. (In that clip they later go on to dance clearly nothing but Lindy and later still a short section with nothing but Shag.) Also, he’s a rascal.

DICK LANDRY
Richard “Dick” Landry is the man in the striped sweater vest in the Beach Clip dancing with an unknown woman. Dick Landry was in several films, either as a Lindy Hopper or as a Bal-Swing dancer, but it is not known which dancer he is in those films. All we know of Dick for sure is that he’s the man in the striped sweater in the Beach Clip.

LOLLY WISE
Lawrence “Lolly” Wise was one of the “Big Four,” the Ray Rand Swingers. Maxie Dorf always counted Lolly as one of the greatest Balboa dancers who lived, though he didn’t dance much after the swing era. Sadly, aside from a few snippets in other films, the only clear footage of him dancing Bal-Swing is the short snippet from Start Cheering. He’s on the left. Today we call the move he’s doing Lolly kicks in his honor (he apparently called them something like “Charleston kicks”).

To original dancers, the word “Balboa” meant “the chest-to-chest shuffling dance that happens between the partnership and doesn’t ask for attention.” Because its entire world was centered around the partnership, we didn’t feel right separating the leaders and followers into different posts like we did with the Bal-Swing dancers. Today, most teachers refer to this dance as “Pure Balboa” and occasionally even as “Strict Balboa.”

Teachers often mention original dancers in class; however, those names may easily be forgotten between leaving the workshop and getting to YouTube. So, to make it a little easier, this is a list of original Balboa dancers often mentioned in classes, with links to clips of their dancing. This will take some time to fully complete, what with all the biography information and clips, but I figured it’d be kinda neat to construct it in front of people’s eyes.

These entries will grow with biographical information over time. Not all the dancers will have a wealth of information, but we’ll try to get what we can. So, enjoy! Names are listed in alphabetical order, so aside from a special section on the “Most Often Discussed,” order does not signify importance. Names may be added, so if you’d like to recommend someone, feel free to mention their name in the comments. Please note that Ray Cunningham began dancing after the war and is mostly known for teaching the post-war closed position dance Lamanu (choose your own adventure in spelling it), hence, he is not listed below.

As always, we strive to be unbiased and accurate. As much of this is an oral history, there may be some mistakes. If you see there is an error, please notify us with the error and any references for the correction and we will try to rectify the situation immediately.

This project is dedicated to Dwight Lupardis, the original Balboa historian whose passion for the dance helped save it in the form of the film The Balboa Project, where many of the clips in this project come from.

Balboa: Most Often Discussed

DEAN & NANCY RAFTERY
Dean is still with us and teaches and dances at many events. In the original swing era there were a lot of regional differences among styles. Dean’s Pure Balboa was apparently part of the “inland flat footers” style. Dean is probably most known for his back-pivots, the move in the clip that is a lot harder than you’d expect. Dean also teaches Lamanu, an obscure dance from the post-war era that no one knows how to spell. (That joke was stolen outright from a New Zealand swing dance thread.) More info coming.

ED & INEZ THOMPSON
Ed apparently first saw Inez when she was standing up on a library ladder. He noticed her legs and asked her out. Ed had a wry sense of humor and really admired the dancing of Willie Desatoff. Ed and Inez primarily danced (Pure) Balboa, though they learned some Bal-Swing later in life. Usually their dancing is 90% Balboa that occasionally goes into five seconds of Bal-Swing. Ed does a move called “Ed’s Hangman,” where their feet sway back and forth in Balboa while their torso remain still. Check out extensive footage of Inez’s dancing in her Bal-Swing followers’ collection.

BOB & MARGE STEINBRENNER
The Steinbrenners were mentioned by a few original dancers as incredible examples of basic Pure Balboa (for instance, according to several Balboa historians like Nick Williams, several original dancers describe the way Marge does the follower’s basic Balboa step as the way to do it). They also do a couple seconds of Bal-swing occasionally in their dancing.

Also Notable

GORDON & MARY ALMOS
Yeaaaaah, takin’ ‘er easy, Gordon.
Go, Mary, go!

JIM & IZZY HIGNETT
Jim’s style is a great example of basic footwork and patterns, while Izzy does some very smooth shuffling & triple footwork. (Look for the triples when the camera zooms in on their feet. They are sometimes hard to distinguish form her regular weight changes, which is one of the things that’s really cool about them.)

ERNIE & ELSIE RUBIN
This couple exemplifies solid basic Balboa patterns in the style the scene teaches beginners today.

For April Fool’s 2013, I used Swungover* to vent some of my frustration at Downton Abbey’s third season. Swungover became “The Low-Downton, official fan site of Downton Abbey,” and featured this post about season four. Viewers of the show should note: Season three spoilers mentioned.

Alright Downton Devotees,

We know many of you loyal fans were devastated by the finale of season three in which a major character died.

Some have argued that the way the show handled the character’s death was cheap for using such a trite method of killing off the character, for sadistically using a moment of great joy for the family just to create greater shock value, and thirdly for killing off the character in the last few minutes of the episode, thus robbing both the other characters and the audience a chance to mourn together. Not to mention that the show lost one of the only four characters left you don’t want to punch in the face. But such criticisms are not exactly in The Low-Downton spirit, right readers!?!

To our surprise, many of our loyal subscribers have expressed that they are not sure whether or not they will continue watching the show. Well, for those who are on the fence about it, we have exciting news! You will not believe it, but we here at The Low-Downton have actually got our hands on the first draft scripts of season four! We of course can’t tell you how, but can only mention that it involved a fire alarm and Maggie Smith’s ignorance of computer security. But once we reveal it to you, surely it will prove to you that Downton Abbey’s last season was not really the “hard evidence that a show that pretended to be more than a soap opera is actually just a soap opera,” as some have claimed. But instead it is only now beginning to unfold into the greatness it has had the potential for.

Though season three ended with a death viewers couldn’t mourn, season four will make up for it by killing another character at the beginning. We won’t tell you who it is, but it is either the cook or Tom Branson, both of which are two of the other likable characters. Such a gut-wrenching death following the long break after the previous season finale really gets the viewer emotionally invested from the beginning.

Here’s where the nay-sayers will claim that this is yet another over-the-top attempt at manipulating the emotions of the viewers via cheap plot devices and now casticide. But once you see the episodes we think you will see this is not just for the sake of plot, far from it. The death will serve the much higher purpose of giving Mary a chance to show some other emotion than blandness. (As we have mentioned time and time again on our site, this is because we believe the actor is playing up the famous “stiff upper lip” British reserve. And as you will see in season four, we are proven right: it is only upon missing a step on the grand staircase and stumbling slightly that her stolidness shatters into a torrential rage that will make the first quarter of season four seem like three hours of attic scenes from Jane Eyre. Michelle Dockery, the actor who plays Mary, will surely be winning all the awards come next season.)

Once the house has begun to move on emotionally from that death, Thomas will accidentally poison Lord Crawley while trying to kill Mr. Bates, not just because Thomas wants the valet job, but also because Thomas had came onto Mr. Bates earlier in the episode and was rejected. The staff will finally decide Thomas can’t be trusted and will fire him. (But don’t worry, Thomas-Love-to-haters, he’ll be back working for the family again by episode three!)

Of course, the big question is what will happen to the Abbey, with Lord Crawley’s death (it wasn’t the poison, but the “cure” that ultimately took his life) and Mary’s infant son’s horrible tragedy in episode two. Well, just so we don’t get everyone riled-up that the show “always concentrates far more in the depressive side of the family’s drama than the happier side,” we’ll go ahead and give this spoiler: It turns out the original heir, who went down with the Titanic, was saved by whalers, and survived. He returns to the Abbey to claim his heritage, however his desire to sell the place immediately of course puts the remainder of the family in despair. It’s only with the arrival of the other, forgotten heir who was thought miscarried before his birth that things get more interesting.

Of course, the question of whether Mary will marry one of them comes into question, especially after her depressing tryst with Tom gets its own episode arch. We don’t mind telling you readers that, fear not, Mary finds yet another incredible, compassionate and intelligent man who will love her despite the fact that she has no personality, unless for some reason you count the strange combination of bitchy and haughty. However, we don’t think we’ll surprise anyone when we say that we don’t think the relationship will be as well-written as her and Mathew’s. After reading the scripts from beginning to end, it looks like there is hardly any explanation of why these two new love-birds actually like each other, except that they just keep saying they do. This is far different from the countless instances of character-rich dialogue shared between her and Mathew, where we really understood — nay, experienced for ourselves — those charmingly personal reasons why they were obviously soul-mates destined for no one but each other.

We’ve saved everyone’s favorite for last: Anna and Mr. Bates. Now that they were finally able to find happiness in season three, what’s to become of them? Surely, our readers often demand, the show won’t find more sadistically calculated ways to keep them apart just to draw out the story? Fear not readers. Sure, there’s a bloody run-in with Mr. Bates’s dead wife’s lover. And of course, their child is accidentally (and humorously) switched with Mathew and Mary’s baby at one point, which leads to yet another question of who is the true heir of Downton Abbey, and thus some plots on all the children’s lives. But rest assured, the show can’t keep the two love birds apart forever.

To make a long story short, by the halfway point of Season 4, the only people who have survived the great typhoid epidemic of 1925 and the resulting fire are the servants, Mathew’s mother Mrs. Crawley, and The Dowager Countess. The show then will mostly revolve around the two women living together, confronting the modern era, and arguing over how to treat the servants. So, you see, the show is only a few episodes away from being at its best.

And, after it’s all said and done — mark our words — a certain Downton Abbey actor will wish he hadn’t tried to do “legitimate” theatre to pursue “multi-dimensional complex characters,” written with “integrity,” and instead had stuck around at Downton Abbey.

— Downton Bobby

So, we present to you a stroll down (selective) memory lane for Swungover 2012:

In January, we lost one of the last great living swing legends, Hal Takier. For Hal remembered his life and many accomplishments.

Love & Swing was originally planned to be a five-part series written and released all within the month before Valentine’s Day. Yet with each new post, we realized there was so much more to love and swing dancing than we originally suspected. The result was that each post became an in-depth essay, and the series is still ongoing and will probably be seven parts long. The sections on non-dancing and dancing significant others and the love lives of instructors were highlights of the series, but the section on partnership vies for the place in our hearts and heads as the best all-around piece Swungover has ever produced.

We only did one new section of the “On Judging” series this year; however, Judging Philosophy 101 was a biggie.

Though we didn’t do many interviews this year, the one we did was certainly the most inspiring as far as our readers were concerned: An Interview with Paul Overton of Paul & Sharon.

We at Swungover were often inspired to write posts in response to issues affecting the swing world. Implied in the Contract was written in response to the relationship between promoters and dancers. In March, Dance World Takeover published a widely read post called “31 Signs You’re Not An Advanced Dancer Yet,” which led us to write In Response to “31 signs…” as a critique of what we thought was misleading advice. Regarding that response, someone commented that we shouldn’t think so much about dancing and instead just have fun, which led us to respond, fittingly, with the article On Having Fun. Finally, Training Bands to Play For Dancers came about in response to a few readers’ requests for advice.

We also branched out from the written format this year in the form of Venn diagrams like “Friends” and “Balboa/Blues” and promotional videos like L1ndy Phocus Time and Swingin’ In the Rain. However, swing education and alternative formats came together in our introduction to a new series, “Breakin’ it Down,” where we attempted to recreate a dance step done by the incredible Al Minns.

As a side project, we began Fine & Dandy, a picture blog exploring personal fashion (not affiliated with swing dance).

Finally, a very important thing happened at Swungover this year: Swungover‘s editor ceased to be merely an editor and began to be what writers call an editor, whispered with the shake of awe in their voice. Here’s what we mean. There are many people who can look over a Swungover post and correct the spelling and grammar.* It’s quite another thing, however, to have the experience, skill, creative mind, and intellectual integrity our editor has. Chelsea Lee has become an integral part of giving feedback crucial in creating the best Swungover has produced, and this year-in-review would not be complete without thanking her for all she does.

* — And, seriously, thanks to all of you who have offered. We apologize that our spelling and grammar are so bad that people feel the need to freely donate their services.

This year-in-review also wouldn’t be complete if I didn’t get a chance to say how fulfilling it is to work on Swungover. Officially you could say that grammar brought us together, but none of my work would have been possible without Bobby producing such thoughtful, imaginative, and helpful content for the modern swing scene. The fact that he has allowed me to share my thoughts and opinions in addition to my knowledge of dangling modifiers during the creative process is icing on the cake. I truly believe in what Swungover stands for and I am proud and thankful to contribute.
—Chelsea Lee

What’s in store for next year?

We’d like to introduce a new series here at Swungover. It’s called “Finishing a Swungover series.”

But seriously, a lot of next year will be spent continuing and/or finishing the series that are currently underway. So there will be more “Love & Swing,” “On Judging,” “The Great Debate,” “Vintage Manliness,” “Swing Photographers,” and “Breakin’ It Down.”

We do have a few new series planned, and the humor of this statement is not lost on us. But they are specifically designed to be smaller and much easier to write. There will be some occasional surprises, possibly a really big one.

A wonderful new year to all of our readers, and thank you for all the inspiration and great feedback you give us.
—Sentence written by Bobby White, edited by Chelsea Lee.

Bobby & Kate have a new website!

Check out www.bobbykate.com for our new website. The blog on the website will have new writings by myself and Kate. The writing will be more “crazy adventures while teaching/traveling/competing” as opposed to the writing here. If that sounds appealing to you, please subscribe and tell your friends.

We also have a Facebook page. Join us there for info on classes, workshops, and even more adventures and swing dance snippets. We promise we will not flood you with crap.

Thank you Kyle Smith at Five Lines Media for all your help and for designing such a beautiful site and for paying so much attention to our desires.

Swingin’ In the Rain 2013 Promotional Video

Here’s a promotional video I did for Swingin’ In the Rain, a workshop weekend with me in Seattle. If you are in the area, check it out!

Hotsy Totsy Vintage Launches

Over at our (non-swing affiliated) fashion blog, Fine & Dandy, we were excited to learn that a group of Seattle dancers and fashionistas were putting together a website geared towards the art of vintage fashion in a modern context. And “Vintage style with modern context” is at the heart of both Swungover and Fine & Dandy. So, needless to say, we were excited. It just launcehd and you can find it here: Hotsy-Tosty Vintage.

Swungover Venn Diagram Honored By Sacremento Dancers

We were honored to have one of our Venn diagrams used for a t-shirt made and worn by a group of Sacramento dancers traveling to an event together.

1920s Dictionary of Slang

Here is a recent article sent in by a reader on 1920s slang.

Before The Eastern Balboa Championships this year, we were excited to learn that Laura Windley was going to be singing with her and her husband Lucian Cobb’s new band at the event. Then we actually heard them. They blew us away. A recently-formed group, they sounded like they had been playing together for years. While I was dancing most of the night, I did record a few random songs to use for a little video. It’s here:

(Note: Filmed on camera not designed for good audio. They sound great on this point-and-shoot; imagine them live. )

5 Reasons Why The Mint Julep Jazz Band is an Incredible Band For Dancers

1.

First and foremost, they are great jazz/swing musicians. Everything was well practiced and clean, and the band was obviously paying as much attention to each other as to the sheet music.

2.

The classic standards they played were varied, and had fantastic new arrangements by Cobb. For instance, their Lindy Hoppers’ Delight played on a musical theme that was already in the song and took it to a whole new level. It was nasty. Several people on the dance floor lost it in excitement, myself included.

3.

They played great 1920-40s songs (mostly 30/40s) I’ve never heard a live band play before, and some of which I’ve never heard, period. Cobb is a lover of Duke Ellington and brought out some hidden Ellington gems that really swung. (Don’t worry, we begged him to do a late-period Rockin’ ‘N Rhythm arrangement for the band, so I covered that base for you guys. Though I’m sure he won’t mind a few emails to reinforce it: mintjulepjazzband at gmail.)

4.

They obviously kept an eye on the dance floor and how the dancers were handling the tempos and flow of tempos. This is probably because lead singer and co-leader Laura Windley is a passionate and well-respected swing DJ. She knows how incredibly useful that is to the band, and it showed.

5.

Vocalist Laura Windley sings with a genuinely dynamite jazz singer feel without affectation. Sure, she’s obviously been influenced by great jazz singers like Billie Holiday — but on stage, she just tries to be Laura Windley. The result is a full, clear, (on-key), really enjoyable style that seems naturally classic. I can’t help but feel this is the beginning of a powerful and unique voice in the modern swing music scene.

So there you have it.

The band plays Lindy Hop events, Balboa events, and more. They’ve launched a Kickstarter campaign and already reached their goal to fund their first CD. But, I’m sure they would still appreciate support, either by contributing (you can get a CD!) or by mentioning them to the people in your scene who hire bands and might be looking for an incredible swing band that’s new to the town. Find out more at www.mintjulepjazzband.com.

So, dear readers, has anyone gotten to see them? What was your experience like?