Dance/Life: Paul Ramirez Retirement Party

I went to Paul Ramirez's retirement party on 11/21/2015 Saturday at Oklahoma City Swing Dance club.

There were over 160 people attending and dancing. It was a big party. 


Paul was a WCS main instructor in Oklahoma City Swing Dance Club and the director of the club. He was a long timer and taught WCS in Oklahoma since 80's. The club has been one of the biggest and most successful social dance place in the city.


He used to compete earlier. But by the time I joined the club in 2000, he was sifting his main efforts to teaching WCS. He had many patterns to teach, and had a reputation of "good beginner's teacher". And you know what. Teaching beginners is one of the trickiest things to do.


A reason for his and the club's success is the school's teaching program.

When a beginner signs up, he/she usually starts from a beginner's class (the "Pink" class), and wears pink color badge. In the month's end, there is an exam night when he/she dances with an instructor. If he/she passes the test, he/she moves up to next level class. He/she does not have to move up, though. A person can stay at a class as long as he/she wants.

There are several classes with different levels of materials; Purple class, Red class, Yellow class, Green class, Blue class, then Multicolor. Pink and Purple teach WCS basics such as sidepass, underarm, sugar push, whip, sidepass with spin, close, etc. Green and Blue classes are for the people who want to compete or participate in local/regional events. Multicolor is for instructor level. A long time student turns to a volunteer instructor and teaches WCS. They came through the classes, so they know the materials by the time.

This system is similar to Karate school, in which students move from white belt to black belt. The system makes sense when beginners sign up and make progress over time. Most students are adult learners, so the system worked well for most. 

Paul and his late partner Rae Dean built the system, and the school system is a reason to success.


Another reason would be the club's generous opportunities to dance with low cost. The WCS classes were held on Mon, Tue, Wed and Sunday. Students can practice after the class. Then on Friday there is a practice party, and on the third Saturday there is a monthly Birthday party. So if you are in Green or Blue class, you can dance 4-6 days in a week. All with $40-50/month. The school is a nonprofit organization, and the inexpensive fee structure is possible with many club members.



Third reason would be that the club is supported by many volunteers who also are the club members. They bring food to party, watch the door, teach each other, and make the place nice. It became like a large family, and the club can be a very cozy social place.



A teacher's success is also measured by the students' success. The club does produce some successful competitors in regional events.

A few students joined young and showed their talent. Bonnie Cannon Subey is one of them. She was dancing in the club until her high school graduation, then moved to Philadelphia, where she grew to a prominent WCS professional in the national WCS circuit. I am glad for her.

When I go to WCS event and someone asks "who taught you?", I tell it was Paul. When I was beginning, I did spend 5 months in Purple class to really get the basics. The basics have helped me so much. In non-choreographed social party, good basics are the only thing that counts to enjoy the dance.


In the party, I was feeling somewhat nostalgic. Paul called some of his students his "sons". Stuart, Lonnie and I have been brothers and his sons.


Paul was a character, and made many friends and enemies, as he himself said in his speech. But his dedication to the dance and the club was genuine. A serious dancer would resonate and acknowledge such passion.


I heard he would move to Houston where his family live. I hope he is going to have a good time there.

Thank you for everything and happy retirement, Paul.

11/21/2015 with Paul

Life: Choose your dreams carefully

I came across this photo in my Facebook feed.

"It's a very good advice", I thought.


When we think about our "dreams", the "dreams" can be many different things. You can dream anything. But there are good dreams and not-so-good dreams from someone else's standpoint. Value of a dream is relational. 


For example, if the dream is only about you and is self-serving one (like driving a good car, wear nice clothes, travel and have fun, or be rich), no one else is going to help you to achieve it. The dream is not a good dream, because achieving it is not useful to others. If you have to beg for charity, you are not in good position to achieve anything.

If the dream is about solving a problem of others (without harming any people),  you have a better chance to get help from others to achieve it.


If your dream involves changing others (that includes harming or by force), be extra careful. When you use the word "for greater good", you assume small harm. But be careful. 



You need to choose your dream with two filters; usefulness to others, and no harm done to any people. 


Dreams by idealistic radicals are angry and violent with intention to change others. They are self-serving, and they harm others. Don't choose such dreams. 

Choose your dreams that solve problems and serve others without harm. Create, not destroy. That's the best. 

Dance: "Trickle down" in dancing

There is a theory in economy called "Trickle down" theory. The theory says if the rich gets richer, the wealth possessed by the rich will "trickle down" to the less rich and poor, and the society overall would be well-off. It is a theory preferred obviously by the rich (and by political parties that support the rich). 

But in reality the theory largely has not gotten support by evidence. In other words, the theory does not work nor is supported by facts. Hence it has been wrong. The theory might have worked if the rich practice "Noblesse Oblige" (meaning that the rich is required to fulfill social responsibilities). But the practice of the "Nobility obligation" is hardly done. Instead, many companies with large profit have chosen to move the money to overseas to evade tax. So much for social responsibilities.

Economic "Trickle down" does not work because there is no incentive or merit for the rich or the companies to trickle down. It is much easier to get the capital to work to generate more capital. "Noblesse oblige" was practiced by the kings and nobles as a moral obligation. Asking companies social moral? Apparently such request is futile, uphill battle in capitalism.


There is a similar, but working, "trickle down" in fashion and dance industries.


In fashion industries, a small number of designers have shows that present their collections, such as New York Fashion week or Tokyo collection. 

Their ideas for upcoming seasons are picked up by top-tier clothes designers and producers. They make clothes for a select few, like party-attending celebrities.

Then the ideas and products are imitated (or "creatively copied") by brands targeting upper tier fashion, like brands in high class departments.

If the products and ideas are liked by many, next tier brands targeting middle class-mass market start producing similar items. They sell many, and the products become cheap.

So the men's dark skinny pants originated from 2005 Dior collection is now everywhere in $30.

[This "trickle down" process in fashion industry was neatly explained in "The Devil wears Prada" movie with a Cerulean sweater.]

It looks like a process in which an art becomes a mass-market product. Unique becomes ubiquitous.



Now, trickle down in dance industry.


There are a few dance pros who show their routines in national competitive events.

People watch the routine, and pick up and imitate some impressive moves of theirs. 

Instructors who teach social dancers also pick up the new and cool moves and teach them.

In some months, the new moves become a shared knowledge among social dancers in the dance community.

If you are avid watcher of the dance, you can even trace back the move to the original.

In the dance trickle down, deterioration is inevitable. Poor copies are everywhere. But we do recognize the move with the original.




Trickle down in fashion and in dance work, because these industries benefit from the "trickle down" process itself. Apparel makers can introduce fashionable-looking new clothes that sell. Dance teachers get new moves to teach and in teaching they make money.

When the dissemination process itself has merit, people who benefit will support dissemination process. Thus "trickle down" will occur with people who are willing to perform.



Now,  ....do you notice the difference in fashion trickle down and dance trickle down?

Fashion industries "trickle down" apparels. That is, things and products that take maker's efforts to produce. You probably do not want to produce them by yourself. The makers will just sell them to you, and you can get the apparel. The makers made money for their efforts, and you get the apparel you wanted. Fair exchange and both are happy.

On the other hand, in dance move "trickle down", you need no middleman. You watch the original performance, and you can just try the moves. Dance moves are information product that no one can patent. How well you can imitate and dance the moves is up to you, though.


There are different kinds of trickle down. Some work, others don't. In case of dancing, whether you can reproduce high quality moves is up to you.

[BTW  I like this Pope with his rational take on many subjects]

  

Life: "It is not about X, but about Y": (False) power of reframing

"It is not about X, but about Y."

This is called reframing. It is an attempt to redefine a problem ("It"). Reframing has potential power to view the problem from another angle, leading to a (previously unnoticed) solution to the problem.

Politicians use reframing a lot. We are going to hear this many times during upcoming presidential debate.

I like reframing. Reframing can shift my mental framework of understanding. It can be intellectual pleasure. It can be like a miniature version of a paradigm shift, an "ah-ha" moment, or a puzzle solved. Or even a comedy.


One thing I am careful about reframing (especially by politicians) is that whether the reframing helps solving the original "It", the problem.


Here is an example.

"School shooting is not about guns, but about mental illness". 

Are we getting any closer to solve school shooting by redirecting our attention from gun availability to people with mental illness? Would the reframing eventually help to solve or reduce school shooting? 

Problem solving by reframing needs follow-up measures for the "Y". Can the people reframing the school shooting issue as mental illness issue provide a (better) solution to mental illness? "Just saying" should not be enough.


Reframing can give us a small mental pleasure, an "ah-ha" moment. But if we are satisfied by that small pleasure and stop working on solving the original problem, it would mean that we fell for the agenda by the reframing guy. 

Because, in many cases, reframing is used to redirect attention from "X" to something else rather than to solve the problem. The reframing guy can be quite sinister, hoping some of us to buy their reframing and forget about "X".


It's November before 2016 Presidential election in the US. Political season is coming up. Hope people keep healthy dose of problem-solving mindset.




PS 
When "It" is not a problem, reframing is still an attempt to see "It" from a different angle. Whether the overall attempt is correct or not is open question, though. 

Example: "Tango is not about technique, but about passion". Some will agree, others won't.

From my observation, people who neglect technique tend to lack it. You gain what you value.