Advertisement
Hi, all-
In our town for over 20 years that was one belly dance troupe. Then over the summer several members left and formed another troupe. BUT, they are still performing the SAME choreos that they learned in the first troupe--minor changes have been made but they are all still the same dances.
Most of the dances were learned at a seminar by the director of the first troupe many years ago and had become the "signature" dances of the first troupe, so since they weren't her ORIGINAL works the second troupe felt those dances were fair game for them to keep performing
What is your opinion on this? Is it ethical for the second troupe to keep doing the SAME dances they learned in the first troupe or should they have their own new material?
I'm working on an article about ethics in bellydance and welcome your input.
Thank you.
ZD
In our town for over 20 years that was one belly dance troupe. Then over the summer several members left and formed another troupe. BUT, they are still performing the SAME choreos that they learned in the first troupe--minor changes have been made but they are all still the same dances.
Most of the dances were learned at a seminar by the director of the first troupe many years ago and had become the "signature" dances of the first troupe, so since they weren't her ORIGINAL works the second troupe felt those dances were fair game for them to keep performing
What is your opinion on this? Is it ethical for the second troupe to keep doing the SAME dances they learned in the first troupe or should they have their own new material?
I'm working on an article about ethics in bellydance and welcome your input.
Thank you.
ZD
posted by:
|
Alabama
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Input please
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 4:17 AMIf the choreographies are blatantly obviously the same ones then the second troupe should not be performing them. This is definitely a conflict of interests on their part as the choreo's are the "signature" of the first troupe and so would lead to confusion within an audience that may have been exposed to the first troupe.
Choreographies are intellectual property and so it is stealing for another troupe to begin to use them without the permission of the troupe who danced them originally. If they did not ask permission, they should not be using them!
-
Re: Input please
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 7:48 AMI've never danced with a troupe and have only watched youtubes of troupe dances. IMHO, 2nd group shouldn't be performing the same routine as the original group. I don't think it matters if the 1st group got their moves from a seminar or not.
I feel that both groups are limiting themselves by performing this "signature" dance repeatedly. Where is the growth for the 1st troupe? 2nd group, the question I would ask them, Why break from 1st group if your just going to be doing the same thing even with subtle changes?
-
Re: Input please
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 8:52 AMWell, there are two issues here. First off, the first bellydance troupe shouldn't have been taking choreography from workshops and touting them as their own "signature" choreographies. As the first commenter said, choreography is intellectual property. It's wrong to steal someone's property and claim it's your own.
Second, the second bellydance troupe shouldn't be taking the original troupe's choreography for two reasons. One is the reason above -- they're stealing intellectual property to two degrees. Second, they're not offering anything new to their community. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if they switched cities, in a sense. At least then, their audience would be unfamiliar with their dances and could enjoy an infusion of "new" material. But in the same town, doing the same dances as the original troupe with only minor tweaks -- that's not only stealing something from the original troupe. It's stealing something from the audience as well. -
-
Re: Input please
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 9:47 AMActually, when you attend a workshop, you are paying for rights to use the choreography that you learn. So, it's not stealing to perform said choreography elsewhere. HOWEVER, credit should be given to the original choreographer whenever it is performed. Otherwise, you are passing it off as your own, subliminally, which is an ethical no-no. -
-
Re: Input please
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 10:05 AMOh, I didn't mean it was wrong LEGALLY. What I meant was that I would go to a workshop with the intention of adjusting the choreography to my troupe. Legal or no, I wouldn't want to just rip off the choreography. Whether or not I credit the workshop, it's sort of unimpressive and unexpressive that I had to lift my moves from someone else. I want them to be my moves, or at the very least, I want to have changed them enough that I can claim the final result as my own. -
-
Re: Input please
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 10:09 AMAnd also, my response was based around the statement that the first troupe was using workshop choreography as their "signature," which seems dishonest. I guess there's nothing technically wrong with it, but it seems ethically shady to take someone else's invention and claim it's your masterpiece. Kinda like Aunt Mary making the best apple pie in the world and fiercely guarding her recipe, only for you to find out 10 years later she got it off the back of a apple pie filling can. :-P -
-
Re: Input please
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 11:12 AM"And also, my response was based around the statement that the first troupe was using workshop choreography as their "signature," which seems dishonest. I guess there's nothing technically wrong with it, but it seems ethically shady to take someone else's invention and claim it's your masterpiece."
This.
The first troupe really has nothing to get up in arms about if they were taking someone else's choreography and claiming it as their own in hte first place.
That said, the second troupe is doing no better by perpetuating this cycle by using these choreographies when they know they are in regular rotation by another troupe in town. I would hope for their sake that they wise up that it is their personal expression and musical interpretations that will help them stand out and make a name for themselves. If they stay in the shadow of their old troupe, they will never get to step into the light. And you have to WORK for that. -
-
Re: Input please
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 5:20 PMThanks for your responses.
The "signature" dances of the first troupe were those dances that were learned only by the director 10 years ago or so and they were really good choreos which were also mixed in with other original choreos by the director and/or other troupe teachers. Usually the first troupe would credit the choreographers in venues where emcees were present and announcements were made...but not when performing at events where there was no emcee as there was really no way to do that when programs/flyers weren't used by the venues where they danced. The "original" choreos of the dance director were NOT taken and used by the second group. Attempts were made to make some changes to one of the dances by the second group but not in any other of the dances.
Again, thank you.
-
-
Re: Input please
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 6:58 PMI'm glad they announced the original choreographers when they could. That information makes me see them in a different light.
And for some reason, I assumed the second troupe was taking multiple dances and tweaking. Granted, just taking one choreography set isn't as awful, but still, the principle exists. They should just stick to their own stuff, IMO.
You brought up in interesting argument -- thanks! -
-
Re: Input please
Fri, October 30, 2009 - 7:06 PMThank YOU, Jasmine-
This has been a source of discontent in our area for several months now.
ZD -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Input please
Sun, November 1, 2009 - 7:46 AMZiva,
If you're writing an article about ethics in the bellydance community, maybe you shouldn't make it so obvious that you side with the first troupe. While using the choreography doesn't make them deeply unethical, it is a bit uninventive. Why did the second troupe break off? If it was because there were too many in the first troupe, and then things got political, it seems less morally corrupt than if it started as a political/emotional blow-up.
It seems as though you live in a small town where people who know about the whole incident have already chosen sides, including you. I think that might be skewing your perception a little. -
-
Re: Input please
Sun, November 1, 2009 - 4:24 PMOctavia-
While I appreciate your comment I am approaching this article from several different positions....and I actually danced with BOTH groups. I've done many research projects over the last few years while finishing my master's so yes I can be neutrai. And I intend to be. I do think that I can ask for input on this without being viewed as not being neutrail.
The posting of this particular topic was one that I wanted to get some input on for various reasons-- NOT just for an article. I have my own private reasons for NOT dancing with either group again (I am teaching a lot and dance as an independent). The first group did get big but that is not why each person in the second group left...each of us left at various times. There were certain hard feelings pretty much all around but the dance community, for the most part, is working on repairing rifts where possible.
I didn't realize it was "so obvious" as to my post possibly reading as if I sided with the first troupe. That was not the case at all. I was pro second troupe in the BEGINNING. I will not discuss my reasons for the change in my position on this in this forum because I do not think it appropriate.
I do think it was/is wrong that the second group keeps on dancing the same choreos. Part of that reason is because the drummer that went with the second group (because he is married to one of the dancers) worked hard on learning some of the drum solos he played while working with the first group and refused to give them up. Hence, many of the choreos still used utilize him as drummer.
This situation made me wonder if other troupes had gone through this....and whether they did or didn't if they would share their input.
Thank you for yours.
-
Re: Input please
Sun, November 1, 2009 - 6:20 PMUh...maybe it's just me, but I didn't think she seemed biased. *shrugs* -
-
Re: Input please
Mon, November 2, 2009 - 2:09 AMI don't think she seems biased either. -
-
Re: Input please
Mon, November 2, 2009 - 9:40 AMThank you Jasmine & Trynity-
I was not "biased" and tried to explain so in my post to Octavia. What I did was simply state the facts as they were and ask for input. I re-read my posts and could not see where anything appeared to be biased.
Thank you both, again, for sharing. I appreciate that you both did not think I was biased.
ZD -
-
Re: Input please
Mon, November 2, 2009 - 10:32 AMWell, personally, I think it stradles the fence a bit... Whether it's right or wrong... ??? not sure...
BUT, I think it reflects their laziness! My goodness, why bother dancing if your not going to put YOUR passion into it?
It's like constantly painting a slightly different rendition of the "Mona Lisa" and calling it your art...
I wouldn't bother going and watching them perform, that's for sure. You'd always know what they're gonna do! How boring... -
-
Re: Input please
Mon, November 2, 2009 - 11:35 AMBut some people do that quite successfully! Ever heard of a cover band? But they pay royalties in many cases...
And then there is actually Mona Lisa examples!
stampcollector.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/080206-bogota017.jpg
adamstrange.com/website_4....ght-400.jpg
www.freakingnews.com/picture...0203.jpg
Okay, maybe those aren't just *slightly* different. Teehee!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
