Tribal Bellydance Articles [ATS vs. Tribal]

TRIBALBELLYDANCE.ORG ARTICLE
please request permission for copying or distribution
all works are copyright the authors listed

This "article" came out of an e-mail sent to me by a fellow dancer who had some good questions about tribal style and its many forms. Herein lies a portion of that e-mail exchange and my answers to two of her main questions. As always, this is my personal take on it. Take from it what you will. -Sharon Moore
Published 2003

ATS vs. Tribal Bellydance-what's the difference?

What is your definition of American Tribal Style

Now this is a hot topic for me right now. I trained under Paulette, and this is how she explained it to me: SHE feels that ATS describes the FatChance style of bellydance, and that the word "tribal bellydance" encompasses other styles, including her own. She does not call herself ATS. And I am inclined to agree.

That said, there is a debate going on almost all the time, but especially right now on some of the lists I belong to, that believe that ATS refers to the strictly improvisational style of ANY group, and that tribal encompasses the "look feel" and is more "anything goes". So some people are perfectly fine with seeing a cabaret troupe in tassel belts and turbans calling themselves tribal, just because it has the tribal costume. I AM NOT okay with this idea--I think tribal still MUST encompass some (even mostly) improvisational aspects, and does have some restrictions on style when it comes to choreographies as well, which help keep the spirit of tribal even when not improvising. As to what those limits are and how to express them in words...*shrug* That would be another article in and of itself
I ahave begun using the word Tribal to define a more fusion style, such as of both choreography and improv, and let ATS be the word for a more strict improvisational format. Does this make sense?

As for me, my troupe has agreed on calling ourselves "tribal fusion", because we do improvisation, but also do choreographies. We feel the former, improv, is the tribal part and the latter, choreo, is the "fusion". You will note we do not call ourselves "ATS fusion". Our definition of tribal IS primarily improvisation, and is not enough alone to define what we do, so we add "fusion". Our choreographies are mainly tribal in style/presentation, with some aspects that could be called cabaret or folkloric in nature, but mainly still maintaining the "look and feel" of the moves and spirit created in the improvisational format. In fact, we often throw in sections in the chorepgraphies that look just like improv, to keep the audience guessing about when we are choreographed and when we are improvising. :)

Do you feel there is a difference between ATS and the Gypsy Caravan style?

YES! There are a LOT of differences between the FC and GC styles. A lot of it is in the movement vocabulary and execution of the moves. Many of the moves are similar, but have very distinct differences in arm placement, accents, posture, body orientation, rules on rotation and travelling with particular moves, etc. Also, I feel that Paulette simplified some of the moves she once did when she was an original member of FC, I believe mainly to avoid injury--some of the original moves I have studied, when executed by a new dancer with underdeveloped musculature, could cause great harm. I think Paulette worked to change that, making the moves safer and more accessible to dancers of all strengths. There are some moves that are clearly the same in concept between FC and GC, but Paulette's execution can be done with the same effect by more people with less trouble and risk to the body, mainly the back/spine. Also, Paulette simplified some of the arm movements. I am guessing here, but perhaps she felt some of the arms were distracting from the focus of the move--the hips or torso. Perhaps it was simply an aesthietic choice. In many cases I like the GC way, and in some I prefer the FC way.

The cues are often different, even on the same moves. One will use a certain arm placement to indicate a half turn, while the other may use the same cue to mean a quarter turn. This is true of almost any different tribal style, however, as everyone develops their own cue system. But of the study I have had of each style, there are calcuable differences in cues. For instance, GC uses verbal cues in the form of words and/or sounds, whereas FC stays relatively quiet throughout their performances other than some zaghareeting. I think the main reason why FC avoids verbal cues is their more extensive use of zils. FC almost NEVER goes without zilling when performing to fast music, whereas GC is more flexible, using them sometimes and not others, allowing them to use verbal cues with more success. Again, both methods do their "magic"--it is just personal choice! But so far, really, these are cosmetic differences, which can be seen even among different ATS groups. So let's look a little deeper.

Music with relation to moves is a big difference. Or rather, tempo. FC uses fast music and slow music. They do not use many "medium" songs. GC is not so regimented in that. They use music with paces all up and down the scale, from veeeeery slow on up to lightning fast, and much in between. This musical delineation dictates differences in interpreting the music and what moves go with what music. Carolena is known for making it clear that there are FAST moves and there are SLOW moves, and they stay in the corresponding music. You do NOT use fast moves with slow or slow with fast. Period. Gypsy has many moves that are appropriate for either pace, and a lot of mixing and matching in the medium paced songs, so they are not hard and fast about what moves go with what. Of COURSE there is a lot of study of appropriateness (for instance, they wouldn't whip out a slow snake-y movement in the middle of a thumping tribal beat--it wouldn't look right or feel right!), and study in interpretation of music and rhythm, but there are genuinely moves that work with many different paced music and Gypsy allows for more exploration of this. Fat Chance has a valid reason for keeping their fast and slow vocabularies separate, however. I was made to understand the main reason is to keep a focus on a certain vocabulary so as to limit the vast selections of moves that could be used. Meaning, instead of leaders and followers having to remember all 100 moves (just a number out of my @$$, BTW :), they only have to keep in mind and be ready for 50 moves based on the speed of the music playing. This ups the response rate to cues, since the brain only has to sort out so many cues and changes at a time, and allows them to move a little faster overall. Hope that makes sense.

Speaking of fast and slow, that is another difference--slow music interpretation. Fat Chance has a lot of freedom in their taqsims, I feel, because they do not have to follow the rhythm, per se. They aim more for following the phrasing--a harder concept to teach/learn, and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. But when it does work, it is really beautiful. They need not hit every beat, so to speak, when doing slow pieces, and often use music with asymmettrical beats or no beat at all. This allows them to use some music that may have a slightly faster beat, but a much slower feel, without having to speed up the movements. Does this make sense? They can keep their hips really slooooow, despite a faster drum rhythm, because the music has a slow feel to it that they are responding to. SOMETIMES this is great and liberating, but sometimes it drives me nuts because it looks like they are ignoring/walking all over the rhythm. Note that FC is always rhythmic in fast songs.

Gypsy Caravan is rhythmic regardless--fast, slow or medium. In the GC style, you are always responding to the rhythm in the music, however fast or slow. This makes any group much more easily taught how to synchronize, and often makes it easier to respond to the music predictably, making leading and following more simplified, as more often than not phrasing changes with the rhythm. However, there are cases where the phrasing is offset from the rhythm, or as I mentioned before, songs where there rhythm is faster than the actual feel of the piece of it HAS no discernable beat to follow, and GC does not have a context in their teaching to address these situations (in my experience). Since they are always rhythmic, you must always be responding to the rhythm and have an appropriate rhythm available to respond to. While this makes teaching easier, and leading and following easier more often than not, sometimes I long for the freedom to choose music that is arrhythmic or has no rhythm, simply because I like the sound and feel of the song. This is something I have yet to explore in any depth in class or troupe.

There is also a spirit/look feel difference between the two. While I don't feel FC is "aloof", per se, their presentation is more "royal" in stature. It is a little...I don't know. Like hovering above, if that makes any sense. It definitely has a mystery about it that is captivating, and is not inaccessible in attitude, but is definitely more distant in many ways. More "performer vs audience", with less eye contact/aknowledgement of the audience (in the stage settings in which I have seen them, at least). There is more of a 4th wall, and even though their energy does penetrate this wall and makes the audience a definite part of the energy they project, I have never felt like a "part of the celebration" at a FC performance, even long before I studied GC intensely. Gypsy Caravan, on the other hand, while still maintaining a proud posture, is a little more "accessible". They zaghareet, yip and cheer, smile and laugh in their performances, make a lot of eye contact with the audience in both stage and close performances, they incorporate a lot more color and texture in their costumes indicative of a happy tribal celebration...I really relate to the more boisterous style of Gypsy Caravan so my observations are more glowing of them, but that doesn't mean that I don't also appreciate the FC style, which is beautiful and powerful in its own way.

*********************************

Bottom line, those who have studied and specifically attempted to base their style on FatChance style is an ATS style, in my definition. It is very easy to spot. Those who have not necessarily based their format on the FC style are also recognizable, and would fall under a more general Tribal moniker. If you have any thoughts to share on this topic, I sincerely welcome them. Write me anytime.