How to know if you're learning actual casino - the messianic complex

jga

Changui
Hi all,

I have a few questions for you that I'd love to know the communities thoughts on. First I state the questions and then I talk a little bit about the experience that made me want to talk about it in the forum.

1) Have you experienced having Cuban (and maybe non-Cuban) instructors tell you their style of dancing is the authentic one, while it wildly differing from what you've seen/learned in other parts of the world/city?

2) What do you make out of it?

3) How do you know who is making stuff up and who isn't?

My personal experience in different cities of NA ( = Mexico City and west coast USA and Canada) is that there is usually a "dominant" school of Cuban dancing, usually led by a Cuban, which claims to dance "the way it should be and the way it is in Cuba". Unfortunately, this view of what the dance ought to be wildly varies between cities and sometimes even between instructors in the same city --when there are.

I had made my peace with the situation attributing things like backstepping or the "polygonal style" of dancing to the commercialization of "Cuban salsa" in the 90s. However, recently I attended some classes where, among other things, they said the correct way of doing guapea (what they would call basic step in open position) is to have the arm tension (when the right arm of the lead meets the left arm of the follow) happen during the "strong side of the clave" or the "3 side" of it. This statement came with the usual speech about how the instructor in charge is the local authority because they're Cuban and that this is the way it's done in Cuba. Although I've seen people dance like this before, most of the people I've seen usually get to the arm tension during the "2 side" of the clave, i.e., in the fifth count. Any thoughts on this?

I have never danced in Cuba, so my knowledge about casino and timba is all second-hand, and the lack of professional Cuban dancers outside of the island makes things hard to pin down. What I've learned so far is from instructors (Cuban and non-Cuban), YT videos, and some blogs like "sonycasino". So I'd like to know what the opinion of other more experienced dancers is.

---

Hopefully my rant has enough structure for it to generate a good discussion. It was hard to try to synthesise thoughts I've had for months in just a few paragraphs.

Cheers!
 
I didn't learn that from my teachers in cuba but they are younger of the newer school of thought. Maybe they don't know or care. But a lot of people claim a lot of things.
 
I didn't learn that from my teachers in cuba but they are younger of the newer school of thought. Maybe they don't know or care. But a lot of people claim a lot of things.

in Cuba people dance in so many ways. Its hard to put something in box when in reality is infinate in size.

Thanks for your responses!

I've been reading some blog posts (in Spanish) that sort of address my questions. The most relevant one seems to be Son y Casino's post "La falacia de aprender casino a lo cubano" ( roughly "The fallacy of learning casino the Cuban way"). Long story short the article says that even within the island there are plenty of ways to dance, and that speaking of a unified or correct way (my words, my interpretation) doesn't make sense.

Further explaining these discrepancies in different Casino schools we have this blog post from another dance instructor (in Spanish -- casinotradicional[dot]com/la-importancia-de-las-metodologias/). Where the author says: "El casino no forma parte del programa de enseñanza de ninguna de las instituciones cubanas de baile más prestigiosas (ENA, ISA, etc). La formación pedagógica cuando se trata del casino, queda por parte de aquel individuo que lo investigue y lo sepa articular.[...]" which roughly translates to "Casino isn't part of the curriculum of any of the most prestigious dance academies in Cuba (ENA, ISA, etc). Pedagogical formation when it comes to casino is left for the [interested] individual to research and articulate."

I think both of your responses are well aligned with these ideas. 1delpalm telling us their experience in the island and granrey literally presenting the point above in a succinct way.

In any case, it's unfortunate that these things aren't mentioned from the get go for people who are starting to get immersed into the dance and, instead, some instructors look to sell their way of doing things as "the way it is".
 
I do think there is a lot of room for variation and differences of opinions and teaching methods depending on what part/scene of Havana or Cuba the teacher is from, their age, or if they might be from a strong casino scene outside of Cuba that may have evolved differently over time eg Miami, or also depending on when they may have left Cuba - things change over time too.
 
I do think there is a lot of room for variation and differences of opinions and teaching methods depending on what part/scene of Havana or Cuba the teacher is from, their age, or if they might be from a strong casino scene outside of Cuba that may have evolved differently over time eg Miami, or also depending on when they may have left Cuba - things change over time too.
Talking about age, the second blog post I mention in my previous post mentions that back-stepping in casino was the standard originally, and only later it evolved into front-step.
 
Can't answer your question as i'm by no means an expert.

It's interesting that you mentioned that he said the hands should meet on the 3-side though as i was thinking about this myself. On some other thread some other guy said the 2-side was the masculine side and the 3 side the feminine side, so that the 1 would be on the 2 side if it's a 2-3 clave. It makes sense and feels good but then what happens when the song has a 3-2 clave so that the 1 is on the 3 side?
 
Can't answer your question as i'm by no means an expert.

It's interesting that you mentioned that he said the hands should meet on the 3-side though as i was thinking about this myself. On some other thread some other guy said the 2-side was the masculine side and the 3 side the feminine side, so that the 1 would be on the 2 side if it's a 2-3 clave. It makes sense and feels good but then what happens when the song has a 3-2 clave so that the 1 is on the 3 side?

I personally think that labeling the two sides of the clave as "masculine" and "feminine" is not only useless (what the hell are we supposed to make out of it?), but completely arbitrary. The more I think about it the more I believe that dancing to the 1 or the 5 is just up to the dancer and it's ridiculous for someone to say that it should be done one way or the other.

As supporting evidence of the what I'm saying is that sometimes when the clave is implicit in the song it might not be completely clear whether it is a 3-2 or 2-3 clave. Different people might feel that the clave fits the song in a certain way and others the other way. Here's a segment of a documentary about the history of songo where Ignacio Berroa talks precisely about this 3-2 and 2-3 debate (watch from the start until ~2:22 minutes in):


PS. Here's the nicest version I found of the song Ignacio uses as an example in the video above :)

 
I personally think that labeling the two sides of the clave as "masculine" and "feminine" is not only useless (what the hell are we supposed to make out of it?), but completely arbitrary. The more I think about it the more I believe that dancing to the 1 or the 5 is just up to the dancer and it's ridiculous for someone to say that it should be done one way or the other.

As supporting evidence of the what I'm saying is that sometimes when the clave is implicit in the song it might not be completely clear whether it is a 3-2 or 2-3 clave. Different people might feel that the clave fits the song in a certain way and others the other way. Here's a segment of a documentary about the history of songo where Ignacio Berroa talks precisely about this 3-2 and 2-3 debate (watch from the start until ~2:22 minutes in):


PS. Here's the nicest version I found of the song Ignacio uses as an example in the video above :)

Thanks!
 
back-stepping in casino was the standard originally, and only later it evolved into front-step.
...is there or was there ever a "standard" casino? I don't believe. That's why so many discussions on the right way of doing things. I can assume that the social dance evolved in different parts of cuba in different ways - and that's the whole point of that dance, the variety :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: jga
...is there or was there ever a "standard" casino? I don't believe. That's why so many discussions on the right way of doing things. I can assume that the social dance evolved in different parts of cuba in different ways - and that's the whole point of that dance, the variety :D
Perhaps it would be possible to talk about how it was at the very beginning, specially tracing the places where historians think it emerged? IDK, in any case I completely agree with what you're saying!
 
I had made my peace with the situation attributing things like backstepping or the "polygonal style" of dancing to the commercialization of "Cuban salsa" in the 90s. However, recently I attended some classes where, among other things, they said the correct way of doing guapea (what they would call basic step in open position) is to have the arm tension (when the right arm of the lead meets the left arm of the follow) happen during the "strong side of the clave" or the "3 side" of it. This statement came with the usual speech about how the instructor in charge is the local authority because they're Cuban and that this is the way it's done in Cuba. Although I've seen people dance like this before, most of the people I've seen usually get to the arm tension during the "2 side" of the clave, i.e., in the fifth count. Any thoughts on this?

This touches on something I noticed recently.

I deduce from this description that the instructor was aligning the basic to clave, regardless of musical 1 vs 5. So the lead steps left-right-left on the 2-side, right-left-right on the 3-side -- if the song is in 2-3 clave that would be standard "on 1" stepping. So the confusion to me doesn't really make sense -- rather it sounds like the instructor was demonstrating this on a 2-3 clave song, while @jga's "most people" description implies 3-2 clave. (And if my speculation on the instructor's opinion is accurate, he would rather dance "on 5" if the song is in 3-2 clave.)

Anyhow, what brought me here is that I noticed how well guapea "on 1" fits the 2-3 clave, which I guess aligns with the instructor's point of view here:

count 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4
clave + + + + + + +
steps (lead) l R L R l r l R L
arm tension X

Specifically, the accented steps out to the right (or maybe "in" if you're talking rueda) on beat 2 and back in on beat 5 align with the respective beginnings of the two sides of the clave. Even better with tap on 8 (left) as I've seen taught.

Dancing it like this, guapea somewhat feels like an "on 2" step (in the NY Eddie Torres sense) -- stepping on 1 2 3 with the accent / break on 2.

A vague idea I'd like to explore further: Does "forward stepping" casino generally feel a bit more "on 2" (accenting 2 and 3 as opposed to the 1)? How about we settle (confuse) the back stepping vs forward stepping debate by ruling that you step forward on the 2-side of the clave, and allow backsteps on the 3-side?
 
One of my last trips. My teacher kept stepping on what I felt was 5 and he was saying 1. There was no clave, but he kept implying the clave on what. I call the 5. He's a rumbero and the song was (like a lot of timba) a guaguancó clave. Maybe that has a lot to do with it.
The more I think about clave in the "international" context (vs cuban) the more a cone to the conclusion that it us arbitrary and just Lip service since everyone just dances to thd tumbao anyway.
6 years and 5 trips in 1.5 years later, my view is surprisingly still the same but with more nuance.
There's definitely a difference in feel to of the older people vs the younger. I mean that in a technical sense. Vacilala has a lot of variation and some have a very sharp annual trajectory, that can screw things uknuf your ysed tonleading rounder, softer vacilalas.
Also, is it leadbon 1 or 3? Depends on who you talk to. Overwhelming opinion (imo from asking) is 3. But abroad, "authentic" way is 1. Who is correct? That's just one example.

Also, if you learn in cuba znd itcseems contradictory, I i think it's a bit of "teach the yuma"" effect. Once they realized they weren't getting rid of me, they started telling me that I need to assert more circularituly to make my lead correct in the Casino context, even though the previous 5 trips that was not the case. They started to amend their previous teachings.
 
In my experience, dancing casino in a wide variety of places is like hearing an accent in a language. Every place has their own "accent" be it casino or be it language. Obviously it is easier to adapt to an "accent" in casino dancing as compared to understanding every accent in a language.
I do know of casino dancers who step forward on the 1 in guapea as compared to the more common stepping back or "out" on the 1. I was not aware that there are dancers who switch depending on which clave the song is in.
 
In my experience, dancing casino in a wide variety of places is like hearing an accent in a language. Every place has their own "accent" be it casino or be it language. Obviously it is easier to adapt to an "accent" in casino dancing as compared to understanding every accent in a language.
I do know of casino dancers who step forward on the 1 in guapea as compared to the more common stepping back or "out" on the 1. I was not aware that there are dancers who switch depending on which clave the song is in.
I think I was referring to dancing kn 1 vs 5.
I do both in guapea, but more commonly forward on 1, side on 2 and slightly behind on 3.
Sometimes kn the spot on 1. Never back on 1, unless j feel like leading an on the spot vacilala.
 
The dance of Casino is easy to understand and natural to execute in its basic form. The mechanics of Casino come down to three basic concepts:

1. Casino movement is simply the extension of your natural walking. Walking is always forward and the Casino movement is always forward.

2. There are no back steps in Casino. If we are always moving forward we naturally will not be in a position to perform a back step. The leader will have the appropriate posture and attitude towards moving forward or preparing to move forward which will lead the follower into a forward movement.

3. The lead and change of direction is done on the beat and not on the following half beat.
Example: Enchufla lead is on 1 forward not delayed to 1.5 forward

Leading on 1 results in the natural clockwise circular movement of the partners around each other in order to complete the remaining steps in the 1-2-3-5-6-7 cycle.

That is basically it. The other details are related to dance mechanics in general and not specifically to Casino. We are talking about good posture (no bent legs), proper positioning (lead with core), a calm and stable stance, a strong presence, soft but firm connection to the follower, and good timing (not rushing the beat).

As for Guapea, this movement has no functional purpose in the dance of Casino. Performing one or more sequential Guapea steps is like saying "uhm aaaa eehhh" when you are talking. It makes you sound confused and in dance it makes you look like you do not know what to do next. The better you get as a Casino dancer the more you will filter out the use of Guapea. However, in Rueda de Casino it is a critical null movement that allows the dancers to resync and the cantando to organize his thoughts.
 
You seem to know a lot about casino. What's your take on its roots? Is it purely based in son or did it take input from e.g. swing or rock and roll as I've heard tell?

It's "cantante" btw isn't it?
 
You are correct. I should have wrote "the cantante". As a non Spanish speaker I use "cantando" as this is what you call in the rueda when you want to transfer singing to another person "estas cantando" or "cantando".

Dancing Casino for 25 years I can say I know a lot about it. I am not a history buff as I spend all my time on the practical aspects of the dance, but I can give you my 2 cents.

A type of dance has two separate but not all together disconnected layers to its identity regarding its historical roots. One layer is the mechanics of the dance and the other is the style and presentation of the dance. From a mechanics perspective I believe that basic Casino is 98% an evolution of Son. Son provides all the mechanics, absent Deshecho (left turn) movement, that make up basic Casino. This includes the 3 step and pause stepping pattern and lead on 1 concept where the follower does a right turn (Hecho) on beats 1 or 2. Mechanically, dancing Son feels like castrated basic Casino On2 with no Deschecho (left turn) movements. The Deshecho was either figured out by the Cubans or adopted from an American dance like two step, swing, or rock and roll.

It should be pointed out again how people conflate Salsa Cubana and Casino. We are talking about Casino so the discussion stops here. Salsa Cubana is a different beast that takes on many forms.

As for style and presentation, Casino has its own macho style that matches Cuban culture and mentality and simply evolved from inside Cuba.
 
Back
Top