Sometimes while doing dance research, I come across something so amusing I have to share it. This time it's a blurb from The New York Times on October 5, 1924 about an international conclave of dancing masters held in Paris which voted on the supposed dance of the year. This was a matter of sufficient import to warrant delivery of the results to the Times by special cable:
[The five-step], which received thirty-eight approving votes, is a mixture of the waltz and one-step and, as can be judged, somewhat involved. The huppa-huppa, on the other hand, is neo-Chilian, being a backward glide which brings the partners in close contact.The winner of the third place was the royale gyneska...
Where do I even begin as a researcher? I'm already on the track of the five-step, which is how I tripped over this article, but the huppa-huppa? What exactly does neo-Chilian mean? That people in Chile all walked backwards in the 1920s? What on earth is a royale gyneska? It sounds like a medical procedure.
I'm weirdly pleased that I now get to look for the answers to these questions. My life as a dance historian is just not complete until I dance the huppa-huppa (in my best neo-Chilian style) and the royale gyneska.
And it gets better:
There was unanimous vote concerning the shimmy, but it was a vote of condemnation. It was cast into utter darkness.
Take that, shimmy! Into utter darkness with you! Because, of course, things dancing masters disapprove of will never catch on. I have a French dancing manual from the mid-1920s right in front of me with a section on "Le Schimmy."
Then there's the pithy summation:
The object of the international conclave was to adopt a unique code for dance, though what that means is not exactly clear.
I have to admire the (anonymous) reporter's wit; the Times is a lot less amusing today.
And about that "unique code" that was the point of the conclave? Well, the five-step sank like a stone in something under a year.
Comments