Morocco bellydance workshop

[juldea]

Holy shit. I forgot how much that woman can kick my ass.

Morocco is this New York bitch of a bellydancer who just so happens to be one of the foremost experts in raqs sharqi (the real name for it, she won't even use the term "bellydance") and knows fucking everything. Also, mezmerizing dancer. Also happened to celebrate her 65th birthday today. You would never guess it, watching her dance. I'd seen her once before, like 4-5 years ago, and she still leaves me breathless.

So I (and two dozen others) learned a full choreography from her today. Learning from her is hard. She goes fast and she expects you to get it. The teaching method is:

Teach step 1. Do step 1 three times with music.
Teach step 2. Do steps 1 and 2 three times with music.
Teach step 3. Do steps 1-3 three times with music.
Teach step 4. Do steps 1-4 three times with music.
....
Teach step 15 (final). Do entire routine three times through with music.

Do you comprehend how fucking much dancing that is? A "step" isn't just "eight counts of shimmy," it's a full combo of moves. And however many moves the song is broken into, you dance for 3*(timeofmove1-x)! long. I'm trying to get across to you people that my muscles are about to give out and I'm exhausted, but oh boy would I not give it up for the world.

I sense going to bed early tonight.

Comments

Wow.

[fluttergrrl30.livejournal.com]

That sounds absolutely amazing! It also sounds like you got your ass kicked, but I totally get the concept of not giving up that experience for anything. What a great way to end a weekend. :)

Re: Wow.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

I think that the passing out asleep was the great way of ending the weekend. ;)

[learnedax.livejournal.com]

you dance for 3*(timeofmove1-x)! long

Actually, you dance for Sum[k=1..X](3kt). In the case of 15 steps, that's 360t, where t is length of step.

Yeah, that's a lot.

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Well, first off, my math was ambiguous. That's a "time of move one through x, factorial" not "one minus x." Not sure if that is your problem though.

The only reason your math doesn't work is because not every step is the same length, so 3t + 6t + 9t + ... + 45t doesn't accurately describe it. Unless I am thinking it out wrong, which I could be.

My method is meant to indicate:

3(time of move 1) + 3(time of moves 1-2) + 3(time of moves 1-3) + ... + 3(time of moves 1-15)

But perhaps I'm just being a bit pedantic here. ;)

[learnedax.livejournal.com]

I figured you meant 1..X rather than minus(1,X), the main problem is that a factorial isn't what you seem to think it is. Factorial is Product(1..X) rather than Sum(1..X), so e.g. 10! = 3,628,800. Although you were dancing a lot, you weren't dancing that much.

I was glossing over differences in step length, assuming that they roughly averaged. That works as long as there isn't significant monotonic increase or decrease between the ends, in particular as long as the steps don't get longer and longer as you go. A more proper form would be 3*sum[k=1..X](sum[j=1..k](t(k))), which is the slightly more compact form of the series you have there.

To quibble, I'd have to say I'm the pedantic side in this conversation...

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Oh duh, yes you are right. *facepalm* Dunno why I thought a factorial was addition. Brainfart. :)

Sadly the step lengths follow no discernable pattern other than what made sense to the instructor at the time; there are in general similar lengths until later in the choreography, where "do the same thing as those three steps earlier" becomes one step. And you can't just decide to convert that into three separate steps, because the repeat time is shorter with them combined than separated.

[londo.livejournal.com]

According to her website: 2008: April 19/20 – BOSTON, MA with TARIK – contact ZA-BETH zills@earthlink.net