When is Fusion not Fusion?

My reply to a discussion about calling any and all mixed dance forms “fusion”:

One of my teachers told me long ago, “I’m not here to make you feel good; I’m here to turn you into a dancer”.. so I’m going to risk ruffling feathers and say Fusion dance is not a grab-bag:  it has parameters-those parameters were originated and developed in the 1970s. It’s not a free-for-all. I am comfortable saying that Fusion has parameters because I was one of the dancers in the 1970s who developed the movement, and one of dancers hwo helped create the definition and parameters so it could be taught as a dance style outside of “bellydance”..

What some people are describing when they speak of “fusion dance’ is actually Synthesized Dance- a combining of anything and everything, that started in the 1990s. I love to see it, and have created a lot of good dance theatre from it, but it’s not Fusion. Nor is it bellydance (bellydance has specific parameters, also, that are easily seen and understood).

The problem I have with some of what is being called Fusion is not that it exists– I love a lot of it- Fusion and Synthesized both- it is that too many of the dancers are not well-trained in some of the things they are trying to blend. While some dancers have a wide background in dance, I have seen other dancers mixing raks sharqi moves with hip hop, or ATS or folkdance, or African, or Japanese folk movements, or what have you, and it was obvious that they had not yet mastered any form- to master a form you have to understand the dance, understand what makes it different from other dances, and understand its parameters and why some mixes do, and some don’t, work. (Along with that, the best dancers couple a mastery of performance and stage craft).

I’ve studied dance and theatre for 40+ years, and my primary focus initially was international folkdance, African dance, and Middle Eastern bellydance, folkdance/folkloric dance. I studied under multiple teachers, including Turkish, Iraqi, and Jordanian, as well as respected American teachers. I then moved into the development of Fusion and going from there, turned my hand to stage shows and dance theatre, presenting clear representations of the various dance forms over the years, and hosted excellent representatives in each dance form. I’ve performed and taught since 1975, and have directed shows since 1976. This has allowed me to observe and study a lot about the dance, its off-shoots and subsets.

I’ve also taken many classes in flamenco, ballet, lyrical dance and others. I know a dancer when I see one. And I know when a person is just throwing things together they have done a few times, or think they know enough about to throw into a routine. I can tell when a person understands what they are combining and when they haven’t put the time or research or study into something.

I don’t mind seeing weak performances at haflas or recitals. These are the perfect venues for amateurs, for those who have not yet been trained in stagecraft and presentation.  They are good student venues. But I’ve seen poor dancing at public venues where the audience had to pay to see it, and it’s a disservice for dancers (as well as the audience) to present themselves as dancers without proper training, proper preparation or proper understanding. It’s also a disservice to the audience, the dance form and to yourself to label yourself and market yourself as something you are not.

This is why understand the dance form we are doing, and how to define it, is important.