I am the originator of ATS. Jamila is the originator of the Renn Faire-ish look of a "tribe" of dancers working from a chorus. But her dancers did not improv as a group (the nature of ATS), they each presented dramatic dances from different "regions"
My teacher, Masha, took Jamila's idea and created a new costume which we all wore (no regions), we looked like we were from the land of Art Noveau.
When I started teaching I took Masha's costume and re-folkoricized it to look more "authentic." I used Masha's core steps, most I'm sure which had come from Jamila, and added the cues and codes that became ATS.
In Vol.1 I say that "we learned our style was called ATS", because we didn't come up with the term. It was created by Morocco, I think as a way to set the traditional oriental/raqs sharqi/cabaret dancers at ease. Because the general public really liked what I was doing and were mistakenly assuming from the earthy nature of the moves and the costume that it was "the real deal."
So then, I did create ATS but I didn't name it. To me it was just my style of dancing, influenced by my teacher and experiences.
I mentioned in an earlier post about this same topic, that in the beginning I was under a lot of criticism (not that that has changed at all!) and I wanted people to just take the concept of ATS and go with it. I didn't want to claim "ownership" of something that I thought the goddess (Quan Yin) had arranged for me to present to you as a way of creating harmony. BUT it got way out of control when ATS (called Tribal as well) became the dumping ground for anything experimental. I was and am offended by some of the overtly sexual things I see done in the name of ATS/Tribal. Yes! I have an opinion but that doesn't mean you are wrong!
So, in order to bring the original art (our earthy steps, the rich costuming and mostly folkloric Egyptian music) we had to redefine ourselves as ATS.
So you see, in the beginning I had no idea how popular my style would become and I wanted to include everyone, make you all happy. But I thought the aesthetic was going to be obvious, it wasn't and isn't if we have to have this diuscussion.
When Megha and I decided to partner our studios we shared all our information and adopted each other's steps (so yes I am doing ATS when I do a move created by Megha, who was influenced by an Indian dance teacher.)
We use a "code" to create a new step (see Cultural Roots in FCBD's Tribal Talk archive
http://www.fcbd.com/html/newsletter.html) And, when we set a step, we stick to it. Everything that you see in my DVDs Vol.1-7 are still taught and performed exactly the way they were created. We don't change things and we don't get bored. The only time we modify a step is when no one is using it because some element is awkward. But those changes happen before you, the public, ever see them. Also, I am open to seeing steps that other ATS teachers have developed so we can adopt them into our vocabulary. As of now, I consider all GS/FC/ATS certified teachers, that have been trained by me to be the new generation of step producers. I just ask that they teach me the steps so we can "all dance together at that virtual show." I also plan to make a dvd of the new teachers and their contributions once the Sister Studio concept has had a few years to mature.
We do experiment and choreograph occasionally. The dvd "San Francisco Beledi" is a great example of it. But for the most part we like structured improv.
If I wanted to get really nit-picky, I could claim that I created Fusion as well if you look at the clip that Corrie posted on
https://www.youtube.com/watch in 1998. But it's not my typical work so I leave Rachel Brice to be the queen of Fusion.
So now, does that answer the questions? Can I please have my dance form back? Can you just be happy being referred to as "Tribal" with a capital "T" if you have changed the format or steps? Can ATS be reserved for those troupes who were inspired by my original idea and have stuck to it?
