OK, thanks. This takes me back to my question of what are the differences between an exhibition team performance and a competition team performance.
At some point in the past (before 2005), I got the sense that the first "exhibition" teams were there to show people "how it's done." They were groups like Surrey India Arts Club and Punjabi Lok Virsa, who people believed did better bhangra because they had more experience and better access to "the tradition." The "regular" teams looked to them as models.
So at the same time, these teams had to be "exhibitional" because it would be unfair to put their "authentic" bhangra against the seemingly inferior stuff that "the kids" were doing. The "exhibition" groups were "too good" to "waste" their time competing anyway. What they were doing was "the art," and competing was an activity to be done by college kids who hadn't developed fully yet.
Correct me if I am remembering this wrong.
Now, from what I am hearing, people consider "exhibitional" as a place for people who "didn't make it" in competition. These groups are considered lacking, inexperienced. They are being "given a chance." Competing teams are considered to be the best, the mark of excellence.
Can you guys see how this is a shift? It means that, whether individuals believe it or not, the reality has become that that bhangra is best which is competitive. And there would be no difference in the "exhibition" teams, because they too are striving for the form of competition bhangra. This leaves little room to do things outside the "square stage, few judges, and screaming audience" format and the guidelines of rubrics.
