Cha Cha CHA! (or is it?)

[Aieee]

Well, it seems I'm always off the beat in Cha Cha. I can pick out the down beats alright but I can't for the life of me tell which are the 2,3 and which are the 4and1 in the majority of the songs (the ones that do not have something obvious denoting the chachacha). Anybody have any advice on this? Any resources? I would like to get this down before Ohio.

[dTas]

can you count the beats in the music?

5, 6, 7, 8?

if you can count the music then you know where the 2 is.

[Aieee]

I think I can count from 1-8. Would you recommend that I try to do so first before switching off to teh 2,3chachacha that is easier to keep in mind when dancing?

[dTas]

have you tried counting "1, 2, 3, 4, &, 1, 2, 3, 4, &"?

[Ron Obvious]

have you tried counting "1, 2, 3, 4, &, 1, 2, 3, 4, &"?

I think 2, 3 cha-cha-chá, 2 ,3... is easier.

Or just listen! Listen to a lot of cha-cha-chá music, for instance Santana or Jarabe de Palo. That's really one thing that helps a lot. Just remember that there are two consecutive high-pitch slaps on the drum (conga) right before the downbeat where you start salsa (the 1). Those are usually the easiest to find.

[Nik]

there is no 5 6 7 8 in cha cha.

In most cha cha music you will hear 2 strong beat for 2 3 and then 3 faster beats for [4] [and] [1]. Try clapping your hands to the beat and then count it out loud.

[chachachacat]

Welcome to DF, Aiee!

Yes, it is cha cha CHA, because that's the 4&1, and the CHA is the ONE.

Not yelling, just emphasizing.

[pygmalion]

Hi Nik. Long time, no see. Glad you're still here. :)

[Lockstep]

Its much easier if you begin your cha cha cha on the 1 in the beginning...do so by making a simple step to the right on the one, and then just go into the basic...saves you from having to find the 2, when the 1 is usually easier, at least initially.

[Sagitta]

What I do is start dancing on the cha cha cha. Works for me. Whether I break back or froward depends on what I feel like at the moment..i.e. breaking forward on the 2 or 6.

[Nik]

Hi Nik. Long time, no see. Glad you're still here. :)

Yeah my computer was broken for a while, finally fixed it so I'm back.



In my 13 years of dancing I have never heard of anyone use 5 6 7 8 in either cha cha or rumba, its just not something you do.

[Dancebug]

In my 13 years of dancing ....
You make it sound as if you are old.

[cantdance]

I think in the salsa world, they count it in 8s. I remember doing a class with Eddie Torres and he counted it in 8s.

[mummsie]

if you are counting cha in 8's you are counting the half beats. cha is 4/4 time and is usually counted as 1 beat, 1 beat, half, half, 1 beat to get the full value. As said above, we always start our beginners with the foot to the side and then just go over on to the foot on count 1 so that they are in time. When you learn the actual theory of cha, the first step is count 2 and is a forward movement for the man. Its very hard at the beginning though to get that into people's heads. Gayle

[JoepiE]

Last week my partner and I took a lecture of Natalia Panina. It was about Cha Cha. Not Cha Cha Cha, but Cha Cha. Her first words she said where: "If anyone asks you to dance Cha Cha CHA, tell them you don't know the dance!"

She said dancing is translating music with your body. So for dancing we need music. The CC music has 4 counts in a bar. 1,2,3,4. There is an extra beat after the 4, resulting in 1,2,3,4,&. This &, half a count, is take from the 4. So it's three whole counts (_) and two halfs (-): _ _ _ - - representing 1,2,3,4&.

Besides that there is an emphisis on 1 in CC. If you count 2,3,Cha,Cha,Cha or even 2,3,cha,cha,CHA, the risk to take some time of 1 for 4& is big and you'll loose the CC music.

My advise is to forget all that you heard, find an Rhythm only CC (your danceclub probably has one) and start counting 1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4. If you master that try to really listen to the music. You'll hear three heavy beats (1,2,3) and two lighter half-beats (4,&). Tap your right hand on 1,2,3 hard on your right leg and tap your left hand softly on 4& on your left leg.

This is what makes Ch Cha cheeky too. And if you master this in dancing your routine you'll find that you got a whole lot faster and the dancing will get easier, it's like you've got time to spare! At least that's what my partner and I noticed.

If you PM me your e-mail adress I'll send you a short rhythm only Cha Cha piece of music, building up the rhythm and ending in a real song. I made it myself so don't expect much of it! :)

[HF]

there is no 5 6 7 8 in cha cha.

What makes you so sure?

[Aieee]

Staying on the beat once I've found it usually isn't the problem as as people have previously stated, the beats are distinctive enough. My main problem is identifying the beat while under pressure during a comp, I usually end up starting on the wrong half (2,3 when starting with the chachacha step) or being half a beat off. Thanks for the suggestions and I'll probably try them all out at next practice! (my poor partner =) )

[dTas]

all 4/4 music is written on 8 beat measures. you CAN count cha cha 1, 2, 3, 4&, 5, 6, 7, 8&, 1.

just because no one does it doesn't mean you cant. actually when i teach my students music theorey i talk to them about counting the measures of music instead of the dance rhythm.

so as an exercise i have them count the cha cha in 8's instead of 4's. that way they know which breakstep they're going to do (break on right or on left) and can put together their choreography in measures of 8 to match the music.

[dTas]

Staying on the beat once I've found it usually isn't the problem as as people have previously stated, the beats are distinctive enough. My main problem is identifying the beat while under pressure during a comp, I usually end up starting on the wrong half (2,3 when starting with the chachacha step) or being half a beat off. Thanks for the suggestions and I'll probably try them all out at next practice! (my poor partner =) )

try simply walking around to the rhythm... walk walk walk CHA CHA walk walk walk CHA CHA

put on some music start counting 1, 2, 3... and walk walk walk CHA CHA around the floor. don't do basics or any figues. get your body used to changing weight to the correct rhythm.

[Dancebug]

all 4/4 music is written on 8 beat measures. you CAN count cha cha 1, 2, 3, 4&, 5, 6, 7, 8&, 1.
Could it be because of different styles of chacha, international style and American style? As an international style dancer, I cannot imagine counting 5, 6, 7,8. It will be too confusing to me.

[saludas]

Could it be because of different styles of chacha, international style and American style? As an international style dancer, I cannot imagine counting 5, 6, 7,8. It will be too confusing to me.

nope, no difference between the two techniques. American style dancing still needs to do the cha cha cha part on the part of the music that goes cha cha cha.

There is not such thing as 5,6,7,8 in cha cha cha, as it is done in 4/4. One measure is 4 beats.

[dTas]

when choreographing cha cha routines we always count it in 8's . don't you?

[Dancebug]

when choreographing cha cha routines we always count it in 8's . don't you?
No, we don't. I don't see the reason to do that.

[dTas]

how about when your instructors count off the beats before starting a move... do they go 5-6-7-8? or just say "go"

the reason to choreograph in 8's is to match the phrasing of the music better.

plus... if you look at the basic... you don't actually get back to a position where you can start again until after 8 beats.

if you do 1,2,3,4& you will be doing your next "1" on a different foot than where you started so you have to do another 1,2,3,4& to get back to your beginning foot. take a look at most patterns they end where they began, the foot you began with is free to begin another figure.

[saludas]

when choreographing cha cha routines we always count it in 8's . don't you?

nope....

[lynn]

for me, i always count in 4 - simply b/c it's 4/4 and to me phrasing is more than 2 bars so i really don't see the reason for counting in 8 (i know, some teachers do that, i'm still trying to figure out why....)

[ACtenDance]

4/4 strictly speaking means that there are 4 beats in a measure where a quarter note is the length of one beat (yay band dorks!). If you're talking about phrasing, most musical phrases last 8 measures/bars of music, not 8 beats... so you can either count 1,2,3,4 eight times or count 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 four times.

Anyone know a real reason for counting to 8?

[lynn]

i guess the only problem i have for counting 8 beats is that sort of assume phrasing lasts for 2 bars rather than 8? I think it's just a psychological thing with me.... maybe i should just count from 1-32 then....:lol:

Wait, come to think of it, i think one instructor actually said that phrasing goes for 2 bars....

[dTas]

i apply some theorey that i learned in WCS... counting the music in 8's to hit the breaks and better match the way the music flows.

[dave_aw]

If you watch Slavik and Karina in their techique videos they count it

1,2,3,Cha-cha-1,2,3,Cha-cha-1

Where the chasse actions occur on the Cha-Cha-One

I like this method, it gives extra weight to the one count and emphasises how beats one, two and three are slow, but the remaining two are quicker/lighter counts.

I also think this is easy to learn as you can more easily identify the 1 in a piece of cha-cha music. At a more advanced level it also encourages you to ensure you settle your weight correctly on the 1 count before moving off on the 2,3 - this will allow correct use of the floor and will settle your weight into your partner to connect the two of you together.

[fenixx]

I don't count just one way. It depends on the figure I am working with. When I start off my students, I tend to count off "5, 6, 7, Cha Cha Cha," but when it comes to my moves I may count regular timing "2, 3, cha(4), cha(and), cha(1)," I may do syncopated timing "2, and, a, 3, and, a, 4, e, and, a, 1," or I may use whole timing "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8."

The point is there are many ways of breaking down the music. You might not even be inclined toward numbers, you may like what many pros to "ya, ti, da, da, da, ya TA" etc. If you are having trouble with the timing start with the basic timing "1, 2, 3, cha(4), cha(and), cha (1)" The one beat is usually easy to find. Also, in cha cha, the emphasis is on the 1 and 3. Good luck

[HF]

It may be not common but would make a lot of sense to count to 8. Or to count to 4 but accept that there are even and odd bars.

A simple test would be to start a basic on any bar - it will not feel right for the odd ones - my 2c.

[dTas]

It may be not common but would make a lot of sense to count to 8. Or to count to 4 but accept that there are even and odd bars.

A simple test would be to start a basic on any bar - it will not feel right for the odd ones - my 2c.


i agree!

[saludas]

It may be not common but would make a lot of sense to count to 8. Or to count to 4 but accept that there are even and odd bars.

A simple test would be to start a basic on any bar - it will not feel right for the odd ones - my 2c.

Why not 12? Or 16?

Maybe because there is only a count of 4 in the Cha Cha Cha.

[dTas]

a 4 count doesn't get you back to your original foot. you're only half way through the basic.

[NielsenE]

Hmm I'll normally count it as
1,2,3,4& 2,2,3,4&,3.... upto 8..

To hit the common eight bar phrasing, but still counting just to four within the measure.

[Larinda McRaven]

Anyone know a real reason for counting to 8?

Basically most people can hear the simple 8 beat grouping... T. A. NGO type of thing, you can jump in anywhere and know where you are. Most people cannot just listen to a 32 phrase and go "27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ..."

The thing that bugs me is 5.6.5678 :?

[Chris Stratton]

4/4 strictly speaking means that there are 4 beats in a measure where a quarter note is the length of one beat (yay band dorks!). If you're talking about phrasing, most musical phrases last 8 measures/bars of music, not 8 beats... so you can either count 1,2,3,4 eight times or count 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 four times.

Anyone know a real reason for counting to 8?

There are multiple levels to musical structure.

One of them, present in the vast majority of cases, is the two-measure unit. Most of the other structural units can be broken down into a whole number of two measure units, often by a power of two.

okay, I'll admit it, I deal with powers of two all day

[dTas]

The thing that bugs me is 5.6.5678 :?


eh?

[Larinda McRaven]

have you never heard anyone count that way?

[cornutt]

The thing that bugs me is 5.6.5678 :?

I've heard that too. The only explanation I can think of is that, to the person who counts off this way, the numbers aren't really numbers but simply sound tokens -- a means of locking into the rhythm. Any single-syllable words would probably work. They could say "blue, fish, time crash point THUNK!" and it would work just as well. :shock:

What I do think is kind of amusing is that, to start a song in 4/4, a lot of musicians will count off "five six seven eight". But no one ever starts a 3/4 or 6/8 song by counting off "four five six"!

[lynn]

i've never heard anyone count 5,6,5,6,7,8.....

[Another Elizabeth]

They don't do it evenly like that, lynn. They say 5 <beat> 6 <beat> 5, 6, 7, 8. It's very common. I think it's actually how one of the songs in A Chorus Line starts, if I remember correctly.

[Fedya]

They don't do it evenly like that, lynn. They say 5 <beat> 6 <beat> 5, 6, 7, 8. It's very common. I think it's actually how one of the songs in A Chorus Line starts, if I remember correctly.

Yes, that it was on the song "I Hope I Get It".

It is counted this way say that people can prepare to dance. The first five six and half beats and the five six seven eight are quarter beats. Musicians also start counting off this way especially is there is an acapella group. It allows everyone involved to know when to start and what the tempo is.

[Larinda McRaven]

But why not just identify the beats as they really are 1(beat)3(beat)5678, or 1(beat)3(beat)1234, or 12345678 or whatever?

It is a very "broadway" type of thing to do.

[Chris Stratton]

I would consider "one - two - 1234" a legitimate start since it's okay to count in cut time and to restart every measure rather than counting across two measure groups, but I'd consider "five - six - 5678" flawed since it's in effect lying - 2 can roll over to 1, but 6 cannot roll over to 5.

[NielsenE]

I would consider "one - two - 1234" a legitimate start since it's okay to count in cut time and to restart every measure rather than counting across two measure groups, but I'd consider "five - six - 5678" flawed since it's in effect lying - 2 can roll over to 1, but 6 cannot roll over to 5.

I'm guilty of using the 5,6,5678 when working with some groups of beginners. The one thing in favor of it from my perspective -- people won't tend to "jump" and think they should have already started moving when they here "5", verus "1" -- 1,2,1234 I always seem to get half of the group doing the start,stop,start type thing. Most of the time its just "5678" without the two half-time counts... don't know if that makes it less offensive to y'all...

[Chris Stratton]

Most of the time its just "5678" without the two half-time counts... don't know if that makes it less offensive to y'all...

That's fine, because it has no rollover discontinuity in it, and is quite appropriate for a common musical structure.

It's the 5, 6, 5 sequence that I consider flawed, wheras 5 6 is okay and even 1 2 1 is okay.

[Nik]

What makes you so sure?


the fact that I have taken lessons with the best coaches in the world and not once have I ever heard a dancer say 5-8 in cha cha. sambe, paso, jive.... yes. would you use 5 6 7 8 in rumba? no. neither would you in cha cha.

[Ms_Sunlight]

the fact that I have taken lessons with the best coaches in the world and not once have I ever heard a dancer say 5-8 in cha cha. sambe, paso, jive.... yes. would you use 5 6 7 8 in rumba? no. neither would you in cha cha.

1-2-3-4 is the bar
1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 is the phrase

Like it or not, the 5 6 7 8 is there and you hear it even if you've never learned to count it explicitly. Like many musical forms in 4/4 time, cha cha music is conventionally constructed of a repeating pattern of two-bar phrases. The step pattern follows this two-bar phrasing.

Now, the 5-6-5678 thing Larinda mentions... that is just bizarre.

[bjp22tango]

I'm "guilty" of using the 5-6-5678 count down also, and it has been so long since I first heard it used I couldn't tell you where I learned it, but I THINK it was in Jazz dance class many moons ago.

The 5678 count off does make sense because you are coming in on the beginning of another 8 count (2 four beat measures) phrase so it gets you ready. I haven't a clue where the 5-6 comes from, but it does tend to get people's attention and settles them down ready to start with the right tempo.

If you want to talk about bizarre ways to count beats, I have always thought the British way to count the Jive basic 1-2 3a4 3a4 truly "diputs". Talk about confusing the beginner dancer on how many beats a basic has.....

[Chris Stratton]

Basic rule: don't ask dancers about music, don't ask musicians about dance...

[smoozer]

Basic rule: don't ask dancers about music, don't ask musicians about dance...

LMAO

I know a coach that does everything in sounds. Never counts a beat. Claims that this method was learned in england in the late 70's and early 80's. It works quite well.

[Chris Stratton]

I know a coach that does everything in sounds. Never counts a beat. Claims that this method was learned in england in the late 70's and early 80's. It works quite well.

Hard to catch him in a mistake that way...

[cornutt]

But why not just identify the beats as they really are 1(beat)3(beat)5678, or 1(beat)3(beat)1234, or 12345678 or whatever?


There is a musicians' inside joke in there, but I'm not going to be so rude as to tell it.

Oh heck, yes I am... :shock:

The 5-6-5678 isn't actually a musician thing so much as it is... a drummer thing! :cool:

Ba-da-bing! :spam:

[cornutt]

If you want to talk about bizarre ways to count beats, I have always thought the British way to count the Jive basic 1-2 3a4 3a4 truly "diputs".

When I was first learning hustle (a dance that still doesn't make a lot of sense to me), one instructor taught me to count the beats "1, 1&1..." :cool: It does sort of fit what actually happens in hustle music.

[dTas]

the fact that I have taken lessons with the best coaches in the world and not once have I ever heard a dancer say 5-8 in cha cha. sambe, paso, jive.... yes. would you use 5 6 7 8 in rumba? no. neither would you in cha cha.

i have had has sessions with several choreographers who have used the 8 count to create dances. (even in cha cha)

actually i'd go as far as say every choreographing session that i've had has been based on 8 count's (except waltz of course)

[Another Elizabeth]

Cornutt, your sig is perfect for this discussion!

[lynn]

Cornutt, your sig is perfect for this discussion!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Ms_Sunlight]

actually i'd go as far as say every choreographing session that i've had has been based on 8 count's (except waltz of course)

Hehehe. Yeah, waltz would be an exception, as would folk dances such as jigs that are commonly danced to 6/8 time.

If you listen to a song in 4/4 time you'll find the lines of the song and the natural phrasing of the music is almost always in a multiple of two bars. So of course if you're choreographing to fit the music, you're doing it in multiples of two.

Me, I'd like to think that dancers *are* musicians. When you dance you make yourself part of the music. Or you try to, at any rate ;)

[tacad]

Basic rule: don't ask dancers about music, don't ask musicians about dance...
:lol:

[dTas]

Hehehe. Yeah, waltz would be an exception, as would folk dances such as jigs that are commonly danced to 6/8 time.

If you listen to a song in 4/4 time you'll find the lines of the song and the natural phrasing of the music is almost always in a multiple of two bars. So of course if you're choreographing to fit the music, you're doing it in multiples of two.

Me, I'd like to think that dancers *are* musicians. When you dance you make yourself part of the music. Or you try to, at any rate ;)

OH! that makes so much sense!!!

when i dance i try to express what i'm hearing in the music. the ups, the downs, the sentances, the bars, the phrases, breaks, etc. that's one thing i hate about comps... the choreography doesn't match the "feeling" of the music. you can do that routine to any old song.

[tacad]

Basically most people can hear the simple 8 beat grouping... T. A. NGO type of thing, you can jump in anywhere and know where you are. Most people cannot just listen to a 32 phrase and go "27, 28, 29, 30, 31 ..."

The thing that bugs me is 5.6.5678 :?
I just read your T. A. NGO in the rhythm of that kids song B. I. NGO (and bingo was his name-o). :doh:

[lynn]

Basic rule: don't ask dancers about music, don't ask musicians about dance...

somehow, i completely agree with this statement.....

:notworth: :notworth:

[Chris Stratton]

Me, I'd like to think that dancers *are* musicians. When you dance you make yourself part of the music. Or you try to, at any rate ;)

That's where both groups get into trouble; dancers *think* they understand music but rarely do, musicians *think* they understand dance and can play for it, but most can't.

[lynn]

That's where both groups get into trouble; dancers *think* they understand music but rarely do, musicians *think* they understand dance and can play for it, but most can't.

yes, but there are such people as both musicians AND dancers :wink: !

[tacad]

yes, but there are such people as both musicians AND dancers :wink: !
Hmmm. I dance now, but used to play trumpet. I wonder if this counts?:confused:

[dTas]

but as dancers we are dependant upon musicians... without music we really can't dance but without dances musicans can still play.

really its up to us as dancers to match the music... the music dictates the dance.

[fenixx]

When you dance your cha-cha basic, you may start like this (man) rock onto the right foot (1) forward with left foot (2) replace right (3) chasse left (4 and 5), rock back with right foot (6), replace left (7), chasse right (8 and 1). That count takes you through a full basic, and goes through the 8 counts of music. If you start 1,2,3,4 then start you are starting in the middle of the phrase. if you start with a count of 5,6,7,8 then you are counting the end of a phrase to prepare you for the beginning of the phrase, which starts on the one

[tacad]

Well said, fennix.

[dTas]

When you dance your cha-cha basic, you may start like this (man) rock onto the right foot (1) forward with left foot (2) replace right (3) chasse left (4 and 5), rock back with right foot (6), replace left (7), chasse right (8 and 1). That count takes you through a full basic, and goes through the 8 counts of music. If you start 1,2,3,4 then start you are starting in the middle of the phrase. if you start with a count of 5,6,7,8 then you are counting the end of a phrase to prepare you for the beginning of the phrase, which starts on the one

well said... now i'm just waiting for someone to comment on the rocking on the "1". :)

oops! i guess i just did.

[lynn]

um....sorry, but could you explain what "end of a phrase" means?? is that in terms of the structure of the music? Or b/c the cha cha basic takes 8 beats??

i'm used to counting 1,2,3,4 & 1,2,3,4 so personally i don't feel i'm starting in the middle of the phrase - just my $0.02

[lynn]

Oops, i think i forgot to mention something...

the 5,6,7,8 works for American Cha cha but what about international where we start on 4??

[fenixx]

Well, a lot of people teach cha cha as beginning (for the man) on the left foot with the right leg extended to the side, toe pointed. On the 1, the man is to rock onto his right leg to initiate the cha cha. Again, that is why I said you may start like that, but the phrasing will still hold no matter how you start.

Lynn, I understand your point. Many people count a continuous 1,2,3,4,and1,2,3... There is nothing wrong with that. When you are trying to start a group of people on the same time, it is often easier to say "5,6,7,8" and everyone knows that they will start after the 8 as opposed to say "ok, I will count a whole measure and then we start on the proceeding 1". People can be confused by this.

Samba (this might open up an entire new can of worms) can be counted 1, a, 2, 2, a, 2, 3, a, 2, etc. Or it can be counted in 4's or 8's, or by different noises that are to represent beats. No count is more correct, but you do want to phrase your patterns correctly with the music, so there is something to be said about understanding the beats in the music and how they work with your routines.

Lastly, someone mentioned that 5,6,7,8 is a drummer thing. The beat is what is important to the dancer, and the drummer does keep the beat. What is missing from 99.9% of dancers is musicality - a deep understanding of the beat and the melody in the person's dancing. If you read any of Walter Laird's work or if you talk to Vibeke you will hear a lot about musicality and how that is the backbone of competitive latin dancing. So, its not important how you count, but that the beat is well interpreted in your dancing.

[tacad]

um....sorry, but could you explain what "end of a phrase" means?? is that in terms of the structure of the music? Or b/c the cha cha basic takes 8 beats??

i'm used to counting 1,2,3,4 & 1,2,3,4 so personally i don't feel i'm starting in the middle of the phrase - just my $0.02
Mary had a little lamb, little lamb, little lamb.
1-----2----3-----4-----1---2-----3----4

1-----2----3-----4-----5---6-----7----8


Mary had a little lamb her fleece was white as snow.
1-----2----3----4--------5----------6--------7-------8

The first sentence is kind of like a whole expression (musically, not the words). Somehow the expression wasn't completed in the first 4 counts, it required 8 counts (though I suppose there was a sub-expression in the first 4 counts).

[lynn]

eh....the expression actually goes on for more than 8 beats - but that's another can of worms.

But honestly, i think the 5,6,7,8 will probably only work if you start on beat 1. In international Cha Cha, i was taught to start on 4, so we were always counted as 1,2,3,4..... does that make sense?

[fenixx]

The count I was referring to is in international

[Chris Stratton]

Any difference in starting count between international and american cha is purely the preference of the person teaching you; it doesn't really matter that much, though I'm sure many arguments can be made for why some way is superior.

[fenixx]

I agree with you Chris. The count doesn't matter if its american or international. I guess what I am trying to stress is that it doesn't matter how you count as long as you are dancing with the music.

[Chris Stratton]

Though sometimes attributing an odd "but so and so said" to the 'other style' is a workable way of getting someone to try something your way...

[tacad]

eh....the expression actually goes on for more than 8 beats - but that's another can of worms.
I hear two separate musical phrases, each taking 8 beats. It's as though the music has been driving forward for 8 beats, pauses, sets up for the next phrase, and then the music starts driving forward again during the last 8 beats. You're right. If you stopped at the end of the first 8 beats of "Mary had a little lamb" you don't feel complete somehow. You're not done. Musically, it's as if the first phrase is the setup of a joke and the last phrase is the punch line. The setup of a joke is a complete thought just as the first musical phrase is a complete thought. It leads into the punch line just as the first phrase leads into the second phrase. And then the joke and song are over. :wink:

[dTas]

Well, a lot of people teach cha cha as beginning (for the man) on the left foot with the right leg extended to the side, toe pointed. On the 1, the man is to rock onto his right leg to initiate the cha cha. Again, that is why I said you may start like that, but the phrasing will still hold no matter how you start.


i was just kidding about the "1" beat thing. i know what you were implying. i was just trying to head off all the nit-picky ones out here that would make a HUGE issue out of it.

i agree with what you're saying. its the "musicallity" and not the base "measure" beats that make up the song (and the dance).

i've said it before... if you're only dancing to the beat then you might as well be dancing to a metronome. you have to dance to the music, the whole music; 8's, 16's, 32's, lyrics, melodies, etc etc.

[Katarzyna]

i've said it before... if you're only dancing to the beat then you might as well be dancing to a metronome. you have to dance to the music, the whole music; 8's, 16's, 32's, lyrics, melodies, etc etc.:applause: :applause: :notworth: I like this a lot

[lynn]

wait, there are people dancing to metronomes, right??

[dTas]

wait, there are people dancing to metronomes, right??

yup! i have. i've used a metronome in lessons to try and get people to realize that there's actually a basic beat structure to the moves. AND that it doesn't really matter what the basic beat is to dictate the dance. you can dance a rumba to a foxtrot or a cha to a WCS, etc.

[lynn]

whoa....dancing to a metronome...is that fun :wink: ??

[Katarzyna]

Not quite my type type of fun :(

[dTas]

metronome dancing isn't fun... that's why i don't play a metronome at parties.

but it is a very good teaching tool to get your point across to those who do not understand why the same piece of music can be danced several different ways.

AND to help people break down individual steps and technique without worrying about musicallity.

[Katarzyna]

It certainly must be a great tool. I never ever danced to one.. :)

[lynn]

metronome dancing isn't fun... that's why i don't play a metronome at parties.

Hmm, that's a nifty idea ;) !!

[tacad]

If you got one with a stick waving back and forth that goes tick......, tock, tick,........, tock, tick,.........., that could be fun. :wink:

[chachachacat]

I hear two separate musical phrases, each taking 8 beats. It's as though the music has been driving forward for 8 beats, pauses, sets up for the next phrase, and then the music starts driving forward again during the last 8 beats. You're right. If you stopped at the end of the first 8 beats of "Mary had a little lamb" you don't feel complete somehow. You're not done. Musically, it's as if the first phrase is the setup of a joke and the last phrase is the punch line. The setup of a joke is a complete thought just as the first musical phrase is a complete thought. It leads into the punch line just as the first phrase leads into the second phrase. And then the joke and song are over. :wink:
:notworth: Very well said!

[lynn]

If you got one with a stick waving back and forth that goes tick......, tock, tick,........, tock, tick,.........., that could be fun. :wink:

i don't know why, but that sounds like a time bomb to me....:confused:

[dTas]

in one of the studios that i used to work at there was a really neat CD

the first track was just a beat (like a metronome)
the second track added an instrument
the third track added another

eventually it turned into a rumba and another set for cha cha. but it was really neat to use as a teaching tool to get students to dance to more and more qualities of a song.

[tacad]

:notworth: Very well said!
Why thank you, Miss!

[chachachacat]

in one of the studios that i used to work at there was a really neat CD

the first track was just a beat (like a metronome)
the second track added an instrument
the third track added another

eventually it turned into a rumba and another set for cha cha. but it was really neat to use as a teaching tool to get students to dance to more and more qualities of a song.
That sounds like a great teaching tool!

[tacad]

i don't know why, but that sounds like a time bomb to me....:confused:
:lol:

[Vince A]

i was just kidding about the "1" beat thing. i know what you were implying. i was just trying to head off all the nit-picky ones out here that would make a HUGE issue out of it.
I've been dinged in a competition for breaking "on 1." Somehow I got off on a multiple-turn move, and broke "on 1." So, I imagine if your are social dancing, it doesn't matter, but in some circles it does???

i agree with what you're saying. its the "musicallity" and not the base "measure" beats that make up the song (and the dance).
I concur . . . accenting the music . . . hesitating more on the 1 and 3 regardless of the count . . .

i've said it before... if you're only dancing to the beat then you might as well be dancing to a metronome. you have to dance to the music, the whole music; 8's, 16's, 32's, lyrics, melodies, etc etc.
Oh yea, and so many count music in 8's . . . trying to connect it to 8 counts of music . . . works in some dances . . . but not in Cha. And, there are some Cha songs out there that are in 12's . . . in this case you better be dancing to the music, not in 4's or 6's either (like 3 x 4 counts or 2 x 6 counts). Jeez, this takes all the fun out of dancing.

Weird counts make your dancing look weird, and if you don't know how to phrase the music . . . ???????????????????

But to each his own . . hell, I used to count Cha as 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 . . . it worked for me. But . . . I don't count anymore. I listen to the music.

[itorres]

I've heard that too. The only explanation I can think of is that, to the person who counts off this way, the numbers aren't really numbers but simply sound tokens -- a means of locking into the rhythm. Any single-syllable words would probably work. They could say "blue, fish, time crash point THUNK!" and it would work just as well. :shock:
:lol: :uplaugh: :lol:
Oh, boy!

[itorres]

Me, I'd like to think that dancers *are* musicians. When you dance you make yourself part of the music. Or you try to, at any rate ;) Interesting comment. I agree. It's like you're playing another instrument - your body. When I dance I think of my feet as making an audible sound when I step - I am a musician. I always try to make that imaginary sound coincide with the beat. I like to think that makes me be right on time.

What I see from these type of discussions is that some of us dancer musicians may be quite good but play by ear. In other words we can play but we haven't taken any music theory or learned to read music. So, if you ask us to expalin what we're doing we can't very easily. Perhaps we attempt to without really having the facts straight.

It's no big deal as long as we realize this and try to learn a bit. Eddie Torres was dancing for 10 years and was one of the best On 2 (Power 2):) . Then they asked him if he danced On 2 and he replied "On 2 feet?". When they started to ask what he was doing and facing the prospect of teaching he had to learn the music theory.

[cornutt]

metronome dancing isn't fun... that's why i don't play a metronome at parties.

but it is a very good teaching tool to get your point across to those who do not understand why the same piece of music can be danced several different ways.


I've put together a set of drum patterns that I've used to explain to people about the different kinds of beats we might encounter in ballroom dancing, and why one dance is danced to one type of beat and another dance is danced to a different one. If I can find the audio tracks, I'll put them up on my Web site.

[cornutt]

i don't know why, but that sounds like a time bomb to me....:confused:

Lynn, IIRC you're a bit younger than some of us old fogies, so you might not have ever seen one of the old-style mechanical metronomes. Basically, it's an upside-down pendulum attached to a clock mechanism. You wind it up like a mechanical clock, and then you push on the pendulum to start it. There is a weight on the pendulum that you move up and down to change the tempo. Typically, the pendulum is marked with various settings. The pendulum waving back and forth does look kind of weird, but it isn't intended to be watched -- you're supposed to listen to the tick-tock sound, not look at it.

(Incidentally, old-time clock makers and repairmen refer to the ticking of any mechanical clock as its "beat", and they can often diagnose problems with the clock by listening to the beat. For instance, on a pendulum clock, if the clock works isn't level inside the case (a common problem), the tick and the tock won't be evenly spaced, and one will sound stronger or weaker than the other. Clocks with this condition can be infuriating because they will run for a few minutes or hours, and then stop for no apparent reason.)

[Ms_Sunlight]

What I see from these type of discussions is that some of us dancer musicians may be quite good but play by ear. In other words we can play but we haven't taken any music theory or learned to read music. So, if you ask us to expalin what we're doing we can't very easily. Perhaps we attempt to without really having the facts straight.


When you learn music theory, you don't necessarily hear anything different from what an untrained person does, you don't feel anything different. What you do gain is the vocabulary to describe what you're hearing. I think a lot of the confusion here is purely a language issue.

[lynn]

Lynn, IIRC you're a bit younger than some of us old fogies, so you might not have ever seen one of the old-style mechanical metronomes. Basically, it's an upside-down pendulum attached to a clock mechanism. You wind it up like a mechanical clock, and then you push on the pendulum to start it. There is a weight on the pendulum that you move up and down to change the tempo. Typically, the pendulum is marked with various settings. The pendulum waving back and forth does look kind of weird, but it isn't intended to be watched -- you're supposed to listen to the tick-tock sound, not look at it.

Ah, the dreaded metronome ;) ! Remind me of the days when i had to play to the exact beat as the metronome - talk about nightmares!!! It got to the point where i was hearing tick-tock in my dreams :shock:!! I've always wondered whether or not the pendulum is supposed to be "listened" to or "watched" considering the modern digital version has the option of turning off the sound - that leaves the musician with only the visual component - the blinking lights!

[itorres]

When you learn music theory, you don't necessarily hear anything different from what an untrained person does, you don't feel anything different. What you do gain is the vocabulary to describe what you're hearing. I think a lot of the confusion here is purely a language issue. It definitely is a matter of describing and documenting the music and how we dance to it. As I said in another post...
It looks complicated at the beginning, particularly for people who haven't had music training. Whoever doesn't know what a measure is, how there are beats (quarter notes) and there are notes (eights) in between the beats, how many beats in a measure and how to describe or notate them could find it overwhelming.
We are just describing what goes on, how we dance, how we see others dancing and what the instruments are doing. It's just a language for describing the music and rhythm. When you learn it, it is a way simplifying things not complicate them. A problem commom to many topics discussed in the Web is that someone can say something about a topic and many will just take it as fact without confirming elsewhere. That really causes confusion.

I think, however, that music training and experience listening to and analyzing music does allow you to hear things differently than an untrained person does. You can differentiate instruments and patterns more easily. This added detail and understanding then allows, at least me, to further enjoy the music as I discover new things even in the same pieces of music I've listened to many times before.

[Kathy J]

I always think.....
1-2...3&4....
1-2...3&4....

the 1-2 are on the front and back foot movements...

the 3&4 are on the side to side movements...(syncopated-think........ full step-half step-full step)

hopes this helps but not fully confident as this is my first posting,
k

[lynn]

Hi, Kathy,

Welcome!!!

:banana:!!!

[bjp22tango]

It certainly must be a great tool. I never ever danced to one.. :)(a metronome)

I started out dancing to some pretty ugly music called "strict tempo", usually played on a synthesizer. Absolutely no soul, but the beginner can hear the beat like an elephant stomping out the time.

[bjp22tango]

Frankie Manning (Lindy Hop) has the famous 1 2 You Know What To Do
or when he is teaching higher level students

a eeh ah a beep bop a doop (or thereabouts)

This not only counts you in on the next 1 beat, it also shows you how he is hearing the musicality in the music, he is syncopating the count in.

[itorres]

I always think.....
1-2...3&4....
1-2...3&4....

the 1-2 are on the front and back foot movements...

the 3&4 are on the side to side movements...(syncopated-think........ full step-half step-full step)

hopes this helps but not fully confident as this is my first posting,
k Welcome, Kathy! :)

If your count of 1 corresponds to the actual 1st beat of the music measure then your break step "front and back foot movements" on the 1 - 2 are not really the best way to dance Cha Cha. There are peope who dance it that way and perhaps someone will protest shortly:) .

The Cha Cha rhythm has the Cha Cha Cha on the 4 & 1...not the 3 & 4. So if you time your side steps to 4 & 1 your break steps would/should be on the 2 and the 6 - not the 1 and 5. The count would be 1-2-3-4 & 1-2-3-4 & 1...

The way you described it would be called breaking On 1, the other method is breaking On 2. In Salsa you could use either really if you wanted, but if you want to do Cha Cha Cha in time to the music you would break On 2.

[dTas]

Welcome, Kathy! :)

If your count of 1 corresponds to the actual 1st beat of the music measure then your break step "front and back foot movements" on the 1 - 2 are not really the best way to dance Cha Cha. There are peope who dance it that way and perhaps someone will protest shortly:) .

The Cha Cha rhythm has the Cha Cha Cha on the 4 & 1...not the 3 & 4. So if you time your side steps to 4 & 1 your break steps would/should be on the 2 and the 6 - not the 1 and 5. The count would be 1-2-3-4 & 1-2-3-4 & 1...

The way you described it would be called breaking On 1, the other method is breaking On 2. In Salsa you could use either really if you wanted, but if you want to do Cha Cha Cha in time to the music you would break On 2.

its "cha cha"... not "cha cha cha"... 1, 2, 3, cha cha 5, 6, 7, cha cha

i just introduced this to a couple last night. they were breaking on1 and i told them that "cha cha" was properly danced on2. they were amazed at how their dancing changed when they started breaking on the 2 and dancing the "cha cha" and not "cha cha cha".

AND they looked so much better (rhythmicly). if i had video taped them before and after (on1 vs on2) and played it back with out sound you could definitely see an improvement.

[saludas]

its "cha cha"... not "cha cha cha"... 1, 2, 3, cha cha 5, 6, 7, cha cha

i just introduced this to a couple last night. they were breaking on1 and i told them that "cha cha" was properly danced on2. they were amazed at how their dancing changed when they started breaking on the 2 and dancing the "cha cha" and not "cha cha cha".

AND they looked so much better (rhythmicly). if i had video taped them before and after (on1 vs on2) and played it back with out sound you could definitely see an improvement.

Not in the ballroom world...

[lynn]

Not in the ballroom world...

really?? how is ballroom cha cha different??

[saludas]

really?? how is ballroom cha cha different??

The ISTD syllabus, and the world at large, calls it Cha Cha Cha. This is Latin. It's a contraction to 'Cha Cha' but it is not the proper title, or count.

if you look at the Blackpool listings, for instance, it is Cha Cha Cha.

[dTas]

The ISTD syllabus, and the world at large, calls it Cha Cha Cha. This is Latin. It's a contraction to 'Cha Cha' but it is not the proper title, or count.

if you look at the Blackpool listings, for instance, it is Cha Cha Cha.

you know it would have been nice to include that in the first thread instead of Lynn having to ask you for a clarification.

i know that in the international scene is called "cha cha cha". its a pet peeve of mine because they surely don't dance it that way. the body rhythms clearly indicate two chas and not 3.

[saludas]

yes that is correct. The 'American' version has a different technique and tempo, but the timing and dance is the same.

[lynn]

OK, sorry, now i'm going to have to ask it again :oops: - how is it different?

From my very limited experience with both Int' & American (o.k., that covers all the dances then...) - the only perceived difference seems to be the starting beat: American on 1, Int'l on 4 - the rest of the dance seems to be the same, except for different steps here and there, right??

[lynn]

so...the difference is in the naming convention and not the actual dance?

[dTas]

i hate deleted msgs... i always think "what did i miss!!!"

i too am wondering like Lynn... how's the international tempo different than american. the technique might be different but the basic underlying "cha cha" is still there (not cha cha cha) .

[saludas]

i hate deleted msgs... i always think "what did i miss!!!"

i too am wondering like Lynn... how's the international tempo different than american. the technique might be different but the basic underlying "cha cha" is still there (not cha cha cha) .

American tempos are faster.

[lynn]

cha cha (or cha cha cha)?? (OK, now i like cha cha better, just b/c it takes less time to type :lol: )!!

I've danced very few latin/rhythm so i can't comment but i noticed a significant difference in tempo between int' & american rumba, not sure about cha cha - anyone??

[alemana]

:headwall:

[dTas]

American tempos are faster.

are you intentionally trying to be difficult!

regardless of technique or tempo, american or international, there's still an underlying "cha cha" rhythm even if it's called "cha cha cha" in some circles... it's not danced that way.

[dTas]

:headwall:


whole heartedly agree!!!!

:headwall: :headwall: :headwall:

[Chris Stratton]

regardless of technique or tempo, american or international, there's still an underlying "cha cha" rhythm even if it's called "cha cha cha" in some circles... it's not danced that way.

Presumably you are rejecting the use of the "cha" syllable on the 1, since the longer gap after that step might invite a more final action?

[saludas]

are you intentionally trying to be difficult!

regardless of technique or tempo, american or international, there's still an underlying "cha cha" rhythm even if it's called "cha cha cha" in some circles... it's not danced that way.

Sorry, but I was asked what was a differentiation. Tempo is different. it's a FACT. The technique is different but I assume that is understood....

[itorres]

its "cha cha"... not "cha cha cha"... 1, 2, 3, cha cha 5, 6, 7, cha cha
-snip-
...and dancing the "cha cha" and not "cha cha cha".
Cha Cha is a contraction or a short version of the original name of the music in Spanish which is Cha Cha Cha. This name came about largely because of the sound the feet made during the shuffle steps.

Whether you call it Cha Cha or Cha Cha Cha the footwork timing is the same. Calling it Cha Cha or Cha Cha Cha doesn't imply a change in timing. Whether you say,
1-2-3-Cha-Cha-5-6-7-Cha-Cha-1 , or
(1-implied )2-3-Cha-Cha-Cha-6-7-Cha-Cha-Cha-2-3-Cha-Cha-Cha the timing is the same. The chasse steps are 4-4&-1. Some people may unserstand it better on way than the other, perhaps.

In order to prevent all this I would suggest counting:
1-2-3-4-and-1-2-3-4-and-1....

About International v American: As far as I've seen or read the step timing is the same, the tempo or speed of the music is the same. There are differences in how Cuban hip action is generated (timing of bending and straightening leg, etc).

[cornutt]

(a metronome)
I started out dancing to some pretty ugly music called "strict tempo", usually played on a synthesizer. Absolutely no soul, but the beginner can hear the beat like an elephant stomping out the time.

Yep, it's amazing how closely you can lock in time with a computerized sequencer. And it's also amazing how un-human the result sounds. Synth players refer to this as "tick-tock" timing, and a lot of sequencer software these days has a "humanize" function that will put in quasi-random variations to try to imitate the feel of a hand-played part. Then again, some players will deliberately put in tick-tock parts for effect -- it's something that a human player simply can't do.

[cornutt]

Ah, the dreaded metronome ;) ! Remind me of the days when i had to play to the exact beat as the metronome - talk about nightmares!!! It got to the point where i was hearing tick-tock in my dreams :shock:!! I've always wondered whether or not the pendulum is supposed to be "listened" to or "watched" considering the modern digital version has the option of turning off the sound - that leaves the musician with only the visual component - the blinking lights!

Aha, so you have encountered them! You aren't supposed to watch a mechanical metronome because the tick and the tock don't necessarily correspond with the extremes of the pendulum's swing; it can vary depending on the selected tempo and the type of clockworks used. If you watch the metronome and get used to the way a particular one swings, and then one day you have to use a different model, you'll be all fouled up.

The modern ones with the lights are nice, though. And if you're recording, a blinking light won't show up on the tape... :D

[dTas]

1, 2, 3, 4&, 5, 6, 7, 8&

look at it this way....

1& - 2& - 3& - 4 - & - 5 & - 6& - 7& - 8 - & - 1&

whole - whole - whole - half - half - whole - whole - whole - half - half

timing wise you have 3 whole beats and 2 half beats and then 3 whole and then 2 half.

rhythmically its "half half" or "cha cha"

[lynn]

Aha, so you have encountered them! You aren't supposed to watch a mechanical metronome because the tick and the tock don't necessarily correspond with the extremes of the pendulum's swing; it can vary depending on the selected tempo and the type of clockworks used. If you watch the metronome and get used to the way a particular one swings, and then one day you have to use a different model, you'll be all fouled up.

The modern ones with the lights are nice, though. And if you're recording, a blinking light won't show up on the tape... :D

I was thinking in terms of recording, doesn't different sound have different wavelength (is it called wavelength??) and isn't it possible to remove one particular sound or instrument from the track?? Or am i thinking too much into the digi-era :wink: ??

P.S. I was in a music store the other day and was quite surprised that the old fashioned tick-tock metronomes are way more expensive than the digital ones!

[Chris Stratton]

I was thinking in terms of recording, doesn't different sound have different wavelength (is it called wavelength??) and isn't it possible to remove one particular sound or instrument from the track?? Or am i thinking too much into the digi-era :wink: ??

Sorta.

Incidentally, hollywood studio orchestras play while listening to a "click track" in a headphone on one ear. It's a essentially a metronome, but not a steady one - it's been pre-recorded to the desired tempo variations. The reason they do this is to keep everyone together on the first try - to save money, they often record music the first time the musicians ever see it, with no rehearsal at all.

[cornutt]

I was thinking in terms of recording, doesn't different sound have different wavelength (is it called wavelength??) and isn't it possible to remove one particular sound or instrument from the track?? Or am i thinking too much into the digi-era :wink: ??


Well, you caaaaaaaaaaaan, sorta kinda, :-o but... Yes, you can get after it with digital pop/click removal, but it's not easy and it's likely to have unintended effects on the recorded music. Actually, the best way is to manually edit the recorded waveform with a mouse, find all the pops and clicks, and just draw them out. I've done this myself when transferring old vinyl to digital. However, it's a very tedious process, and it doesn't always work fully without undesirable side effects.

(WARNING: MATH FOLLOWS! Actually, if you analyze a "perfect" click in the frequency domain with Fourier analysis, you find that it contains all of the wavelengths, from the mathematical standpoint. There's a new type of digital reverb on the market called a "convolution reverb" that uses this principle. Instead of using software to approximate the effects of room reverberation, they go into a real room and take a very short recording of a "perfect click" in the room -- my understanding is that a small explosive, like an M-80 :shock: , works nicely. They then take that short recording and do a convolution operation (sort of like a matrix multiply) against the input signal, and voila, the output comes out sounding like it was recorded in that room.)

[Chris Stratton]

They then take that short recording and do a convolution operation (sort of like a matrix multiply) against the input signal, and voila, the output comes out sounding like it was recorded in that room.)

No, it doesn't, for at least two reasons:

1) It was recorded somewhere, which has already affected the sound. Now you're adding a second room on top of that.

2) The recording and processing is all scalar. Yet the quantities are actually vectors - they have a directionality in the room, and from the sources, and all of this gets lost.

This is, btw, why you can't close mic an instrument like a violin - it won't sound like a violin because you'll only get the parts of the sound that go in the direction of the microphone recorded. We're used to hearing the sound of a violin as collected by a room. The computer can't process what the microphone is in the wrong position to capture.

[HF]

No, it doesn't, for at least two reasons:

1) It was recorded somewhere, which has already affected the sound. Now you're adding a second room on top of that.


Correct me but isn't this the reason why they use an anechoic room for the record?


2) The recording and processing is all scalar. Yet the quantities are actually vectors - they have a directionality in the room, and from the sources, and all of this gets lost.


The recording will be in stereo at least, so not all directionality is lost. In one case the degrading of the directionality comes with the convolution, in the other case after. Question is, how much this will differ.


This is, btw, why you can't close mic an instrument like a violin - it won't sound like a violin because you'll only get the parts of the sound that go in the direction of the microphone recorded.

You are right, but practically it works anyway. You can find points near the surface of the violin where the sound is similar to the distance sound. A headset gives no bad results for live performances, and the best system I know is a microphone coming from dpamicrophones that is shown in the picture.

What is the difference between theory and practice?
Theoretically there is none, but practically ... ;-)

[ACtenDance]

sound is just small variations in pressure traveling through a fluid, right? pressure... not exactly a vector quantity. Being in an anechoic chamber is freaky, minimal sound reflection so you only hear yourself speak through the vibrations in your jaw up to your ear.... very little reflects off of the walls. If you were to record in an anechoic chamber, I'd think that would sound very artificial.

I take my second doctoral level acoustics class next semester, ugh.

[cornutt]

No, it doesn't, for at least two reasons:

1) It was recorded somewhere, which has already affected the sound. Now you're adding a second room on top of that.


Not if you're recording direct! The signal coming out of my synth doesn't have any room sound -- it was never in a room, so to speak. Same goes for electric guitars recorded direct, etc. On most pop records these days, vocals and most accostic instruments are close-miked, to get rid of most of the natural room sound. (There are exceptions, like drums. Of course, that's assuming the session is using a live drummer, which few pop recordings do these days.)


2) The recording and processing is all scalar. Yet the quantities are actually vectors - they have a directionality in the room, and from the sources, and all of this gets lost.


Ah, you sound like someone who has spent some time recording real orchestras in real halls. Two comments to that: (1) I'm jealous, and (2) the classical recording world and the non-classical recording world are a lot different. If I was recording an orchestra in a good concert hall, yeah, I'd go with a nice X-Y (or M-S) coincident pair and let that be it. But in the pop/rock/electronica world (and a lot of the jazz world too), you multi-track, and you probably don't have a nice room to record in, and you need something that will make the mix sound cohesive when it's all done. In the days of lore, George Martin used big concrete echo chambers (mere mortals just ran a mic on a long cord down the hall to the bathroom). These days, fortunately, we have electronic devices which are easier to use and don't fill with water every time it rains.

Sorry about going OT here, folks. But if you get me going on music and recording, this is what happens. To try to make up for it, I'll recommend a book: Dave Stewart's "Inside the Music". It's a great book for anyone who already knows just a little bit about rhythm and scales and chords, both instructive and highly entertaining.

[Chris Stratton]

Yes, for scalar sources like a sythensizer, convolving with the recorded impulse response of a room seems like a decent way to go.