Level of difficulty - inherent or imposed?

[Spitfire]

This is something I mentioned in two other discussions that I'd like to bring up seperately.

Are those dances that are regarded as being difficult to learn really so by their own nature and character or are they often being made that way by the manner in which they are taught?

Again I bring up something a WCS instructor told me a few years ago; it was his opinion that many dance studios and instructors are making WCS harder then what it was meant to be and that it really isn't by nature a hard dance to learn.

Opinions?

[d nice]

I think that dancing is fundamentally simple, that teachers and students make dances harder than necessary.

[pygmalion]

I'll never forget when I was introduced to Viennese waltz. We started with left cross boxes, which are fairly straightforward, but I just couldn't get it. Not after several lessons on the figure. Later, after I switched teachers, I realized that my former instructor just wasn't ready to teach Viennese waltz. His footwork was bad, his frame was broken, and so on.

Later, in a coaching session with a really good dancer/teacher, I understood and executed the boxes after a two-minute explanation. Hmm.

[Sagitta]

I think that dancing is fundamentally simple, that teachers and students make dances harder than necessary.

I agree!! It's all that baggage that we bring along to dancing. :)

[Vince A]

I think that dancing is fundamentally simple, that teachers and students make dances harder than necessary.
Amen! I'll drink to that! Ditto! I agree!

I've been WCS dancing for over ten years now, and for so many years I heard . . .

"It's got to be done this way or else!"

"There is a certain way to do this pattern"

"Don't walk forward on counts 5 & 6"

"Don't break frame"

"Your hand goes this way on her back"

And so on . . . now I break all the rules . . .

Why the heck didn't they just teach me to have fun . . . like I'm doing now? Have fun with the music . . . . play . . . enjoy my partner? Etc??????

[AnnieMarie]

I think we all make it harder on ourselves than it has to be. I hear from my instructors every lesson to "Quit thinking so much and just do." However, I do think we need to understand the basic mechanics of a dance before we can go busting out the syncopations etc. Again this is just my opinion.

As someone who is studying her WCS pretty intently right now, I sort of understand where all the "Don't break frame" statements and the like come from. Vince, my bet is that you understand the character of the dance very well and can now just have fun with it. But one of the major components of WCS is the anchor step. In a basic 6 count pattern..the anchor is 5&6. So by that standard you shouldn't be moving forward on 5&6. (I'm rambling sorry.)

While some things are not easy to learn, we make it harder for ourselves than it has to be.

[msc]

It just depends on the level. High level, competitive stuff is very physically demanding. Honestly, when danced with strong technique, even the most basic moves of many dances can be very difficult to execute ... how's that samba bounce/pulse coming along, Jenn? :)

[pygmalion]

I agree, msc. The example I gave earlier about left cross boxes showed something simple made difficult by poor teaching.

But now I'm working on some open routines for rhythm dances, and some of the things we're doing are just plain physically difficult -- oblique lines that require excellent balance and reliance on partnership, poses in releve, sharp contrast in spin and turns. Those things require athletic ability, and are really not simple at all to execute well.

BTW, the samba bounce is coming along. Thanks for remembering. :D It's funny, but that bounce seems more and more connected to other techniques I'm working on. What I'm really developing here, it seems, is control of my core muscles. And when I get that, samba bounce and a whole lot of other things will fall into place. For the time being, I'm happy with my progress. Samba will definitely be on my dance card for the comp in May. :D