Instructors eating crums and social dancers suck on the floors [Archive]

11-02-2006, 10:32 AM

I went yesterday to a shines and body movement class of an instructor who is by all accounts amazing on the dance floor. I entered the studio and was completely baffled when I saw that he's doing a class with only 4 people. I felt so dissappointed because I know about this 'we'll not take classes, we'll just get formed on the dance floor" motto that A LOT of people live by resulting in 80% of the social scene being flavorless, horrible dancing trunks while good instructors who have powerful insight and creative coreography to share are eating bread and water.

I know some people will immediately think 'great dancer' not equivalent to 'great teacher' but this is not the case IMO, I really did enjoy his class and he did seem to know what and when to emphasize.

Social dancers are a funny bunch, a type of people that I am affiliated strongly with, but understand little. As a general group, you hear them complain constantly about lack of something new, how much they suck, or how annoyed they are with an instructor, but then no efforts are made to sign up for classes or to change instructors. Everybody just likes to complain, and then go on with what they are doing. When their routines are so precious to them that they won't support a visiting master instructor's inexpensive group classes, you've got to shrug your shoulders and move on.

I and others have tried so hard to organize things on a social dancing level, but the dancers around here are unbelievably apathetic, cheap, etc. They'll blow $30 going to a new movie, but won't spend $10, or even $5, dollars at the door for a dance class. Whatever!

Josh

11-02-2006, 11:57 AM

Social dancers are a funny bunch, a type of people that I am affiliated strongly with, but understand little. As a general group, you hear them complain constantly about lack of something new, how much they suck, or how annoyed they are with an instructor, but then no efforts are made to sign up for classes or to change instructors. Everybody just likes to complain, and then go on with what they are doing. When their routines are so precious to them that they won't support a visiting master instructor's inexpensive group classes, you've got to shrug your shoulders and move on.

I and others have tried so hard to organize things on a social dancing level, but the dancers around here are unbelievably apathetic, cheap, etc. They'll blow $30 going to a new movie, but won't spend $10, or even $5, dollars at the door for a dance class. Whatever!

Thank you. My thoughts exactly. To add to this, I'll share an experience I had yesterday. I was teaching a ballroom group class, and after doing the bronze basic in foxtrot (IOW, the first thing you learn), and one more easy step, one lady in class said, "So, is this pretty much the foxtrot? I mean, are there any other steps?" I got bug-eyed, even more so than when someone had said something similar in a salsa class before. Without sounding like a jerk, I explained that on a 0-100 scale in foxtrot mastery, they (she in particular) were somewhere between a 0 and a 1.

My point in relating this experience is to highlight that new dancers, those at it casually, often have very little perspective on what good dancing is, their own skill level, and how hard it is to do. Oh my god, in only a year's time teaching I can't recall how many times I've heard these two things: (1) My friend so-and-so is an amazing dancer, he showed me some basic steps (only to realize later that this "amazing" friend really sucks on the grand scale), and (2) I'm [xyz nationality], so I can already do it, I just feel it (only to realize later that there's no such thing as 'dancing in the blood' and that they too, are terrible dancers at anything other than a basic step). Perspective is everything. People imagine themselves dancing, and they actually imagine themselves being within a few months' training of top world pros, and things like that... it's very sad.

Chris Stratton

11-02-2006, 12:11 PM

Yet when they've been around the block still a few more times, they realize that the basic steps (if they have been well chosen) really are the essence of the dances... everything else is just fooling around - skillfully if it retains the qualities that are also in the basics, or more commonly not.

A lot of times, the initial basic steps are the only choreographic content of beginner classes that is actually on the path towards long term learning. If a beginner program has a breadth of steps, 95% of them are going to be fluff. Particularly with your foxtrot example there - really, perfecting that basic is the only thing worth learning in the non-continuity version of the dance - amongst things that you can present in a beginner class, indeed that pretty much is the foxtrot - the rest of the story is just learning to dance that well.

Josh

11-02-2006, 12:42 PM

Particularly with your foxtrot example there - really, perfecting that basic is the only thing worth learning in the non-continuity version of the dance - amongst things that you can present in a beginner class, indeed that pretty much is the foxtrot - the rest of the story is just learning to dance that well.

Very true Chris--but somehow I don't think that's where they were coming from.

noobster

11-04-2006, 08:09 PM

My point in relating this experience is to highlight that new dancers, those at it casually, often have very little perspective on what good dancing is, their own skill level, and how hard it is to do.But this is true of anything - any skill you care to name. When done well, it is always, always, always much harder than it looks.

If you decided to take up chess, or piano, or juggling, or competitive Scrabble (assuming you haven't been exposed any of those things before), you would most likely start out with a poor appreciation of the amount of time, effort, and work it requires to reach a high level - or even what a high level is, what constitutes it, how to recognize it. You wouldn't have been exposed, so you wouldn't know.

I would try to avoid being offended by beginners who seem to have an insufficient appreciation for advanced dancing. They're not doing it on purpose, you know. It's just not on their radar screen yet.

noobster

11-04-2006, 08:21 PM

I felt so dissappointed because I know about this 'we'll not take classes, we'll just get formed on the dance floor" motto that A LOT of people live by resulting in 80% of the social scene being flavorless, horrible dancing trunks...And in response to the OP: The social scene is exactly that: social. A lot of those people whom you categorize as flavorless and horrible are probably having a great time, and don't give a hoot what you think of their technique.

In addition to that, I'd like to say that I have noticed a lot of people who have been turned into dance-clones by some of the more well-known instructors around here. One guy in a cap and a bored look doing endless hook turns looks cool; twenty of them look like a genetic experiment gone horribly wrong. I'm like, do your OWN THING. Even if it looks awkward, I will still think you look so much better than the fifteen guys around you who are really technically proficient but are doing the instructor's thing.

I don't think you get 'flavor' from a class. I think you get it from dancing so much, and becoming so comfortable with the music and so proficient at the basic moves, that whatever is inside of you is able to come out and express itself in motion. Do you need instruction to get to this level of proficiency? Yeah, you do. But are classes going to give you 'flavor'? No, they are going to give you someone else's hand-me-downs.

englezul

11-05-2006, 12:50 PM

And in response to the OP: The social scene is exactly that: social. A lot of those people whom you categorize as flavorless and horrible are probably having a great time, and don't give a hoot what you think of their technique.

This is not at all the point I was trying to make, at the end of the day it's this very attitude that makes them bad dancers. Having the time of their life at the expense of making me feel uncomfortable by tearing my arms out from their sockets, back leading, being out of control is not by any means a virtue. And the effect of this not giving a hoot is prolonged time on the sides.

In addition to that, I'd like to say that I have noticed a lot of people who have been turned into dance-clones by some of the more well-known instructors around here. One guy in a cap and a bored look doing endless hook turns looks cool; twenty of them look like a genetic experiment gone horribly wrong. I'm like, do your OWN THING.

I wonder how long you took to think about this point before you actually put it in writing. An instructor spends 8 hours a day instructing an thinking about coreography. The time an average dancer spends...NONE (so much more for a bad dancer)! The chances of them coming up with their own stuff are for all practical purposes non existent. They will lack the tools necessary, they will lack the understanding, they will lack the imagination to do them, and the control to actually make what they envisioned a reality. Doing your OWN THING for a person who doesn't spend a significat period of time thinking and practicing comes AFTER having achieved a certain level of mastery. Which for some translates into 3 years or better. And even then their OWN THING is nothing that the others who extensively took classes aren't already doing (by my previous point). And you're giving me this example when I specifically posted about dancers who are bad. We're in bad shape here.

Even if it looks awkward, I will still think you look so much better than the fifteen guys around you who are really technically proficient but are doing the instructor's thing.

Really?

I don't think you get 'flavor' from a class. I think you get it from dancing so much, and becoming so comfortable with the music and so proficient at the basic moves, that whatever is inside of you is able to come out and express itself in motion. Do you need instruction to get to this level of proficiency? Yeah, you do. But are classes going to give you 'flavor'? No, they are going to give you someone else's hand-me-downs.

You're completely missing the point of a class. The class gives you tools that you can use to express yourself through dancing. The more tools you have, the more tools you have for different instruments, the more aware you are the better dancer you become. A class is supposed to give you specific points to actively pursue so that your body becomes directly and accurately responsive to your imagination. It's about control. Control, imagination, and musicality are the keys toa good, exciting dancer.

Besides I don't think you understand how learning works, especially in an artistic environment. If I show a student 200 moves (not necessarily turn patterns,but also shines, afro cuban elements,etc) he will add to his repertoire a smaller number of elements, those who appeal to his PARTICULAR PERSONALITY. He is building his FLAVOUR! What you're talking about is people who stopped taking classes before having achieved mastery, and before having developed a vast enough 'vocabulary' to allow them to be original. They look alike, because they are limited in their choices specifically because of lack of training. If they could afford thinking about dancing 8 h a day,they would improve, but people have jobs man.

Chris Stratton

11-05-2006, 01:22 PM

It's quite true that teaching is usually needed to communicate the fundamental skills that make the difference between an arm yanker and a comfortable social dancer.

However it is also quite true that the tradition of dance training tends to be to teach moves, with a little technique and partnering skills mixed in. A few students pick up on those skills, make them unthinking reflexes, and quickly go on to use them to comfortably dance with personal and inventive flavor. But most of the students pick up on the canned moves much more readily than they pick up the skills. With luck, they get enough of the skills to be comfortable doing the canned moves - so their greatest offense is being unoriginal. But sometimes, they get the moves without the skills, resulting in virtuouso arm yankers with a new trick every week.

If a teacher wants to turn out comfortable dancers who are not clones, they would need to make sure that real enabling skills get as much or more attention in class as the canned moves and sequences do. And they might even want to encourage some experimentation in class, instead of having everyone always dance the same canned sequence.

Sagitta

11-05-2006, 02:00 PM

I and others have tried so hard to organize things on a social dancing level, but the dancers around here are unbelievably apathetic, cheap, etc. They'll blow $30 going to a new movie, but won't spend $10, or even $5, dollars at the door for a dance class. Whatever!

I'm a social dancer and I say to each his/her own. I learn by watching videos and social dancing if I want to. There even are people who want me to learn tricks as that is what they like and they know if they bug me I'll do it. I'm actually learning how to do those hold a person by the neck dips with one person! I only do with her as she wants them and bugs me.

And I don't spend money on movies...if I do it is usually at movie theatres at the brunch movie times...heck I don't even eat out much...but that is because I prefer eating what I cook and tend to hear my body complain after eating out. I don't drink much...out of choice. I'll get a 12 pack and by the time it is over I'll maybe have had two and my friends the rest.

And finally I complain that the music sucks! No-one changes music. Too many of the same songs played time and time again. :p

tangotime

11-05-2006, 02:23 PM

Was thinking back to my student days, ( stone age ) and making comparisons with todays concept of " class " instruction.

The original intent, was to have each participant go over a set sequence of , for e,g, a basic combo. , gradually perfecting all the necessary " parts " until it could be done without prompt.

Partnership, as such, was not the initial consideration.The axiom of if you cant do it by yourself, then you
sure as h--- , cant do it with a partner , was the order of the day.

The class system today, has, by and large , turned into a partnership frenzy ., at the expense of solidifying fundamentals .Instant dance has become the mantra of many students .
Cant recall how many times I have heard the complaint that " they dont teach anything new in that beginners class " and usually from students who need it the most . The sad part is this,--- it remains difficult to sustain well detailed classes for all of the above reasons , which ironically would place them in a position to further advance their quest . ( p.s.-- many english schools, still adhere to the medal test system )

noobster

11-05-2006, 02:47 PM

This is not at all the point I was trying to make, at the end of the day it's this very attitude that makes them bad dancers. Having the time of their life at the expense of making me feel uncomfortable by tearing my arms out from their sockets, back leading, being out of control is not by any means a virtue. And the effect of this not giving a hoot is prolonged time on the sides.You are equating two different issues here. One is the issue of technique, which as I stated in my first post I completely agree is something that needs to be learned in a structured way. The other is the issue of 'flavor,' which is what you brought up in your original post. If you want to switch horses and talk about technique now, I don't think we are going to disagree. It has to be learned, duh.

Doing your OWN THING for a person who doesn't spend a significant period of time thinking and practicing comes AFTER having achieved a certain level of mastery.As I said above, I completely agree that you need to reach a certain level of proficiency before you can introduce your own 'flavor' into the dance. But these people I am watching, they are technically proficient already. No doubt. Insufficient training is not the reason they look like clones.

Which for some translates into 3 years or better. And even then their OWN THING is nothing that the others who extensively took classes aren't already doing (by my previous point).No way. If that were the case there wouldn't be any clone-dancers out there. But there are tons of them.

Really?Of course!! You would seriously rather watch ten couples doing the same routine than a group of people expressing themselves through the music??

Control, imagination, and musicality are the keys to a good, exciting dancer.Sure. Control is something you learn in class. Imagination and musicality? Maybe some classes. None I've seen.

They look alike, because they are limited in their choices specifically because of lack of training. If they could afford thinking about dancing 8 h a day,they would improve, but people have jobs man.As I have observed, the level of technical proficiency doesn't seem to correlate with originality or flavor.

I find it possibly relevant that there is pretty much no effort to introduce a 'listening' or 'loosening' element into salsa classes. E.g., in a figure drawing class, one typically starts off with these 30-second 'gesture' drawings. The point is to forget about trying and allow your hand to be free, loose, and light, so it can express what is inside you. No amount of technical proficiency will produce a lovely drawing unless the artist's hand is loose and free. The tightness is inevitably obvious in the final product. Contrast that MO with salsa lessons, where the group warmup is a canned shine! What's up with that?? Maybe it would be possible to 'teach' people to have their own flavor (well, awaken it anyway), but that's not what seems to be happening.

Interestingly, I had a teacher for a Greek dancing class who focused strongly on this freedom and musicality. She would turn on the music and urge people to just do whatever, to express themselves through the music. It was a pretty short class sequence, but people - even the ones who started out sort of awkward and robotic - became noticeably more fluid and individual over the course of it. So maybe this kind of thing can be taught, or at least encouraged. Maybe the salsa classes where you are even doing this. But as I said, none of the salsa lessons I have seen ever came close to this sort of thing.

(Actually, I edit to change that. My salsa teacher did try this with me once or twice, just having me shine by myself however I felt like it. I appreciated it a lot, but I do think he did it too early in the process for it to be very useful, before I was completely comfortable with the basic steps and motion. He hasn't done it since then though. It doesn't matter too much because I love to shine by myself anyway and I get lots of practice when I go out (as well as at home with my iPod lol). I use my privates exclusively for technique issues.)

englezul

11-05-2006, 04:06 PM

You are equating two different issues here. One is the issue of technique, which as I stated in my first post I completely agree is something that needs to be learned in a structured way. The other is the issue of 'flavor,' which is what you brought up in your original post. If you want to switch horses and talk about technique now, I don't think we are going to disagree. It has to be learned, duh.

Not at all. I'm saying that flavour has to be complemented by good technique otherwise it will not come through in its original form (aka as in MIND).

Insufficient training is not the reason they look like clones.

IMO it is, because they are not masterful enough to get past the concept of turn patterns and really understand that it's all about generating and controling momentum. How to create it and how to direct it is realized through studying coreography, and alot of it. When they drop the concept of turn patterns and see everything as flow of energy (on music) then they will not look like clones anymore.

Of course!! You would seriously rather watch ten couples doing the same routine than a group of people expressing themselves through the music??

Let's talk to the issue here. You said you'd rather watch someone that looked awkard than a couple who's doing the same routine. The way you put it, and it was your own example it's a matter of the lesser of two evils. In which case I'd really rather watch the people who are doing their routine smoothly. Besides, that person who looks awkward because of lack of training (which is what I addressed in the topic) will have HIS OWN REPEATING ROUTINE by simple virtue of not knowing enough coreography. Because whatever you might say someone with no training will not be able to create coreography at the pace someone who's taking classes will. You have to pick your battles.

Sure. Control is something you learn in class. Imagination and musicality? Maybe some classes. None I've seen. [quote]

Imagination is nothing without the right tools to implement it. Once you have a working set of tools your imagination willstart to run wild and come up with a bazillion ways of expression through dancing.

[quote]
As I have observed, the level of technical proficiency doesn't seem to correlate with originality or flavor.

Training is not limited to technical proficiency. It includes understanding and awareness of everything relating to the topic. In this sense, one must master
not only coreography and the underlying principles behind it, but music, instruments, timing, flow, levels of energy, connection, etc. All of these together will create the flavour, because with real understanding comes real freedom and originality.

But it's like in school, some people will never become masterful enough, and mostly because they don't train enough.

No amount of technical proficiency will produce a lovely drawing unless the artist's hand is loose and free. The tightness is inevitably obvious in the final product.

I would say to you that any artist has an amount of artistic inclination and an amount of technicality. The less artistically inclined the more a person must be stronger in the technic aspect of it. Take for example if a painter wants to paint a horse it can paint it by simply letting his imagination run wild and picture it in his brain. He somehow already has the right technique so it works out great. SO he produces a 'lovely' painting. Now some other guy can create an equally good looking painting by just understanding shapes and proportion, lights and shadows, strokes and colour. The better he technically understands his theme the better he'll be able to represent it. You're making a fake distinction here between being aware of the technical aspect (trained individual), and being aware of it at a more ellusive level (born with it). In either case a 'lovely' painting will be produced. Perhaps not a Monalisa but pleasant none the less.

Contrast that MO with salsa lessons, where the group warmup is a canned shine! What's up with that?? Maybe it would be possible to 'teach' people to have their own flavor (well, awaken it anyway), but that's not what seems to be happening.

What you don't get is that shine IS MEANT to be BROKEN APART and understood. I don't know many shines because where I used to live this kind of training was not available so I kinda got my whole thing going by actively watching the good dancers when I was traveling, or watching videos, etc. So you could argue that I was forced to break free from the 'canned' material. But now I have been to a few classes because I recently relocated and studied a few shines and I never find myself doing any one of them the way I
learned them. Instead I do modified versions, I just take the material, break it apart, understand it's pace wtr to rhythm and different instruments,different types of music, etc and use the pieces in to create whatever I feel like. It is a mix of having the right tools, the understanding, and the technical ability to do them that allow me to be free and also LOOK GOOD while doing them.

So maybe this kind of thing can be taught, or at least encouraged. Maybe the salsa classes where you are even doing this. But as I said, none of the salsa lessons I have seen ever came close to this sort of thing.

I think this is great but let's think for a second about what this is...this is also a form of technical training, but it's just self directed. All dancers that look good have this quality because their bodies are relaxed. This way they move in a natural way because no locked joints ruin the flowing efect of any movement. This is exactly what it was accomplished through that exercise. Relaxation is a big deal. Because being relaxed is key not only to natural motion but also responsiveness and speed. In the classes I'm taking we're doing a more directed exercise to accomplish this, we are given specific pointers and things to look for and I think it works wonders.

(Actually, I edit to change that. My salsa teacher did try this with me once or twice, just having me shine by myself however I felt like it. I appreciated it a lot, but I do think he did it too early in the process for it to be very useful, before I was completely comfortable with the basic steps and motion.

I'm not sure that you realize but you've just proven my whole point. The reason it felt to early it was because it was too early in your training. You didn't have the right tools developed yet.

This is an interesting discussion, I'm enjoying it.

noobster

11-05-2006, 04:40 PM

Not at all. I'm saying that flavour has to be complemented by good technique otherwise it will not come through in its original form...
I'm not sure that you realize but you've just proven my whole point. The reason it felt to early it was because it was too early in your training. You didn't have the right tools developed yet. Look, we are pretty much saying the same thing in this respect. As I said in my first post and repeated in every post since then, the technical base has to happen before the 'flavor'. You have posted a lot of extra stuff with which I do not disagree.

Where I think we may possibly disagree is whether classes are an effective way to introduce that relaxation and 'flavor'. I am saying that it is apparent to me that there must be many classes which are not, because their products are visible for all to see. Technical achievement without personality. Maybe there is a way to teach classes that would be effective in introducing individuality, but I haven't seen it yet. That's all.

Josh

11-06-2006, 01:37 PM

Where I think we may possibly disagree is whether classes are an effective way to introduce that relaxation and 'flavor'. I am saying that it is apparent to me that there must be many classes which are not, because their products are visible for all to see. Technical achievement without personality. Maybe there is a way to teach classes that would be effective in introducing individuality, but I haven't seen it yet. That's all.

If we're talking about group classes here, the very nature of them prohibits effectively introducing individuality (hence the "group" in the "group class"). Sure, I can talk about developing one's own style, flavor, and all that, but I simply can't connect with each individual in a group class in this way.

Let's review what a group class mainly offers a student:

practice time
repetition of patterns
opportunity to dance with several people
very basic lead/follow techniques
some body movement techniques
some stylingI'm a firm believer in giving group class students as much as possible, such as lead and follow techniques. But even lead/follow techniques can't be effectively taught in a group class of beginners, since most of, if not all, the parties involved will have no connection to begin with. Sure, I do connection exercises, and it helps. But it's like expecting two 4-month-old babies to communicate with each other without teaching both how to communicate in the first place. One-on-one attention is necessary, and for anything but very small group classes, the attention that is required in this case just isn't possible. You don't learn to lead and follow in a group class--you learn the concepts, but it requires work to cultivate, and most people just aren't willing to put in the effort (which is sort of the point of this whole thread IIRC).

If people expect to learn flavor and individuality and creativity in a group class, they're looking in the wrong place. It's like going to a college class and asking the professor to teach them how to invent. He can give them the building blocks, but individuality and originality comes from the person using those building blocks to make his or her own creation. An instructor can aid a student to individuality, but again, its very nature prohibits another person from having a really large share in its development.

tangman

11-06-2006, 03:35 PM

Well put Josh, I love your met.aphors. I read before it takes a good dancer to teach a good dancer, but it takes a master to teach beginners. Dancing's full of these funny paradoxes, like it's easier to dance to fast music than slow music.

azzey

11-06-2006, 05:29 PM

Unless people (me/you/them) have an impending reason why they MUST do something right now and do not have a seemingly easier alternative they will most often put it off until tomorrow. Maybe that's an economy of human existence or something.

Anyway, when most people watch an amazing dancer and say WOW I'd love to dance like that they also subconsciously add the BUT.. it'd take me forever to learn to dance like that. Sure I want to, BUT how can I jump from the step I'm on now to a step that high up? You can't BECOME an amazing dancer in one step. You learn what you can handle right now. Baby steps. If you enjoy it, you'll do more of it. If you hate it you'll most likely stop and try something just as easy if not easier.

There's no wrong or right to doing that one step. It's the *lack* of an overall cohesive plan, set of goals, quality assurance, honest feedback, building on blocks you know etc that is not getting you wherever you want to go. Not the first success or failure, or the second.

Where you choose to go. What kind of dancer you choose to become will depend on the choices you make, the experimentation, making things your own and adding personal flair once you truely understand the technique behind it.

The teachers job, among many things, is perhaps to help to provide that invisible framework and support as the person learning cannot. To get you to find those things that you enjoy and hate, then build on them and thus learn that becoming good at something makes you enjoy it more. This in turn makes you want to do it more and to become good at other things. Then guide you to explore the range of possibilities when you are ready.

Is it not enough that we expect someone to learn and understand the thing at the same time as mentally constructing the larger puzzle in their head?

I know when I'm working on a project I sometimes have to 'trick' myself into doing things I don't really want to do. There are many ways: by focusing on the outcome when I am successful, by combining it with things I like (like your mother mixing in vegetables with your favourite food) etc.

The student does not know where the staircase leads, it is the teachers job to trick the student into learning what he needs until he can see it for himself and choose.

AKA why shine routines are just a big trick to get beginners to learn a whole bunch of things they can't be bothered to learn seperately like: improving their basic footwork, balance, co-ordination, timing, syncopation, posture, musicality (if you do it to the right music you can slip it into their subconscious) ad infinitum.

borikensalsero

11-06-2006, 05:35 PM

Flavor, skill and lexicon are independent entities.
A first time dancer can jump into the floor, do nothing but sway the hips and flavor pours out. Where as there are hundreds of talented dancers who haven't the slightest sub atomic particle of flavor, yet their skills is at times flawless...

Skill builds skill, which can aid and perfect patterns/lexicon, aggregate to that, not much.

I equate flavor to message, a person who despite the lack of education manages to communicate that which he feels, impeccably. His vocabulary is limited, his skill is minimal but the msg is as pure as if it were written by Shakespeare... That is flavor to me, and it is exuded through the ability of a dancer to bring forth emotions to a dance...

noobster

11-06-2006, 07:59 PM

If people expect to learn flavor and individuality and creativity in a group class, they're looking in the wrong place.
Flavor, skill and lexicon are independent entities.
A first time dancer can jump into the floor, do nothing but sway the hips and flavor pours out. Where as there are hundreds of talented dancers who haven't the slightest sub atomic particle of flavor, yet their skills is at times flawless...
Hear, hear. Totally agree with both of these; they are pretty much what I was trying to say (but obviously failing miserably).

noobster

11-08-2006, 12:47 PM

An instructor spends 8 hours a day instructing an thinking about coreography... How to create it and how to direct it is realized through studying coreography... Besides, that person who looks awkward because of lack of training (which is what I addressed in the topic) will have HIS OWN REPEATING ROUTINE by simple virtue of not knowing enough coreography. Because whatever you might say someone with no training will not be able to create coreography at the pace someone who's taking classes will.
Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm bringing this up again apropos of a conversation I had with a salsa friend, who had also noticed the 'clone issue.' Interestingly, what he had to say about these people was that their motion looked "choreographed." It wasn't a compliment.

Choreography - literally, "writing the dance" - is the opposite of spontaneity. Sure, it has its place - if I pay money to see a dance performance, usually what I expect is choreography. But what's wonderful about social dancing is the opposite of choreography: it is spontaneity, improvisation, invention. It is about connecting with your partner, about being in the moment, about letting the music fill you up and flow through your limbs like water. It is about the joy of expressing the music through your movement. It's a jam session, not a fugue.

Choreography kills that. No prepackaged shine routine or styling sequence can ever be as appropriate to the music as something inspired directly by the song. Nobody else's 'body movement' will look as good on you as your own. Nothing that is thought up ahead of time can possibly express this music, this dancer, and this moment as perfectly as something that arises spontaneously from the confluence of all three.

englezul

11-08-2006, 01:25 PM

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm bringing this up again apropos of a conversation I had with a salsa friend, who had also noticed the 'clone issue.' Interestingly, what he had to say about these people was that their motion looked "choreographed." It wasn't a compliment.

Choreography - literally, "writing the dance" - is the opposite of spontaneity. Sure, it has its place - if I pay money to see a dance performance, usually what I expect is choreography. But what's wonderful about social dancing is the opposite of choreography: it is spontaneity, improvisation, invention. It is about connecting with your partner, about being in the moment, about letting the music fill you up and flow through your limbs like water. It is about the joy of expressing the music through your movement. It's a jam session, not a fugue.

Choreography kills that. No prepackaged shine routine or styling sequence can ever be as appropriate to the music as something inspired directly by the song. Nobody else's 'body movement' will look as good on you as your own. Nothing that is thought up ahead of time can possibly express this music, this dancer, and this moment as perfectly as something that arises spontaneously from the confluence of all three.

The reason I used coreography is because it encompasses any kind of motion that can be learnes, as well as compositions of those motion. I regard the basic step as coreography, I regard a slide as coreography, I regard any discrete (as in atom sized) motion as coreography. That is what I meant. Knowing the building bricks will allow you to be spontaneous. Knowing turn patterns will make you look like a clone if you didn't break up the pattern into its atom moves (aka break the coreography apart) and master them individually. Then you will use them by following your inspiration. But first you have to learn them. For reasons I said mentioned before.

noobster

11-08-2006, 02:51 PM

The reason I used coreography is because it encompasses any kind of motion that can be learnes, as well as compositions of those motion. I regard the basic step as coreography, I regard a slide as coreography, I regard any discrete (as in atom sized) motion as coreography. That is what I meant. Knowing the building bricks will allow you to be spontaneous. Knowing turn patterns will make you look like a clone if you didn't break up the pattern into its atom moves (aka break the coreography apart) and master them individually. Then you will use them by following your inspiration. But first you have to learn them. For reasons I said mentioned before.
OK. It is possible that part of our disagreement may stem from misuse of the word "choreography." Dictionary.com sez:

choreography, n.
1. the art of composing ballets and other dances and planning and arranging the movements, steps, and patterns of dancers.
2. the technique of representing the various movements in dancing by a system of notation.
3. the arrangement or manipulation of actions leading up to an event: the choreography of a surprise birthday party.

It doesn't mean dancing per se. It means the composition and arrangement of the steps; i.e., the production of a premeditated sequence.

-----------------------------------------------------------

But even with this cleared up, I would still say that 'flavor' does not come from mastering a syllabus of basic atomic movements, if that is what you meant. And again, my evidence for this is the presence of advanced, technically skilled clones. It is not that their turn patterns are repetitive. It is that their very body movement is a studied copy of someone else's.

You are telling me that you have to copy a lot of small things before you can look as if you have not copied someone. This is like saying that filling in a thousand paint-by-the-number Da Vincis will turn you into Da Vinci.

englezul

11-08-2006, 03:19 PM

OK. It is possible that part of our disagreement may stem from misuse of the word "choreography." Dictionary.com sez:

choreography, n.
1. the art of composing ballets and other dances and planning and arranging the movements, steps, and patterns of dancers.
2. the technique of representing the various movements in dancing by a system of notation.
3. the arrangement or manipulation of actions leading up to an event: the choreography of a surprise birthday party.

It doesn't mean dancing per se. It means the composition and arrangement of the steps; i.e., the production of a premeditated sequence.

-----------------------------------------------------------

But even with this cleared up, I would still say that 'flavor' does not come from mastering a syllabus of basic atomic movements, if that is what you meant. And again, my evidence for this is the presence of advanced, technically skilled clones. It is not that their turn patterns are repetitive. It is that their very body movement is a studied copy of someone else's.

You are telling me that you have to copy a lot of small things before you can look as if you have not copied someone. This is like saying that filling in a thousand paint-by-the-number Da Vincis will turn you into Da Vinci.

I dont remember whether in this thread or not I made a distinction that the less naturally inclined to a certain art one is the more technical knowledge one will have to have in order to achieve certain results.

At any point there is the idea that you can't really compare dancers because each individual is unique, but I could also argue that there is a certain level of competency that can be achieved by anyone by virtue of being trained that will get them to the rank of good dancer. Depending on how gifted that person is they will achieve that step harder or easier.

So flavour is strictly dependent by someone's personality, imagination, and visualisation. But I believe that all of those can be enriched by 'experience' by having a constant stream of new information. If you can't create it yourself perhaps you wont get as far as someone who can, but if I class helps you more than you can help yourself by all means take it.

I think it's a fallacy to attribute lack of flavour on lack of personality, imagination, visualization to a person, because we can't actually know what potential they have. Imagination works in everyone. It just has to be used. Visualization is actually -to me at least- picturing the move in your head. What I suggest is that the right kind of training combined with self-commited study will give the dancer two advantages:

Material for the imagination to take, twist around, modify, and base new creations on. Everybody has an imagination, everyone is creative. Imagination creates. Visualization turns that new material into a mind picture.

The actual technical control to accurately transcribe the visualized image. into body movements.

IE. Imagine I'm a painter and I imagine a horse, but when I actually try to paint it I draw it like a crab. That's an inconsistency. In salsa to resolve that I think one has to have ultimate control over one's body.

You cannot teach someone to be creative in a class. No. But there's no need to do so, they are already creative. They just need to have enough material to hand over to their imagination. The rest will take care of itself.

I'm not trying to make a point here that everybody should be Frankie Martinez. But honestly I can see that their lack of training, and their lack of desire to pay attention to this part is hindering their development as artist, is limiting their means of expression, and gives birth to dancers without unique identity (since they cant express themselves accurately).

saludas

11-08-2006, 03:23 PM

But even with this cleared up, I would still say that 'flavor' does not come from mastering a syllabus of basic atomic movements, if that is what you meant. And again, my evidence for this is the presence of advanced, technically skilled clones. It is not that their turn patterns are repetitive. It is that their very body movement is a studied copy of someone else's.

You are telling me that you have to copy a lot of small things before you can look as if you have not copied someone. This is like saying that filling in a thousand paint-by-the-number Da Vincis will turn you into Da Vinci.

Disngenuous - but wrong, unfortunately. Mastering movements allows the dancer to be creative. it is the holy grail of a dancer to be able to perfect the movement; be 'in the moment' with it (to do it without thinking of the technique); to create space via their body. Poorly taught or poorly learned students dance what they thought they 'saw' - good students create the movement from within. You can have 20 people dance the same pattern, but only a few of them will be creating it from within and thru their bodies. And only that few will be able to actually dance.

It is foolish also to think that 'turn patterns' have anything to do with dancing. Dance is a skillset that is used to create movement, beauty, anger, hilarity, languidness, passion, and a thousand other things. The person who thinks that all that is needed to get on the floor is passion and 'flava' is in for a rude shock - without technique and an understanding of movements, that person cannot even begin to be a good social dancer.

Salsa is a dance based on a limited tempo, limited musical range, and limited 'patterns' (like all 'named' dances). So, why, then, are some people able to enjoy it for hours on end? Well, yes, some folks are happy to move repititiously or simplistically. But some people dance with abandon and verve, using all their combined dance experience to trancend the 'limitations' imposed by the form.

The beginner learns beats; as they get to a 'post beginner' stage, they learn syncopations etc. The advanced dancer learns that the dancing goes on BETWEEN the steps, between the beats. They can only get there if everyhting is so in their muscle memory and in the technique that they do not have to think of a pattern in order to dance.

The only way to get to the advanced level just described, however, is by understanding and mastering movement. Shines, for instance, are really very advanced since they incorporate dance movement that is not rooted in the social expereince, but incorporate balance, depth etc. To dismiss them or the learning of them is to miss the point of all dance knowledge - it builds , it is not a destination. I'll bet that in a class of 20, only one or two are actually able to comprehend and dance the shine. The rest are like all folks who are introduced to a new movement - awkward, unsure, and not very good. At that stage, most beginners quit; they don't realize that in a few years they will be able to do those movements.

saludas

11-08-2006, 03:30 PM

You are telling me that you have to copy a lot of small things before you can look as if you have not copied someone. This is like saying that filling in a thousand paint-by-the-number Da Vincis will turn you into Da Vinci.

In the art world, copying is the way that art is taught - go into any museum and you'll see students sitting at easels, copying. It is the way that the student starts to understand the performance process. They learn for instance how a single brushstroke was used to make a small, miniscule part of a giant painting. The tradition of imitation and copying is age-old.

And yes, even Da Vinci did it. And the world is full of art his students created, clones and copies of the master's work...

englezul

11-08-2006, 04:10 PM

In the art world, copying is the way that art is taught - go into any museum and you'll see students sitting at easels, copying. It is the way that the student starts to understand the performance process. They learn for instance how a single brushstroke was used to make a small, miniscule part of a giant painting. The tradition of imitation and copying is age-old.

And yes, even Da Vinci did it. And the world is full of art his students created, clones and copies of the master's work...

Mimesis : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimesis .

noobster

11-08-2006, 04:20 PM

And again, for those of you who did not read the rest of the thread: I am not discounting the importance of technique. You need it and need to learn it. At no point did I say that "all that is needed to get on the floor is passion and 'flava'" (actually I specifically disavowed that viewpoint in my very first post and in every post since then, because I knew people were going to misattribute that statement to me; but it's happening anyway, sigh).

But (again, again!) technique lies on a different axis from creativity and personality. Technique does not give you personality. It gives you technique, which you can use to support and enhance the expression of your personality.

In the art world, copying is the way that art is taught - go into any museum and you'll see students sitting at easels, copying. It is the way that the student starts to understand the performance process. They learn for instance how a single brushstroke was used to make a small, miniscule part of a giant painting. The tradition of imitation and copying is age-old.It's not the way. It is a way. And what it teaches is not originality, but it is a useful tool for learning certain aspects of technique. It is, as I said, useful for that. But it will never teach you creativity.

And yes, even Da Vinci did it. And the world is full of art his students created, clones and copies of the master's work...And they are valued at only thousandths of the value of the master's. ;)

AlexSem

11-08-2006, 04:20 PM

I went yesterday to a shines and body movement class of an instructor who is by all accounts amazing on the dance floor. I entered the studio and was completely baffled when I saw that he's doing a class with only 4 people. I felt so dissappointed because I know about this 'we'll not take classes, we'll just get formed on the dance floor" motto that A LOT of people live by resulting in 80% of the social scene being flavorless, horrible dancing trunks while good instructors who have powerful insight and creative coreography to share are eating bread and water.

I know some people will immediately think 'great dancer' not equivalent to 'great teacher' but this is not the case IMO, I really did enjoy his class and he did seem to know what and when to emphasize.

Hi englezul :) The reason the class only had 4 students is due to poor marketing and the fact that that same workshop has been running for the past year or so :) The number of salsa folks who take classes is limited, they attend the classes, then they attend the workshop and that person is forever gone. He/she will not take the same workshop again, so that combined with not so great marketing (if you've seen their school flyers you know what I mean :P) results in few people. But on the bright side: I bet you got A LOT more out of it since there were 5 people. Last time I did the workshop, which was a while ago, it was pretty packed and I wish it was 5 people total ;)

As for a lot of people in the scene being teh suck. I hear you. But think of it - it takes solid year and a half and usually more, for someone to become good on the dancefloor. The number of people with such dedication is limited. The folks who stuck around are those who you are possibly intimidated to dance with, so then there's the not so great dancers who are stiff and what-not and yeah, dancing with them can be a pain. Wait till you're up there with the elite crowd and you'll start to really enjoy it, there'll always be at least 5 advanced ladies at any given club that you can rotate around, putting 1-2 medium skilled folks in, that's a lot of dancing :D

AlexSem

11-08-2006, 04:33 PM

amo_dile_que_no

11-08-2006, 04:57 PM

Master technique and then forget about it and be natural.
--Anna Pavlova

Catarina

11-08-2006, 06:19 PM

The beginner learns beats; as they get to a 'post beginner' stage, they learn syncopations etc. The advanced dancer learns that the dancing goes on BETWEEN the steps, between the beats. They can only get there if everyhting is so in their muscle memory and in the technique that they do not have to think of a pattern in order to dance.

The only way to get to the advanced level just described, however, is by understanding and mastering movement. Shines, for instance, are really very advanced since they incorporate dance movement that is not rooted in the social expereince, but incorporate balance, depth etc. To dismiss them or the learning of them is to miss the point of all dance knowledge - it builds , it is not a destination. I'll bet that in a class of 20, only one or two are actually able to comprehend and dance the shine. The rest are like all folks who are introduced to a new movement - awkward, unsure, and not very good. At that stage, most beginners quit; they don't realize that in a few years they will be able to do those movements.

I was starting to get discouraged reading this thread--as a beginner and as a person whose artistic outlet is better directed to photography than to dance, but still a person who is really loving salsa dancing--about whether I would ever become creative/have my own style, etc. But saludas- your comments are definitely encouraging in the respect that what is not "natural" at this point in terms of body movements, the gracefulness, the shines, confidence, etc, can become as such as the movements, the music, and the basics become so rudimentary that the styling & the enjoyment of the dance then becomes the challenge, rather than figuring out where I'm at in the music, or where the heck this combination is going, etc. :o (side note: I'm not giving up at this point, bc what most people would call the beginner phase is too dang fun, albeit humbling.)

noobster

11-08-2006, 06:55 PM

I was starting to get discouraged reading this thread... about whether I would ever become creative/have my own style, etc.You have your own style already. Everybody does. It can't be expressed fully before you have the basic techniques down; but it's there. You just have to not crush it out of existence by trying too hard to replace it with somebody else's style.

It's not like some people 'have personality' and others don't. It's a question of whether they will free themselves to express that personality through the dance.

Josh

11-08-2006, 08:46 PM

You have your own style already. Everybody does. It can't be expressed fully before you have the basic techniques down; but it's there. You just have to not crush it out of existence by trying too hard to replace it with somebody else's style.

It's not like some people 'have personality' and others don't. It's a question of whether they will free themselves to express that personality through the dance.

noobster, this is true. Everyone has personality. But the way some people's personalities are, it would be better if they did not express it :-) It would be better if they improved their personality, and then expressed themselves. Same with dancing... when we dance, we want to be ourselves, right? Wrong-- we want to work on our dancing, and change! I see some guys dancing salsa like they would dance a chicago step or hip hop--nothing wrong with it... but it doesn't look like salsa, and that's their own style, but just as personalities change, styles change. What's wrong with picking up someone's style, if it feels good to you? Is there something wrong with taking a nasty attitude, noticing how much more pleasant a good attitude is, and changing it? Not at all!

I'm not saying "supress yourself"... It's just that true (really true) innovators come once every few generations... and even they borrow from others in the past. There are no new ideas. Everything is simply a borrowing of other ideas and styles. Now, as it has been said, it's not good to try to do something exactly the same way someone does it... but seeing something you like, and using it to enhance your own dancing is what learning is all about.

noobster

11-08-2006, 09:27 PM

Noobster, ...I don't understand what you're complaining about.I am not complaining at all. I think it is great that people are dancing and I am certainly not going to criticize anyone who has worked hard on his dancing. On the contrary, I admire dancers with good technique and I watch them for tips (whether or not they are 'flavorful' or creative social dancers). I was just responding to englezul's initial assertion that people should take classes to improve their 'flavor.' I just don't think you get flavor from a class. That's all.

There are no new ideas. Everything is simply a borrowing of other ideas and styles. Now, as it has been said, it's not good to try to do something exactly the same way someone does it... but seeing something you like, and using it to enhance your own dancing is what learning is all about. Sure. I'm not saying every individual dancer should be coming up with snazzy new moves on the social floor. Everyone takes things they see, tries them out, mixes them up, whatever. That is part of the evolution of one's own personal style. I am saying that a dancer who feels free to listen to the music and express it and himself through his movement is more 'flavorful' and interesting to watch than someone who is studiedly recreating movements he was taught.

cornutt

11-09-2006, 10:14 AM

Same with dancing... when we dance, we want to be ourselves, right? Wrong-- we want to work on our dancing, and change!

Let me see if I can re-phrase this a little: "We want to be ourselves, but we also want our selves to be better." How's that read?

englezul

11-09-2006, 10:30 AM

noobster, this is true. Everyone has personality. But the way some people's personalities are, it would be better if they did not express it :-) It would be better if they improved their personality, and then expressed themselves.

This is a great insight regarding the commonly accepted 'Be yourself' advice. I would also venture to say that those with a difficult personality are not truly being themselves, they're just troubled somehow and they are reserved displaying their true identity. In all matter the change must take place.

Gypsy Wishing

11-10-2006, 02:11 PM

Competition dancing is legitimate, studio dancing is legitimate, social dancing is legitimate, free-style is legitimate. They vary is emphasis, styling and attitude, but the building blocks are the same.

Tony_Salvi

11-10-2006, 03:11 PM

This discussion of flavor reminds me of an interview I read about a talented breakdancer/robotdancer. I think a lot of us have seen the video, but if not here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/w/breakdancing?v=hdHoYev2Fos&search=dance+contest+crazy

Anyways, he mentioned that he learned by copying the movements of other breakdancers. He did them over and over again until he got them down pat. But he started to notice that no matter how hard he tried he was never able to move the same way as the ones he imitated. Subconciously, after mastering certain moves, he was adding his own style to it. Eventually he added more and more until he came up with something that is unique to him alone.

From this I take two things. First, that personal style and flavor comes out the better you know a movement. And second, that we develop that style individually and uniquely.

Some people can do this without the help of classes and others can't. There are some things that classes can give you that social dancing alone cannot. Taking a body isolation class alone isn't going to give you flavor, but it provides you with tools to express it.

Perosnally I don't take group lessons as much as I used to. Partly because I don't have a chance to learn proper technique. But mostly because I'm still trying to "digest" a lot of other moves I have in my head. BUt group lessons can be helpful to add to style not create/develop it. If I learn a move I like, then I will add it to my repretoire. Therefore it adds to my style. But group lessons will not help me understand what my individual style is. I beleive that comes with time and a better understanding of how the music makes you feels and the movements you learn.

Intime

11-11-2006, 10:57 PM

Hello to all! I'm new here. Just want to say a few things about the subject of taking lessons. I guess I'm rather stubborn. I took the beginner class at the clubs that I attend, long enough to get the basics. Yes, it would be nice to learned all the fancy moves, more quickly, if I am at all, capable of learning most of them, however; its not a priority with me. I got into salsa dancing and drumming around the same time, and at a later than I would have liked point in my life. I've always gravitated toward rhythmic music. Being African-American, I have been exposed to West African drumming for years. Latin music was not excess able on a large scale until the Buena Vista Social Club phenomenon. I had heard of Celia Cruz and Tito Puente having seen them somewhere on tv at sometime, so I knew a little of what that style of Latin music sounded like. When I realized there was a Latin club in my town I had to go and see what it was like, and have been going off and on ever since. More often, now that I'm able to do the CBL and a basic turn. I have a slow processor (smile) when it comes to learning in a group class setting. Private lessons would be better for me, but I don't want to shell out the bucks for it. I'd rather spend that can of money on drum lessons which I have not done yet either. My drumming has progressed much faster than my dancing, and I think lessons with a master conguero would get me to the next level. But, I love Latin club dancing almost as much as studying percussion. Now, back to the dancing. Something about the studio element is a turnoff to me. I don't like the idea that it has to be, or is supposed to be done this way. When I was coming up I we did what we called hand dancing not as fancy as the Lindy Hop but the best dancers did have intricate moves and I don't recall anyone taking formal lessons to learn to do it. I many times wondered how Lindy Hoppers and the like back then were able to do what they did. Even if there were not any formal places to go to learn it, there still had to have been an awful lot of time put into conditioning the body and learning moves. Break dancing was just a little past my time, but it also was learned in the streets- so to speak. The culture in which I grew up in viewed social dancing as something you were expected to appreciate, if not directly participate in. Dance lessons were for people going into the performing arts. That is the aspect of today's salsa scene that I don't care for. Its too programed and too much of a business rather than a social activity. I dance because I love the music , and as they say, it makes me want to dance. I appreciate and admire you great dancers. Its just the way you get there that I have some disagreement with. My approach to teaching dance would be to impart the basic techniques needed to execute the standard movements of the dance, focusing mainly on the feet. What one does with the rest of the body is their own prerogative. In studying percussion I have come to believe that it is not always necessary to learn to play a rhythm exactly like the person teaching plays it. As long as you come close to the feel of the rhythm, that's good enough, because a lot of rhythms have more than one version . A good teacher to me would take a students mistakes and use them as an alternative of the move being taught. That's what happens to many drummers when learning new rhythms they feel it differently from the teacher. They hear it differently so they play it with their own personal flavor. It seems some have taken Salsa for their own when it is really of the people. I see plenty of Latino in clubs that only do the basics. You going to tell me that the very people who gave the world this music, though their culture can not go to a club to enjoy their music, and not be looked down upon. I have recently asked a couple of very good dancers if they danced on 1 or on 2, and both answers were similar. Neither one seemed to know or even care about the concept of on 1 or on 2. They said they just dance to the music. Studios may be for great dancers or for those who feel they have to meet some else's standard of competence, but public clubs should be just that. Open and welcoming to all the people.

dosvueltas

11-11-2006, 11:54 PM

Without sounding like a jerk, I explained that on a 0-100 scale in foxtrot mastery, they (she in particular) were somewhere between a 0 and a 1.

Chuckle... that's exactly the kind of attitude that I get all the time! In my particular gripe it's from people who are interested in learning Rueda and all they want is just moves and moves without any clue they don't even know basic Rueda theory in terms of orientation, nor do they have any lead and follow! I had to tell someone who thought he was real hot that on a scale of 1-10 if he's only a 2 he's got no business learning something that's on a 5 level!

My point in relating this experience is to highlight that new dancers, those at it casually, often have very little perspective on what good dancing is, their own skill level, and how hard it is to do.

You know about these four stages?
1. Unconscious incompetence
2. Conscious incompetence
3. Conscious competence
4. Unconscious competence

Guess which stage that girl was at?

other than a basic step). Perspective is everything. People imagine themselves dancing, and they actually imagine themselves being within a few months' training of top world pros, and things like that... it's very sad.
It's all ego. Especially when they're in a group equally inept, and they are seen as the 'alpha' male or female within that group. They have no idea that whatever their friend might think and make them feel, there is a real scale that lets them know where they are, if they're willing to know it.

I've learnt the hard way. When I was starting out, no body gave a damn about me. If there was an advanced dancer who bothered to come forward and give me a tip, I'd be so grateful because I knew that one tip could save me hours and fruitless experimentation. I told myself if I ever got good I'd always offer a pointer or two.

Fast forward three years, and what do I find when I go up to tell a beginner something? I get offence, insult and outright rudeness. People just don't want to know that they suck, especially if they've always thought they were good.

I used to be puzzled when I took a private after two years of dancing and told the instructor I wanted to learn the basic step. He told me that few people would do this to improve. I didn't know then what he meant. I do now.

noobster

11-12-2006, 01:57 AM

I had to tell someone who thought he was real hot... there is a real scale that lets them know where they are, if they're willing to know it.
Jeez, who cares where they are on a scale of 1-10? Can't we all just enjoy the process without worrying about rating ourselves? I can understand why Josh is annoyed when beginner dancers don't have a sufficient appreciation for his work and experience, but really, I don't understand this urge to categorize people according to dance skill level.

First of all, different people are good at different things - some have lots of moves, some have nice body movement, whatever. I don't even think there is a single scale. Second of all, I totally agree with Intime's post. I am here to groove it. If I wanted to worry about 'where I stand' or 'getting rated' I would go do ballroom competitions. Do I want to improve my dancing, for myself and for my partners? Of course. Do I give a fig where I stand in relation to the next person? Uh, that would be a big fat NO.

dosvueltas

11-12-2006, 09:28 AM

Jeez, who cares where they are on a scale of 1-10? Can't we all just enjoy the process without worrying about rating ourselves?

Why don't you read the whole post, including the preceding sentences and context before you fly off the handle?

If I wanted to worry about 'where I stand' or 'getting rated' I would go do ballroom competitions.

Don't be ridiculous. There is no rating in salsa and that's not what I meant. I meant in relation to wanting to learn a call/ pattern a student was not ready for because he didn't have a mastery of the preceding level fundamental.

As for wanting to "groove it", as long as someone has the basics down, isn't going to hurt women by leading moves he's not ready for and can't lead to save his life, I couldn't give a rodent's derrier what you or anyone else wanted to do. Like you said some like body movement, others moves, and so on. But if the basics aren't there, and in Rueda when you are trying to do a high rating call like Ola Brava, La Tijera and Argamenon, and you're way down on that scale, you have no business doing it. You're just not going to be safe. And if you have a lot of moves but don't lead them safely, it doesn't mean a bleeding thing.

Oh and one more thing, although the idea of levels don't appeal to you, I hope by grooving it you mean that you're feeling the music and competently translating that to what you execute during the dance. In other words, still dancing to fundamentals like keeping your footwork on the right count, and even just keeping the timing down. Many claim to be "grooving it" as an excuse to do what comes, with no heed to timing, even though it's clear they're off beat and pulling ladies every which way, even possibly hurting them. I hope that ain't you.

noobster

11-12-2006, 11:38 AM

Why don't you read the whole post, including the preceding sentences and context before you fly off the handle?
"Fly off the handle?" That is an interesting interpretation of a post that did not contain any exclamation points, inappropriate capitals, ad hominem attacks, or other typical indications of ire.

Oh and one more thing, although the idea of levels don't appeal to you, I hope by grooving it you mean that you're feeling the music and competently translating that to what you execute during the dance. In other words, still dancing to fundamentals like keeping your footwork on the right count, and even just keeping the timing down. Many claim to be "grooving it" as an excuse to do what comes, with no heed to timing, even though it's clear they're off beat and pulling ladies every which way, even possibly hurting them. I hope that ain't you.I will be the first to admit that I am a pretty terrible leader. I am not off beat though. ;)

Btw a lot of guys do not "keep their footwork on the 'right' count" (if by that you mean "always forward with the left on 1/on1" or "always back on the right on 2/on2") even though they are awesome dancers and always on beat. They may switch it up within the course of the song. I don't mind; if he is on-beat and leading with his body I can follow whatever he is doing.

The guys who are "grooving it" are never off-beat. It is the guys who don't let themselves listen to the music (I guess because they are new and can't hear it yet, or because they are thinking too hard about their next pattern or whatever) who get off beat. In general pattern-collectors are not my favorite leaders. If a guy has three moves that he leads well and he feels the music, moves his body nicely, and gives me some time off to shine, that is a great dance.

Josh

11-13-2006, 01:11 AM

My approach to teaching dance would be to impart the basic techniques needed to execute the standard movements of the dance, focusing mainly on the feet. What one does with the rest of the body is their own prerogative.
[...]
Studios may be for great dancers or for those who feel they have to meet some else's standard of competence, but public clubs should be just that. Open and welcoming to all the people.

First of all: welcome to DF Intime! A couple of thoughts...

Your hypothetical approach to teaching dance is a good one... in theory. But in practice, it just doesn't work that way. You may have a handful of students every year come to you with the "show me how to learn and I'll develop my own style" mentality. But why do 70% (estimate) of people want to take dance lessons? To be able to dance socially with someone. You can't just show them basic techniques and expect them to develop the rest. They want to go out next weekend and be able to dance! You can't be like the gym teacher who lectures about basketball for 30 minutes, then teaches the kids how to hold the ball for another 15 minutes, then teaches them how to dribble for 14 minutes, then lets them finally take a shot in the last minute of class... even though the 59 minutes was essential and helpful, the students, given a choice, will not come back if they don't get to feel progress, which to them is shooting the ball. Students MUST feel progress, or they will not come back for more lessons, plain and simple. Even while teaching good technique and basics, I always have to show students something that will visibly, to them, indicate progress. Another 25% want to compete or perform (again, an estimate), and again, for these, just letting them do their own thing with everything other than their feet will not work. What about their posture, frame, legs, lead and follow, arms, and umpteen other important aspects of dance? We're talking about people who have never potentially danced before, and have no clue--if, in my first dance lessons (and I had no clue, trust me), someone had told me flat out "What you do with the rest of your body is up to you" I'd have looked at him/her with a blank stare and thought twice about coming back...

Studios are not for people who feel they have to meet standards--they are great places for people who want to actually learn how to dance. As you said, it took you several weeks just to learn a basic or two going to (probably free) club classes. Many people don't have the time to do that, and don't mind actually spending money (wow, what a concept!) on something that is important to them that they need help with. I will certainly agree with you that clubs should be open and friendly to the public. Far too many have a condescending vibe to them, and it's annoying when people try to show off and I agree that there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing basics for a whole song. Who cares? I'd much rather see that than the off-time train wreck that most dances wind up being.

Josh

11-13-2006, 01:29 AM

Jeez, who cares where they are on a scale of 1-10? Can't we all just enjoy the process without worrying about rating ourselves? I can understand why Josh is annoyed when beginner dancers don't have a sufficient appreciation for his work and experience, but really, I don't understand this urge to categorize people according to dance skill level.

First I'll just say that I wasn't annoyed at her lack of appreciation of MY work and experience, but that of those who are much better than I am! I am on the very low end of the scale (see below for "scale" hehe).

The problem with not rating ourselves is that without comparing ourselves with others, we never give ourselves a chance to grow, and have no idea where we can be. Now, I'm not saying to beat yourself up if you're not as good as someone else, because there will always be others that are better.

If I'm learning a foreign language, I can master the words and grammar in a basic textbook (let's call it Level 1). If I have no concept of how large the vocabulary of the language is, from my point of view, I have mastered the language. I can speak with others on this same level, and I can have the time of my life doing it. Nothing wrong with that, right? Of course not. But I can't speak the language with the same richness and fullness of someone who speaks and understands the words and grammar found in textbooks Level 2, or 3, and so on. Imagine knowing English and only knowing 50 adjectives. How many things would be described as "great," when the words "illustrious," "magnificent," "grand," "amazing," and "marvelous" could be used to enrich the meaning? Now, it would be self-defeating to compare myself, having only completed Level 1, with a Level 8 student, in a "he's so much better than me" way. Rather, if I see how much richer the communication is at that level and that motivates me to increase my proficiency, then the comparison is productive, and not destructive. But if I only ever see things at my Level 1 perspective, while I can still be happy, I will not enjoy the fullness of the language, and I will not have a true picture of what mastery of the language involves.

thespina13

11-13-2006, 01:47 AM

carrigallen

11-13-2006, 11:49 PM

Paou

11-14-2006, 07:49 AM

Well, I have been teaching a little over a year now, and it wasn't really about that I felt I knew enough to teach.... The opportunity presented itself as in the town I live there were no other teachers.

Now this has grown and I'm teaching in the centre of Vienna instead of out in the sticks, but the point is less that it started as a consious descision by me, and more that I enjoy teaching, and had enough people questioning me / taking privates and in general encouraging me / wanting to learn from me that it happened.

However, I find that teaching requires such a different skill set to dancing socially that I'm not sure you could ever link competence / confidence in dancing to competence / confidence in teaching except at the very basic levels of technique.

Luckily, I have training in people coaching due to my day job, and that helped immesely - the key thing I think is that it's all about professionalism.

What I mean by that: Well... of course I get worried and nervous and self consious and all the other things when I teach, but the trick is not to show it. I'm there to do a job, and if I worry about it then it impairs my ability to do that job.

Especially as there are times that people ask questions I have no idea the answer to... If I was letting myself feel inadaquate for not knowing, I'd probably be the kind of person to make up some bull**** answer just so I look like I know what I'm talking about....Instead, the profesional attitude is to just admit I don't know and REALISE that another skill I have that is useful to my students is knowing how and where to find out, as well as the professionalism to actually do it.

Just like with your kids... I'm sure if one asked how to spell something particually difficult you would look it up in a dictionary, rather than invent a spelling just so you could reply...

Unfortunately it seems to me that there are a number of teachers out there that still don't know this basic fact..

I mean, there's many more things that are different to dancing socially... The ability to critically view your students and actually spot the things they do that causes them problems. Being able to pace a class such that the majority of students pick up the majority of the material. Being able to explain clearly (and visually) the different techniques used... etc... but the way I deal with confidence in each of these areas is basically the same as I said above.

Anyway... post getting long so will stop there.

I love knowing that I know so little.

If you ever want to teach. how do you come to the point where you feel confident enough that you know enough to teach well? I've never gotten to this point with anything in my life... I'm always feeling like a rookie at everything. Except perhaps teaching my kids things like how to get dressed or proper grammar. I admire you all who teach, and have confidence in the amount of know-how you do have. That takes a certain amount of self-awareness and accomplishment that I haven't experienced yet. It would be so neat to be there one day, thinking "yeah, I think I have enough in me to teach. I think I could shape a new dancer." Wow. Inconceivable. Do you ever get nervous with a private? Do you ever doubt your ability to bring this dancer to excellence? Because us students, at least ME, have utter faith that you can.. any failure is my own ineptitude.

englezul

11-14-2006, 10:24 AM

Josh

11-14-2006, 11:49 PM

I love knowing that I know so little.

If you ever want to teach. how do you come to the point where you feel confident enough that you know enough to teach well? I've never gotten to this point with anything in my life... I'm always feeling like a rookie at everything. Except perhaps teaching my kids things like how to get dressed or proper grammar. I admire you all who teach, and have confidence in the amount of know-how you do have. That takes a certain amount of self-awareness and accomplishment that I haven't experienced yet. It would be so neat to be there one day, thinking "yeah, I think I have enough in me to teach. I think I could shape a new dancer." Wow. Inconceivable. Do you ever get nervous with a private? Do you ever doubt your ability to bring this dancer to excellence? Because us students, at least ME, have utter faith that you can.. any failure is my own ineptitude.

so little??? Whaaa? Yeah right. You know plenty! What you're saying relates to what I said in my last post--you can't be a closet dancer (read the manual, learn the steps in your mind, then go try it socially--won't work), just like you can't be a closet teacher... you will NEVER be "ready"... you have to just go do it. Of course you want to know what you're talking about before you teach it. Solution? Be prepared. Will you encounter questions you can't answer and problems you can't easily diagnose? Of course. But you will only be able to improve through experience. You can't read the manual for 5 years, dance competitively for 5 years, and then just go teach and be a master. Being a master teacher only comes from experience teaching (not that I am even close!!). Again, you will never be "ready."

However, I find that teaching requires such a different skill set to dancing socially that I'm not sure you could ever link competence / confidence in dancing to competence / confidence in teaching except at the very basic levels of technique.

Paou--this is true... but for a social dance like salsa, I find that it's very helpful to actually dance salsa socially on a regular basis so as to be able to confidently teach students (not saying that you don't!...) For ballroom dances, as a teacher prepping a student for competition, you want to be able to confidently relay what to expect at a comp.. same for social dances... what can they expect? What do you think?

thespina13

11-16-2006, 11:27 AM

[QUOTE=thespina13;343766]I love knowing that I know so little.

/QUOTE]

This was not meant as a lament, but a genuine expression of gratitude that I don't think I'm totally hot stuff. It's such a motivating frame of mind to know that the place you are is nowhere close to the place you can be with more time and more digging. I like knowing what I don't know because it makes me seek out teachers, it keeps me dancing, asking questions, growing. It keeps me going to the teachers that are eating crumbs, and going to the social dance floors with better and better partners, as I become exposed to the better leads... it helps me understand just how far I've come, and what to give to less experienced dancers on the social floor in what little time we have.

Granted, it would be nice sometimes to genuinely see the good stuff other people see when they say they like to watch me dance, or dance with me... sometimes it's hard to really know when you're locked inside your own body/head. Maybe it's time to start videotaping myself (eep!).

And Josh, you're totally right. here I was, imagining some magical moment where you're like "hey! now I'm ready! I know tons of stuff and I'm ready to teach it to others!"... whereas it's probably more of a gentle continuum... teaching is something you want to do so you start doing it and keep growing, just like you started dancing socially.

marie

12-09-2006, 03:06 PM

This is sort of going back to earlier in this thread...but I really appreciated what some people were saying about learning from a master, learning technique, etc. I have to admit that I am sort of a lesson junky, especially private lessons. I agree that you can learn alot on the social floor and you can feel free and express yourself too. But I frankly want to be a really really good dancer - an enjoyable follower to dance with, a musical dancer, etc. etc. I just don't see a more efficient and reliable way to learn to dance than to learn from people who are already really good. Why reinvent the wheel? A good teacher can break down the elements, teach you technique, teach you partnering, style, etc.

At the same time I can hear why a beginner would think that teachers teach the same things over and over. If it is a good teacher, it would make perfect sense to reinforce technique over and over. Technique can be very well taught in all the more basic moves.

I can't even tell you how many private lessons I have taken in which we have repeated things over and over. I don't feel bad about this, I feel good about this. I think this means that my teacher is a little focused about WHAT I am doing and very focused on HOW I am doing it. Isn't that what really wows us about a good dancer - that little extra something? I think that what is important is HOW they are doing their moves, not the fancy moves they do. So then we get beginners learning tons of moves but they just don't look or more importantly feel all that good because they may not have put the time into learning the simple stuff very very well.

Here's the deal - I just think I learn better how to do things from someone who has mastery. For example, I played around trying to learn to do spins by myself, but as soon as a teacher broke them down for me I was able to do them right (or at least kind of right). I would rather do a spin or turn properly than fall over in a social dance.

I think people can totally be developing their individual style at the same time that they are learning from the pros. I don't see it as an either-or situation.

Sagitta

12-09-2006, 05:15 PM

Welcome intime.

This is an interesting conversation because of the differences in opinion. We all come to dance with an unique perspective, and often when we talk even using the same language we mean the same thing. I feel that the ladies are lucky in a way as they can hear a guy talking, see him dancing, and then dance with him and in that way more fully understand his perspective. Me, as a guy, it's hard to get that third element.

One thing that I like about dancing is feeling how the lady moves and dances and interprets the music and using that in our dancing conversation. This listening and interpreting skill does not require one bit of salsa knowledge. If one does not know the salsa basic maybe something a little different will come out, but if there is a true conversation the danec will eb together and within and transcending the music.

DancingKnowHow-Larry

12-09-2006, 06:19 PM

Hi All,

The most important thing is being passionate about dancing and having fun while practicing it. It’s takes many years to master a skill and I still have more to learn. In fact, you never stop learning.

Choreography and the world of dance is constantly evolving. So as a beginner, you can look forward to uncovering unlimited possibilities and even creating new steps and movements yourself that will make your style unique.

Cheers

CocoaCutie

12-19-2006, 06:22 PM

First time posting saw this topic and I had to share my story.

The reason I started dancing salsa was because I love the music and I thought it wasn't as restrictive as ballroom dance or dancesport as it was based on African rhythms. People I knew just danced, it didn't matter their background or experience. It was all about enjoying yourself and the music.

Now I live in a hard core salsa city where, I'm treated as if I need a Masters degree in Modern dance, jazz dance, or dance education, a certificate stating that I have received training from Liz Lira or Edie the Salsa Freak or Eddie Torres and be in a performance group or student performance group to even put my big toe on the dance floor. It's crazy.

I fell into the trap of taking twice weekly group lessons and dozens of privates because that's what I thought I needed to do. I must have been sick in the head. First of all, of course teachers and studio owners are going to tell you that you need hundreds of classes to become an adequate dancer. It's how they make their money. Second, where I live instructors were using these classes as a means to recruit or discover new dancers for their performance teams. They would create all of these crazy turn patterns that only people with previous dance experience could master (and be at a level to join a team). As a result, in social settings, people didn't just dance, enjoy the music or attempt to connect with their partners. They end up practicing or performing complicated choreography learned in the studio on a crowded dance floor.

I grew to hate the "salsa scene". I still listened to salsa music but I stopped going to clubs, and eventually I stopped going to classes.

After about 8 months, I was bored out of my mind one Saturday. I decided to venture out to one of my old salsa joints. It almost empty because the salsa scene was attending an event elsewhere. There were only about 8 to 10 couples dancing. No one was there that I remembered from classes. Let me tell you, that was some of the best dancing I ever seen in my life. No one was completing quadruple spins or crazy ass turn patterns or 286 count shines. These people had so much much flavor (I think word is sabor) that I wanted to join them. I asked this guy to dance and after four 8 counts and two CBLs he said, "How long you been taking classes?". My feelings were hurt and I asked how did he know. "You're counting and the way you're moving your body seems forced and you're not paying attention to me. Just pay attention." Ouch.

After the dance, I assumed that he was going to make a pitch for his personal classes, but he didn't. All he said was you can learn the steps in a class but you have to learn to dance salsa in a club. You can't use someone else's style as your own. Then he went to say he didn't know why in the hell people spend all that money on classes and other things best not mentioned.

I took his advice and started going to non "salsa scene" clubs, just hole in the wall places where they played salsa or Latin restaurants that also featured dancing. The environment is totally different with people who are truly social dancers and don't take a lot of classes if any. No one is showboating, the crowd doesn't gather around particular couples, one can dance anywhere on the floor and not relegated to the beginners or intermediate corner. People really enjoy themselves. I don't remember such genuine smiles on "hard core" salseros or salsera as I've see on people who just dance. Maybe I didn't notice. I was too busy trying to remember what I learned in class.