Dancers who make no technical progress

[pygmalion]

The other night, I ran into a couple I've known for about two years, out at a dance. They were having a blast, and were dancing about the same as they always have, since I met them. I, on the other hand, have made it all the way through bronze and most of the way through silver, completed my first competition, and am now noticeably looking like a dancer. I was floored, because this couple seems to have made little, if any progress, at all.

What's the deal with that? Is it a matter of ambition/lack of ambition, practice time, different goals, physical limitations? What is it? For myself, I can't imagine spending the time, effort and money on dance without making progress. But they seem to be happy.

Good? Bad? Indifferent? What do you think?

[Vin]

It is simply a matter of different goals. Is this couple putting effort into improving? By that are they taking alot of lessons buying tapes and whatnot.
I think I have a great sort of example in my own life, the last year or so I have really put alot of effort into improving at salsa, because I wanted to, on the other hand my swing dancing has been pretty much the same since the first six months that I learned swing. I just don't care enough to bring myself up a level in my swing dancing right now.

[NeoDevin]

What's the deal with that? Is it a matter of ambition/lack of ambition, practice time, different goals, physical limitations? What is it? For myself, I can't imagine spending the time, effort and money on dance without making progress. But they seem to be happy.

It could be lack of ambition, if they're having lots of fun with what they know, and only get frustrated when they try to do more technical stuff, then why should they go on? I don't think it would be physical limitations, unless they have some sort of injury or genetic defect. You say you can't imagine spending time, effort and money on dance without making progress, but they haven't necessarily spent as much of them as you have. They could be taking a 1 hour group lesson every week or every 2 weeks, with no practice time in between. They probably priorities in life other than dancing ( :shock: there are things other than dancing :?: ).

Personally, this past semester, I only took 1 group lesson/week, I don't buy videos or anything. This semester I'll be taking 3 lessons/week, so I should (hopefully) advance much faster. I know of lots of people who dance 7 days a week, most of them are much better dancers than I (except for one guy, he dances all the time, but just can't seem to get it).

[danceguy]

Hmm, I think everyone's dance goals are different, and I've seen a lot of people who just go to have fun and aren't really focused on becoming better, regardless of the time and money invested. Or, others that want to learn more complicated moves right away but have a poor grasp of the basics. I rarely meet people with your drive and discipline Pygmalion. :)

I feel I've made great progress this past year - firstly in finally getting to take some lessons after years of procrastination. Despite all that life threw my way, family problems, physical problems, I have still kept at it and am slowly but surely working towards my goals.

I know I'll never want to complete, it's just not something that I like to do. I would however, like to become a very skilled social dancer and be more comfortable with myself and others out there on the dance floor.

My main goal was to learn how to dance by the end of last summer, and I think I accomplished a lot more than that. Now, its time to focus on Salsa and keep going to dances, take some club style lessons and a few privates. The main work comes in practicing on my own, and keeping dilligent notes after I go out (I've got a great dance journal which helps a lot). Basics, basics and more basics for me. :)

But most of all, I really want to enjoy dancing and meeting new people, so there's got to be a sense of balance somewhere. :P

[pygmalion]

They probably priorities in life other than dancing ( there are things other than dancing ).


:shock: What! Infidel! How could you suggest that there are actually things other than dancing (and DF, of course!) :lol: :lol:

[danceguy]

Careful NeoDevin! That's a good way to get tarred and feathered around here! :oops:

[NeoDevin]

Hey, I've mentioned snowboarding several times without trouble...

[pygmalion]

I know what you mean, NeoDevin. I think it's important to have a balance, too. If you think I'm a dance/DF addict, check out this thread --
How much dancing is too much (http://www.dance-forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=954)

[peachexploration]

....... I was floored, because this couple seems to have made little, if any progress, at all........

Pygmalion, I know what you mean and have seen this quite a bit. I also think Scorpionguy is also right. It depends on what their dance goals are. But I too get a little curious specifically when other students and I start at the same time and they are not as far along as I am or in some cases far more advanced. I know a few people who have been taking the same classes as I have for over a year and still have problems with basic rhythm. Not that I'm this great dancer but technical issues such as rhythm after a year might make me wonder a bit. But again, my goals or rate of learning are not the same as theirs. I know what you mean though.

[tsb]

... this couple seems to have made little, if any progress, at all.

What's the deal with that? ...

within my dances circles there is a couple who dance with each other almost exclusively. their form is pretty awful by conventioanl standards but a lot of people enjoy watching them dance because it's clear that they enjoy dancing with each other. i suspect that for them dance is primarily a means of strengthening their relationship.

i myself enjoy ballroom for various reasons (along with swing, salsa, WCS, argentine tango, etc.). while included among my past instructors are people who've danced at blackpool, i would describe myself as a social dancer as i see dance first and foremost a means of social interaction. i value the technique i've developed but the value lies within the ability it gives me to be a better partner and to increase the ability my partner has to enjoy the dance. i seldom dance straight syllabus moves and i admit to be influenced by richard powers at stanford & the following essay states a lot of how i feel about dancing:

http://dance.stanford.edu/syllabi/intelligent.htm

[Sagitta]

Thanks for the link tsb. Some good reading there.

[tsb]

Thanks for the link tsb. Some good reading there.

i especially like what he wrote at the end of:

http://dance.stanford.edu/syllabi/spirit.htm

"Dancers will have neither the skills nor the elements for creativity until they have learned the basics, which include a solid foundation of partnering. After someone knows the basic dance forms, they can begin to find their own personal style, diversify and create if they want to. First you learn the alphabet. Then you construct sentences. Then you make poetry."

[pygmalion]

I think it's a very interesting article, too, tsb. Unless I'm misunderstanding it, though, I have to say I disagree. At fairly low levels of dance maturity, I think he's right. We do learn the craft of dancing -- following the teacher's set syllabus, styling, etc. But that is not the ultimate goal. The goal is to learn those dance rules, if you will, well enough to break them. (Thanks suek) Take a look at any high level competitive ballroom couple and you will NOT see uniform, paint-by-numbers dancing by any means. You will see indivuiduality and much freedom of expression. It will be within the context of a particular dance form, yes. But there is MUCH freedom, particularly with Latin or rhythm dances.

Or am I misunderstanding the article? Isn't he advocating freestyle partner dancing as an art form, while calling "syllabized" so-to-speak dancing a craft? Maybe I don't get it.

[peachexploration]

I think it's a very interesting article, too, tsb. Unless I'm misunderstanding it, though, I have to say I disagree. At fairly low levels of dance maturity, I think he's right. We do learn the craft of dancing -- following the teacher's set syllabus, styling, etc. But that is not the ultimate goal. The goal is to learn those dance rules, if you will, well enough to break them. (Thanks suek) Take a look at any high level competitive ballroom couple and you will NOT see uniform, paint-by-numbers dancing by any means. You will see indivuiduality and much freedom of expression. It will be within the context of a particular dance form, yes. But there is MUCH freedom, particularly with Latin or rhythm dances.

Or am I misunderstanding the article? Isn't he advocating freestyle partner dancing as an art form, while calling "syllabized" so-to-speak dancing a craft? Maybe I don't get it.
I get the same the you get from the article Pygmalion but I might add that maybe he also saying that as long as you're using a syllabus (meaning the technicalities and important basics of a dance), you are learning "your craft". It becomes an artform when creativity and interpretation comes into play and a syllabus is no longer being used. So maybe the paint-by-numbers example means that you cannot become an artist without learning your craft and all artists break the rules. Just my opinion. :D

[tsb]

Or am I misunderstanding the article? Isn't he advocating freestyle partner dancing as an art form, while calling "syllabized" so-to-speak dancing a craft? Maybe I don't get it.

no, i think you are interpreting correctly the gist of what he's saying.

i have noted that people who have a dance competition background tend to have the same kind of response that i think you are having. whether they mean to or not, my experience has been that the vast majority of people who compete in dance often lose sight of the fact that throughout the centuries, the purpose of dance was to be a form of social interaction that allows one to enjoy the company of another person or a group of people, not as something where they need to be concerned about being judged by someone off the floor on how they dance.

that's why i enjoy vintage dance re-enactments of the ragtime period: the ragtime period was all about having fun, shaking off the influence of the victorian period (which i also enjoy for various reasons). my take is that a significant percentage of dancers who are exposed to the concept that dance is a competitive sport can't or don't get past worrying about dancing "correctly". as chesteron once said, "anything worth doing is worth doing badly".

p.s. my actual name is barry.

[pygmalion]

Hi Barry! :D

Okay. At least I'm glad I understood what he was saying. I still respectfully disagree. I just started competitive dancing myself, but my whole life, have done freestyle, nightclub "dirty" dancing. My only frustration has been that my syllabus-based technique is not strong enough yet for me to bring my freestyle "Jenny on the loose" (please pardon the expression LOL) styling and moves to the ballroom table. But you can bet that when I get those tools in hand, my goal is to integrate the two.

I know what you mean about people who worry so much about dancing correctly that they don't dance. I know quite a few people like that. Unfortunately for them, I think they're missing the point. Dancing is enjoyment and freedom/individuality of expression. Period. If you don't have those, you haven't gotten there yet, IMHO.

But the goal is still to be one with the music, your partner and yourself, and then to let loose like there's no tomorrow. At least, that's my goal, and I think it's achieveable in any style of dance, if you move the brain out of the way, and tap into the spirit.

But that's just me. I suspect many disagree. *shrug*

[borikensalsero]

Hi Barry! :D

Okay. At least I'm glad I understood what he was saying. I still respectfully disagree. I just started competitive dancing myself, but my whole life, have done freestyle, nightclub "dirty" dancing. My only frustration has been that my syllabus-based technique is not strong enough yet for me to bring my freestyle "Jenny on the loose" (please pardon the expression LOL) styling and moves to the ballroom table. But you can bet that when I get those tools in hand, my goal is to integrate the two.

I know what you mean about people who worry so much about dancing correctly that they don't dance. I know quite a few people like that. Unfortunately for them, I think they're missing the point. Dancing is enjoyment and freedom/individuality of expression. Period. If you don't have those, you haven't gotten there yet, IMHO.

But the goal is still to be one with the music, your partner and yourself, and then to let loose like there's no tomorrow. At least, that's my goal, and I think it's achieveable in any style of dance, if you move the brain out of the way, and tap into the spirit.

But that's just me. I suspect many disagree. *shrug*


I totally agree! :banana: :banana: :banana: -- By the sounds of what I've read thus far (excluding the article), I think I'm going to end up disagreeing with the article when I read it.

[tsb]

My only frustration has been that my syllabus-based technique is not strong enough yet for me to bring my freestyle "Jenny on the loose" (please pardon the expression LOL) styling and moves to the ballroom table.

there's a teacher out here who likes to describe advanced dancers as those who perform advanced moves using basic technique yet do basic patterns with advanced technique. that certainly makes sense to me. however, it seems to me that the basic technique could be developed much more quickly if a syllabus were to be complimented by a basic technique class. i was just beginning to get into dance when i happened to sign up for one offered by a local studio (not really knowing what i was doing) and went through the concepts of frame, the technique for heel leads vs. toe leads, pivots, etc. it also turned out that my instructor for this class had studied with a blackpool competitor who had trained overseas and i got exposed to certain concepts that weren't widely taught in the US at that time. getting that training early on made it a lot easier for me in the long run - although it did tend to confuse followers early on because they'd watch me dance and then couldn't figure out why i kept doing only really basic figures - cuz that's all i knew at the time!

[tsb]

-- By the sounds of what I've read thus far (excluding the article), I think I'm going to end up disagreeing with the article when I read it.

kinda like reading the cliff notes to do a book report? :)

<signing off to go start dinner...>

[NeoDevin]

kinda like reading the cliff notes to do a book report? :)

You have no idea how many times that got me an 80%+ throughout grade school.

[Sagitta]

i especially like what he wrote at the end of:

http://dance.stanford.edu/syllabi/spirit.htm

"Dancers will have neither the skills nor the elements for creativity until they have learned the basics, which include a solid foundation of partnering. After someone knows the basic dance forms, they can begin to find their own personal style, diversify and create if they want to. First you learn the alphabet. Then you construct sentences. Then you make poetry."

I'm guessing that all the discussion has involved the first article so far. I liked this second article better for the passage that tsb quoted. Irrespective of the author's point in the first article dance is not a black or white situation of art or craft. There are many shades of gray inbetween. In language one always sees the influence of other languages in it's evolution, and langauges can even merge. I don't see why one cannot make the point that the syllabus/technique are the formative steps of the dance language, and then you can be creative/make poetry. Those who don't learn the syllabus in a formal setting just get that knowledge in a different way. And for some there is no interest in getting that technique. I know a couple couples whose sole goal is to be able to dance with each other and enjoy themselves. That means they simply stagnate, but they are happy there. :) Better the happy dancers with no technical progress then the stick in mud unemotional and technically progressive dancers. :)

[pygmalion]

My only frustration has been that my syllabus-based technique is not strong enough yet for me to bring my freestyle "Jenny on the loose" (please pardon the expression LOL) styling and moves to the ballroom table.

however, it seems to me that the basic technique could be developed much more quickly if a syllabus were to be complimented by a basic technique class. i was just beginning to get into dance when i happened to sign up for one offered by a local studio (not really knowing what i was doing) and went through the concepts of frame, the technique for heel leads vs. toe leads, pivots, etc. it also turned out that my instructor for this class had studied with a blackpool competitor who had trained overseas and i got exposed to certain concepts that weren't widely taught in the US at that time. getting that training early on made it a lot easier for me in the long run - although it did tend to confuse followers early on because they'd watch me dance and then couldn't figure out why i kept doing only really basic figures - cuz that's all i knew at the time!

Hmm. Yes. I agree with this, tsb. The sooner you introduce basic technique, the better, within limits. The technique really does help and it aso prevents you from forming bad habits. But many new dancers just don't have the capacity (or maybe desire) to get into it too deeply, too soon. It's a balance the teacher has to be intuitive enough to find.

[Hank]

I'm not sure there is any correlation between dance ability and dance enjoyment. I know people with very little natural ability who nonetheless are still dancing and having fun 10 years later while the fast-track students have long since quit.

In fact, I posit that the less-skilled dancers enjoy dancing more than those more advanced. For the beginner, everything about dancing is fresh, new, and exciting. The beginner gets to use new skills every night, while the advanced dancer is stuck doing tired patterns and basic techniques that were mastered years ago.

Further, the beginner spends the entire evening dancing with partners who are more advanced (which is everyone's goal) while the advanced dancer spends the entire evening being pushed and pulled by those who are less advanced (which is nobody's goal).

[pygmalion]

Hmm. That's an interesting perspective. And, to add to your point, I think a lot of fast-track students have a huge dose of perfectionism, which tends to burn you out. The folks who are just bopping along and having a good time often aren't bothered by those pesky feelings of inadequacy and disappointment. They just have fun.

[pygmalion]

On Saturday, February 14, Methinks that y'all should read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle maintence; specificaly where Pirsig descibes the difference between the highly ordered mechanic and the one who left all his tools lying around but knew exactly where they were.

We have different approaches to learning and whether that is structured or intuitive, aural or written or visual.

For instance I can often spot a ballroom dancer who is learning AT as there is an air of precision in their moves. But I find that AT requires a softness between partners, like Tai Chi, whether or not a step is gentle smooth or dramatic and sharp.

I come from the ' riding a horse backwards' school of learning, Padmasambava and crazy wisdom. Nothin I can do about it 'cept make it work for me.

[tsb]

kinda like reading the cliff notes to do a book report? :)

You have no idea how many times that got me an 80%+ throughout grade school.

sorry i didn't see this originally. i much preferred the quality of the critical analysis to be found in monarch notes.

[tsb]

In fact, I posit that the less-skilled dancers enjoy dancing more than those more advanced.

i agree, because i've found that the better a partner you are, the more likely it is your partner will cnjoy the dance, blissfully unaware of how hard their partner may be working to accomodate their... deficiencies. but then it's also a rush to lead someone smoothly through a move they had no idea they could do - the look on their face usually makes the entire evening worthwhile..

[alfr dís]

i can't belive i would be happy to keep doing something im not making progress in, but i've witnessed a similar situation. a girl i dance with has been dancing since she was a child, yet finds it dificult if not impossible to do the most simple of steps. she still has a blast doing it however, and i guess in a way that makes her more ambitious then some, i mean, after being faced with constant struggle she is still able to enjoy it.

[bordertangoman]

I'm not sure there is any correlation between dance ability and dance enjoyment. I know people with very little natural ability who nonetheless are still dancing and having fun 10 years later while the fast-track students have long since quit.

In fact, I posit that the less-skilled dancers enjoy dancing more than those more advanced. For the beginner, everything about dancing is fresh, new, and exciting. The beginner gets to use new skills every night, while the advanced dancer is stuck doing tired patterns and basic techniques that were mastered years ago.

Further, the beginner spends the entire evening dancing with partners who are more advanced (which is everyone's goal) while the advanced dancer spends the entire evening being pushed and pulled by those who are less advanced (which is nobody's goal).

Should we not allow for vicarious enjoyment here. Cannot I share the pleasure that my partner is having from dancing with me even if she is less experienced. Otherwise I might as well be dancing on my own.

Happiness is finite (Unless you have 11 on your Marshall amp!!!) so you may continue to improve learn more as a dancer but not get any happier (give or take a few moments of ecstasy)

May all beings be happy

[pygmalion]

Should we not allow for vicarious enjoyment here. Cannot I share the pleasure that my partner is having from dancing with me even if she is less experienced. Otherwise I might as well be dancing on my own.


Yes. In fact, a lot of the dance joy I get comes from my seeing the joy in my less experienced partners. I'm not necessarily enjoying rough, late or non-existent leads. But I really do enjoy the dance, even if the guy never "gets" it, if he's getting a boost for his confidence, or up on the floor for the first time, or whatever.

[Terpsichorean Clod]

Recently, I was browsing a competition page with results going back 10 years. About 5 or 6 years ago, Couple A won Newcomer while Couple B won Prechamp. Today, Couple A is beating Couple B in Prechamp. How does this happen? Both are actively competing couples. I don't think it's the amount of practice or coaching. I don't think the 15-20 year age difference would be enough to account for this, either. I've seen similar cases where a couple works very hard, takes lots of lessons every week, but never seems to go anywhere very fast. Yet, on the other hand, there'll be a couple that achieves regional or national prominence after 5 or so years of dancing. Why is this?

[elisedance]

The obvious differences are in how much attention they paid to basic technique. Couple A obviously did a lot of work on basics before progressing whereas we don't konw about couple B. They may have regarded bronze as baby steps and wanted to go into the more interesting (step wise) and glamarous open competition events before they were ready.

Indeed, in my opinion, the bronze-gold nomenclature gives totally the wrong impression that things learned in bronze are somehow easier and at a lower level than those learned in gold. I think all competitors realize that those are the hardest things to do well.

I think one could make a great case for reversing the teaching sequence. Thus, bronze would be learning lots of steps, silver you would learn correct couple alignment etc and in gold you would add sways and swing etc. Of course one learns these things at all stages but this attitude would emphasize the importance of dance technique over the glitz of fancy footwork.

[Peaches]

With the caveat that you've got years more experience with ballroom than I have, Elise... (And you didn't flake out with it like I have...)

I see what you're saying, but disagree. I think to do it that way (bronze=steps; silver=alignment; gold=swing, sway,etc.) would mean that you spend lots of time doing things wrong. So, when you do end up working your way up, you have to un-learn things first. Seems like it would be harder. The way it is now just seems like a high barrier to entry sort of deal.

Granted, I suppose that as you keep learning you still end up re-learning things, so...maybe I'll just have some more dmd before posting. :-)

[elisedance]

I thought about that too and its a problem - but as you say, I think we do that whichever way we start. Perhaps people would stay in it longer if there was more steps early though? That way you could have more fun at socials - maybe thats one reason for the success of chain studios who do focus on steps first.

[etp777]

Ha, I wish my pro let me just concentrate on steps and ignore technique as a bronze dancer. :)

[tangotime]

Actually-- the whole point is moot--- unless one has direct knowledge from a Prof. standpoint , its like shooting arrows in the dark.

As a teacher. I have to approach all as individuals, and no one set of circumstances, fits all.

The amount of information given in a specific time period, does not guarantee that each and all, will attain the same levels of comprehension and or execution.
There are many indeterminables coming into play, when advancing people to a higher level .

The " yardstick " we apply in competitive structured lessons , may initially give us more insight, but when dealing at base social levels of teaching , my methods are very far apart, and the results attained, are more geared towards expediency .

The old axiom of " Teach technique-- but DONT teach technically ", should always be in play .

So-- we are attempting to make a judgement call ,on an unknown quantity ( corresponding lesson amounts apart ) , and at best , its guess work .

[elisedance]

TT: I think we are talking about somewhat different things. You are discussing how best to teach someone - and I am sure you are right that the 'no one method fits' is best. However, I was not talking about that but about how the idea that technique is a bronze thing while complex steps are a gold/open thing gives the wrong impression. So its more about how people are (percieved) to be judged than about how they learn. I hope that make sense!

[tangotime]

I thought I gave a 2 fold answer -- one on assessment-- ( the comparative Q raised ) and the other more applicable to the application within the level .

[etp777]

I've actually had long discussions on this with pro/sisters/friends. Basically bring it up again every time we go back and add new feature of technique and I have to relearn all my steps to add in the new technique. :) their argument for teaching steps, and slowly continuing to go back and add technique is that if they actually tried to teach student the full gold/pro level technique to start, everyone would quit after first week from frustration as it would be too hard. And if I'm being honest with myself, I am sure I would be one of those who quit.

So instead, they teach steps, and use these to slowly add technique back into it as you go. SO take Foxtrot, new student, you just tell them smooth dances are heel lead, rhythm dances are toe lead. Then you change your foxtrot to heel lead on slows, toe lead on quicks/side-together. Then you point out to studnet that if you're goiing from heel to toe, this gives a natural rise and fall to your motion. Then you take the promenade steps and go from heel lead rolling to ball of foot, to change it to roll in partiucular edge of foot depending on left or right foot. Then you take the brushing of feet on each slow and change this to a continuous contact between foot and floor, just contact point is pivoted from heel ball heel as foot goes forward.

And through all this take student from basic/promenade/promenade w/UAT, to social foundation steps, to bronze, etc.

Certainly not ideal, and of course is going to have to vary by studnet, as TT said, but I think for most proam students, something along these general lines is going to work best. You can't just teach steps, or the studnet turns into a step whoree, and has no technique. You can't just throw all the technique at them, because of the frustration of trying to have top technique, and how slow it will go, is not going to let any studnets continue with it. Esp as with that method you don't have the periodiic ffeeling of accomplishment that you can get from learning a new step.

Now is this different for pros/high level am couples? Yes, I'd guess so, or actually know so, from watching lots of friendss who are pros work with their coaches, etc.

[tangotime]

You are correct in your assumptions--

spoon feeding simple techn. to social dancers, fulfills a need and a requirement--- the farther one climbs the dance " ladder " . the techn, and nuances should increase proportionately , and with in good keeping of the individuals concerned .

You may be surprised to know, that even higher level competitors, often " carry " bad habits fwd.

As one of my very old coaches used to say " Ya know who wins most comps ?-- me-- no -- him -- " the one who makes the least mistakes !! "

[danceronice]

Honestly I don't think that would improve social dancing much--if anything, most of the guys I encounter socially who aren't also competitive dancers are boring because they don't know many steps. (On the cha cha, for example--come on, throw me a bone! Chase step, spot turns, anything!) Teaching even MORE steps at bronze would just make that worse. And I agree with Peaches that what it would ammount to is needing more time later to break bad habits. Yes, bronze might not LOOK exciting, but as one of my pros said, "Let's learn to walk before we learn to run." (He's trying to ease me into a jog, though.)

[Gumby]

I think one of the big difference in the ability to do/use bronze versus gold technique is strength and development of the inner muscularture. It is something I am noticing in certain pre-champ level dancers who have been around for a while. They are approximating the technique but can't do it because the don't have the foot strength or core stability. Which is part of the reason for the different emphasis on technique at the begining levels. You can't expect a new dancer (unless there is some other dance background) to be able to rise smoothly while moving across a foot, to be able to seperate, foot rise, leg rise and body rise, or hold the core stable in releve while quietly turning a head to promende.

[Sagitta]

Honestly I don't think that would improve social dancing much--if anything, most of the guys I encounter socially who aren't also competitive dancers are boring because they don't know many steps. (On the cha cha, for example--come on, throw me a bone! Chase step, spot turns, anything!) Teaching even MORE steps at bronze would just make that worse. And I agree with Peaches that what it would ammount to is needing more time later to break bad habits. Yes, bronze might not LOOK exciting, but as one of my pros said, "Let's learn to walk before we learn to run." (He's trying to ease me into a jog, though.)hmmm....how about dancing moves that are not on syllabus? Can you follow those. ;-)

[WorksForShoes]

So instead, they teach steps, and use these to slowly add technique back into it as you go. SO take Foxtrot, new student, you just tell them smooth dances are heel lead, rhythm dances are toe lead. Then you change your foxtrot to heel lead on slows, toe lead on quicks/side-together. Then you point out to studnet that if you're goiing from heel to toe, this gives a natural rise and fall to your motion. Then you take the promenade steps and go from heel lead rolling to ball of foot, to change it to roll in partiucular edge of foot depending on left or right foot. Then you take the brushing of feet on each slow and change this to a continuous contact between foot and floor, just contact point is pivoted from heel ball heel as foot goes forward.


And for me (and you, it sounds like, and everyone else on DF), it means that each new nugget of technique means going back and applying that technique to every previous step learned before moving forward -- i.e., the syllabus presents teachable points to learn technique about the entire dance, not just that one step.

For some dancers, however, they don't really zone in until they hit a technique point that is interesting or fun for them. Hence my continual private frustration with some ladies I know who only want to dance with a lead that dances a certain "level" -- I'm not sure they understand that it is the underlying technique that makes the dance memorable, not (just) the steps.

[tanya_the_dancer]

Honestly I don't think that would improve social dancing much--if anything, most of the guys I encounter socially who aren't also competitive dancers are boring because they don't know many steps. (On the cha cha, for example--come on, throw me a bone! Chase step, spot turns, anything!) Teaching even MORE steps at bronze would just make that worse. And I agree with Peaches that what it would ammount to is needing more time later to break bad habits. Yes, bronze might not LOOK exciting, but as one of my pros said, "Let's learn to walk before we learn to run." (He's trying to ease me into a jog, though.)

I think it is sort of opposite - a lot of people learn lots of different steps, but not much technique.

[danceronice]

hmmm....how about dancing moves that are not on syllabus? Can you follow those. ;-)

I can, but they're not very interesting and as they're probably not going to come up in my competitive dancing for a while, if ever, what's the point? It doesn't help I loathe salsa (I quit those group lessons after three of them), don't do West Coast, do the Hustle mostly to practice being over my foot better on turns, and get annoyed with that uncomfortable blocky social smooth hold. I kind of social dance because I feel I'm supposed to, having happy students at the parties dancing with new people is good for the studio, and it's good to run into different kinds of leads, and it's good experience with the whole socializing thing and meeting people and stuff. It's not so bad so long as I stick to studio parties.

[Chris Stratton]

I can, but they're not very interesting and as they're probably not going to come up in my competitive dancing for a while, if ever, what's the point?

Well there's a whole lot of stuff that doesn't happen to be on the syallbus, but easily could be, and actually is on somebody else's syllabus. In a good lead/follow situation, the fact that's its appropriate level material makes the fact that it's unfamiliar less of an obstacle.

But that may not be important to the discussion.

One thing I've often noticed is group classes attempting material that's beyond the grasp of most everyone present. Classes that are effective in creating or supporting amateur couples tend to do very simple material and not much of it - things that the students can and probably will go out and dance with each other in the bronze event next weekend. Classes that don't have that as a purpose easily fall into the trap of inflating the material beyond the point where many (or sometimes even any) of the participants will be able to really get a handle on it... it's sort of like, if you don't have preparing couples to actually go dance together as a purpose, it's very hard to find another purpose that is realistically achievable.

[meow]

Classes that are effective in creating or supporting amateur couples tend to do very simple material and not much of it - Classes that don't have that as a purpose easily fall into the trap of inflating the material beyond the point where many (or sometimes even any) of the participants will be able to really get a handle on it... it's sort of like, if you don't have preparing couples to actually go dance together as a purpose, it's very hard to find another purpose that is realistically achievable.

You are correct - classes do simple material. Here, the emphasis is on technique from the beginning so the steps are very basic. As you progress from Bronze to Silver, the steps get harder but the emphasis remains on the technique. These students have goals which are to get the best mark possible when they perform and are examined on Medal Day. And, if they have great technique, it is easier to find a partner should they wish to do so.

[etp777]

Classes here tend to go both ways, depending on who's teaching and who's there for the class that day. Our classes (with the exception of ones before friday party) tend to be very small, generally only one or two people (biggest I htink was 5 people once, two couples and me). And since we're all students taking private lessons there too, pro teaching class tends to customize the class specifically for us. In theory, it's more for learning steps, and private lesons for technique. But when you're often only person in class, pro will use the "class" to teach technique too, they'll just pick step they were planning to teach and use that (if applicable) to help demonstrate something technique wise and really work on it.

Of course, can't tecah normal large classes like that, particularly classes with a high turnover in students.

[DennisBeach]

The other night, I ran into a couple I've known for about two years, out at a dance. They were having a blast, and were dancing about the same as they always have, since I met them. I, on the other hand, have made it all the way through bronze and most of the way through silver, completed my first competition, and am now noticeably looking like a dancer. I was floored, because this couple seems to have made little, if any progress, at all.

What's the deal with that? Is it a matter of ambition/lack of ambition, practice time, different goals, physical limitations? What is it? For myself, I can't imagine spending the time, effort and money on dance without making progress. But they seem to be happy.

Good? Bad? Indifferent? What do you think?

I see that a lot. Some dancers learn new moves, but do not work on improving technique. Other work on technique and new moves. We found that as our technique improved, we enjoyed dancing much more. So we still work on improving technique. I think once you develope decent technique, you realize how much it helps and want to improve it. Most of the people I see that do not improve technically have not developed enough technique to experience it's benefits.

[meow]

Some dancers may have reached their 'limit' and cannot improve, whether that is because of their personality or their body, or some other reason, I don't know. But, some dancers can work their tail off and never seem to get better.

[Terpsichorean Clod]

The obvious differences are in how much attention they paid to basic technique. Couple A obviously did a lot of work on basics before progressing whereas we don't konw about couple B. They may have regarded bronze as baby steps and wanted to go into the more interesting (step wise) and glamarous open competition events before they were ready.
I would've thought both Couples A and B spent a lot of time on the basics. That's how both couples got to the prechamp final, right?

[Terpsichorean Clod]

Some dancers may have reached their 'limit' and cannot improve, whether that is because of their personality or their body, or some other reason, I don't know. But, some dancers can work their tail off and never seem to get better.
I'd hope any of the reasons would be at least partially under my control. To progress steadily for 5-10 years and then hit a ceiling - I'm really scared of that.

[tanya_the_dancer]

I'd hope any of the reasons would be at least partially under my control. To progress steadily for 5-10 years and then hit a ceiling - I'm really scared of that.

Yeah, when I am working on something and I don't feel like I am advancing, I worry if I have reached my ceiling. That worrying is probably not helpful in itself.

[Laura]

One thing I've often noticed is group classes attempting material that's beyond the grasp of most everyone present.
I stopped taking group classes years ago because of this. It's not so much that the teachers are teaching material beyond the students, but rather that the students are taking classes above their level. Sometimes I wonder where these people's brains are...like, if you're having a really difficult time leading or following or even picking up the stuff being shown in class, then maybe the class is just too much for you based on the amount of dance/lead/follow technique that you currently have. That's not to say that people shouldn't take a class that pushes them to reach new limits, but I usually run across just a very few people in a group situation that are doing that, the rest are in the class because it's on a night that suits them, or because they think that since they took Bronze last month they are ready for Silver this month.

I know I sound harsh in that paragraph, sorry, but that's how I see it.

[Laura]

Most of the people I see that do not improve technically have not developed enough technique to experience it's benefits.
That's a really good way of putting it. The difference between a dancer with a few moves but who can hold up their own frame and can move themselves smoothly from foot to foot with reasonable and consistent posture and someone who knows more moves but is, basically, a mess is huge. I would rather dance socially with someone who knows fewer steps but does them better. To me "steps" don't make a dance more or less boring, but movement does. Better technique == smoother, fuller, more interesting movement.

[Laura]

I'd hope any of the reasons would be at least partially under my control. To progress steadily for 5-10 years and then hit a ceiling - I'm really scared of that.
I used to worry about that a lot, around the time that I had been dancing for about 4-6 years. I don't worry any more, because I've hit and busted through that ceiling so many times. At one point, after a long period of frustration, I said to my teacher "well, I guess I've reached the point where most people give up and quit." He chuckled good-naturedly and said "Laura, you've hit that point and crashed past it so many times that it would be pointless for you to quit now."

(I quit anyway, but a couple of years later, and the quitting didn't "take" and I was back dancing again after just a few months. Still going strong...)

I find it helps, when frustrated, to try new teachers or a new style or a new something to get yourself going again.

[Chris Stratton]

I stopped taking group classes years ago because of this. It's not so much that the teachers are teaching material beyond the students, but rather that the students are taking classes above their level.

When you have a teacher really trying to create progress that can be true... but then there's a built in solution: tweak the focus and the people who get it will be intrigued while the people not ready to attempt it will be too bored to return. Of course some of the beginners unable to do it yet are ready to attempt it, will focus with extreme attention and while stumbling through will actually be learning quite rapidly, even if they are a bit behind the class.

But the more common situation seems to be classes that are conducted as something to do, with the goal of filling up that evening rather than creating something for the future. Even when intended for beginners, these can be disablingly complex... years past when anyone would consider me a beginner, I occasional wander in to one, and find that I really, really struggle to actually accomplish what is being presented...

But that's about classes. In terms of individuals, one of the biggest impediments to continued progess consists of feet that aren't prepared to carry a body through dance movement.

For example, apparent timing issues and simply failed or uncomfortable figures often come back to feet that are not yet prepared to do what is needed.

[reb]

I'd hope any of the reasons would be at least partially under my control. To progress steadily for 5-10 years and then hit a ceiling - I'm really scared of that.
Plateaus are encountered at varying intervals

Recognizing a plateau and the finding a way to break through each plateau is the key:cool:

When that doesn't happen - the plateau becomes a ceiling . . .

[DennisBeach]

That's a really good way of putting it. The difference between a dancer with a few moves but who can hold up their own frame and can move themselves smoothly from foot to foot with reasonable and consistent posture and someone who knows more moves but is, basically, a mess is huge. I would rather dance socially with someone who knows fewer steps but does them better. To me "steps" don't make a dance more or less boring, but movement does. Better technique == smoother, fuller, more interesting movement.

In each dance, our technical improvement reached a point, were all of sudden it felt like a Rumba, Waltz, Tango etc.. and started to be fun. Our teachers pushed technique and looking back, I really am glad they did. In each dance we started with just a few moves and worked on doing them with proper technique. Once that was achieved, than we added more moves. Doing the moves so they are fun and look good, is dependant on technique.

[meow]

Plateaus are encountered at varying intervals

Recognizing a plateau and the finding a way to break through each plateau is the key:cool:

When that doesn't happen - the plateau becomes a ceiling . . .

Yes, totally agree. The thing is getting in the right mind-set to move through it.:)