amateur-professional time to reorganize??

[elisedance]

This springs from the 'amateurs that teach in europe' thread that seems to me to need its own arena. I start it with the opinion piece below - its just my perspective put out to stimulate discussion

It seems the Amateur and Professional tags are becomeing nonsensical. If Ams are to teach and get paid for it and many Ams can easly beat many Pros what does the name designation mean any more? Hasn't it become like the situation in the Olympics a few years ago when all athletes in the eastern block were 'unpaid amateurs' and hence could compete even though they were full tine athletes wheras in the west the amateurs had to have an independent income (which meant either a full time job or being independently wealthy).

For any particular dance form (e.g. standard, rhythm etc) we currently have competitions that are divided by two main criteria: age (junior, youth, adult, senior, senior II for example) and experience (syllabus, pre-champ, championship etc). Theses two criteria form a grid within which all dancers can be separated for competition. On top of this is the Amateur/Professional distinction. The professional catagory includes three major groups. First, there are the super-athletes. These are the top flight dancers that compete at the highest level of dancesport with the ultimate goal of world championships. Second, 'retired super-athrletes' who have turned to post- compeittion careers and, third, other dancers which I will term here 'dance journeymen' (no critisism intended) that have decided because of interest in teaching, career aspirations or maybe income to profit from some aspect of dance.

This system seems to have worked OK with respect to permitting both the development of new dancers through the grid system, the establishment of reasonable catagories for competition and also to ensure that competitors that did dance as a career - and hence with full time access to dance resources (studio, practice, experts) would not have an advantage over the bulk of dancers who had to work/study outside the dance arena. In actuallity this aspect probably never really worked since, for example, a top studio owner's or world champion child would presumably have access to those resources while still being technically an amatuer and an independently wealthy dancer could be an amatuer while dancng full time with unlimited resources. The distinction between amateur and professional has become even more blurred with the recent official approval of payment for teaching in the former group.

In my opinion, its time to dump the 'amateur' tag. It is articicial at best and nonsensical at worst. A new super-athlete competition level could surely replace with the current top amateur and professional divisions. Beyond this I do not see why everyone else can not compete in the same grid system described above.

[etp777]

Interesting idea.

[elisedance]

jeepers you replied fast! I handn't even finished editing... :)

[etp777]

hahaha. hit a slow period at work, so now I'm bored. :)

[biggestbox]

I agree that the distinction between amateurs and pros is very very unclear. I personally think that the distinction is still useful, however. There is both a level difference, and a maturity issue. To me, AM is more youthful, their choreography is faster, they use more tricks, spins and splits. Pros are much more mature and refined looking. This is why I think some couples do much better in Pro than AM (some do well in both).

[Twilight_Elena]

I think it's time to drop the titles and increase the amount of different categories, maybe?

[elisedance]

I agree that the distinction between amateurs and pros is very very unclear. I personally think that the distinction is still useful, however. There is both a level difference, and a maturity issue. To me, AM is more youthful, their choreography is faster, they use more tricks, spins and splits. Pros are much more mature and refined looking. This is why I think some couples do much better in Pro than AM (some do well in both).

I think a big issue is that this system evolved, it was not designed - sometimes evolution is the best way of organization since it satisfies need. However, every now and then needs have to be reconsolidated so that evolution can start off from a more logical base.

Thus, I agree to the sentiment of your reply, I just think there must be a better way to achieve the same ends. I did not get into that above since I am hoping this tread stimulates just such a discussion.

[Me]

Some people like the confusion and deliberately spread misinformation about status. One party has spread the confusion to speak ill of the teachers in the community who, though students do pay a very small fee for some classes, accept no pay themselves, and still compete as amateurs. The goal of this gossip of course is to make people believe these community instructors are "cheating."

[tangotime]

I think a big issue is that this system evolved, it was not designed



Actually, it was designed-- stemming from the first org. meeting of " the minds ", that put a syllabus in place . This did not happen by accident but thru dis agreement and resolution.

From those beginnings at prof. and amat. ranks, the system was implemented , and has grown to its current status .

Yes, there are things that need attention , and I feel sure, there will be changes to certain aspects of the system .

[elisedance]

Sorry, I am sure you are right - there was good thought that went into the original plan ; the question is whether change has made that design obsolete and whether its a good plan to go forward with.

Basically, I don't think we have dealt with the issue that dogged the Olympics. Frankly, I miss the all-amateur Olympics but I also accept that it was impossible to sustain. Indeed, I wonder to what extent the organization of dancesport was a factor in the Olympic committees decision to not include it in the current events.

[DanceMentor]

What seems to be a strong notion for many is the difference between a Teacher and a Competitor. Some would argue the two are not the same. A couple of illustrations:
1. The pro of a Pro/Am couple is making a lot of money as a competitor
2. An amateur teaches salsa or swing lessons for fun and profit, but competes in Standard and Ballroom.
3. A young adult amateur teaches kids, because he got similar help when he was their age, and gets some free training from the amateurs above him, or everything is done at a reduced rate.

By definition, "amateur" is a lower level than "professional". So what many believe is someone is a Professional if they compete as a professional or declare themselves a professional. There is a natural process of going up the ladder
Bronze
Silver
Gold
Novice
Pre-Champ
Championship
Rising Star Professional
Professional

Even in the case of amateurs there are some very good Novice and Pre-Champ that are winning that are better than some of the Champ competitors, just as there are many Bronze that could beat many of the Silver competitors, and many Champ that could beat some of the pro competitors. This is really a non-issue.

You also have to look at new teachers, and what to do with them. Studios often make pros by putting them on the teaching floor, yet they would easily get creamed at just about any level illustrated above. In my opinion it would make more sense to let the newer teachers go through a natural progression just like anyone else. So you should reach the highest level through hard work and dedication.

You get out of dancing what you put into it. Many amateurs devote their lives to dancing, and many so called "pros" do it as a part time job. Your ability to move up the levels should be based on what you put into it, not whether or not you teach. The names for the levels can stay the same. You reach higher levels through your dedication to the sport.

Finally, you need to look at the countries whose systems seem to be working and see what they are doing. And you have to look at the amateurs that are winning and see what they are doing. And you have to look at the pros that are winning and see what got them there. Do this, and picture becomes much clearer.

[Josh]

What seems to be a strong notion for many is the difference between a Teacher and a Competitor. Some would argue the two are not the same.

Not only would I argue that they are not the same, but they are nothing alike, in any way.

I think you have hit on a key point here DM. I have had coachings from and witnessed many top-level competitor Professionals teaching, but as often as it has been helpful to my dancing, it has also been totally useless. And I don't mean to just me, but also coachings for my Am students.

Bottom line for me: good dancer does NOT equal good teacher, though rarely you may find both in one. Thus, in the context of TEACHING, I want a "Professional". I would not take a coaching from a world champion amateur dancer, because chances are they aren't good at teaching, because they have not been trained to do so, or even if they have, they don't practice the art of teaching enough to be effective at it.

It's sort of like baseball (then again, isn't everything? ;-) ). Barry Bonds may be a fantastic player, but I'm not going to get him to teach me how to hit, because he's primarily a player, not a coach. I'm going to get a hitting coach to show me how to hit, because it's what he primarily does--teach others his art. Similarly, if I want to see a home run I'd rather put Bonds at the plate than his hitting coach ;-) I'm not saying a top competing Pro can't be a fantastic teacher, because I know many are. But as DM said, the word "Professional" seems to need a context.

[tangotime]

Basically, I don't think we have dealt with the issue that dogged the Olympics. Frankly, I miss the all-amateur Olympics but I also accept that it was impossible to sustain. Indeed, I wonder to what extent the organization of dancesport was a factor in the Olympic committees decision to not include it in the current events.


I believe the Olymp . situation would have been better served , if they had applied for inclusion in the winter games ---- perfect tie in with Ice skating .

[elisedance]

Josh/DM: I think you are talking about the distinction that I was trying to make between the retired 'super-athlete competitor' and the 'journeyman' catagory of pros above. Clearly these are working tags that need better definition - the 'dance coach' that comes out of Josh's post would be an excellent tag.

The distinctions within Amateur dancesport are really quite clear (whether or not they are teaching and whether or not we should retain the term) - its defining the different classes of 'professionals' that really muddies the water.

[meow]

Over here we only have Amateur and Professional catagories.

Amateur has levels 1 thru 5 (5 being the best/highest dancers). Levels 4 & 5 can dance Open.
Professional has no levels - pro's compete in one event per style.

There is no Pro-Am, so whether you teach as a Pro or Amateur, there isn't a huge difference in financial gain.

Pro's and Ams must get coaching accreditation, whether they be champions or not.

My kitten is a highly ranked Latin Am who has formal accreditation. That in itself does not make him a great teacher. It just happens to be that he is a good teacher, who started helping out by partnering in other teachers classes when he was 13. He did this to 'observe and learn different communication and teaching methods and styles'. He now has developed his own style of coaching and is actually sought out if he is available for coaching.
What he produces (as in couple results) will determine over time whether he is a great coach.

It is often a discussion point in dancing circles - the current Ams would beat the pants off the current Pro's. And, to turn Pro early is because they won't ever be good enough to make it to the top in Am. Do Pro's become a little lazy as they put more time into teaching then their own dancing?

The US and Aust systems can't really be compared. But, here, when it comes to teaching there really doesn't seem to be much difference between a P or A.

One objection that I do have is this - any person who social dances and has never competed, can if they wish, study and obtain Level O (the lowest) accreditation and teach. I, for one, would not pay for that teacher if I knew that they had no real dance history - the thing is that the clients don't know and can pay the same amount for a top Pro, top Am or a 'no-body'. I think this is really wrong.

[DanceMentor]

One great way to differentiate between a professional teacher and an amateur teacher is through certification.

I was talking to a professional teacher from Russia today. Here are a few of the points she made about the system there:
1. Almost all amateurs teach and charge for it
2. Amateurs tend to teach other amateurs below their level
3. Usually only the top amateurs take lessons from professionals
4. In order to be considered a professional teacher, you must pass a test

In my opinion, elisedance, you can certainly have different levels of teachers based on the level of certification they have achieved. In competition, you can have different levels of competitors based on the level of achievement of the competitor. Passing a test as a teacher and winning a division as a competitor are NOT the same thing, and I don't believe they should be treated as such.

One problem we have in the United States is there really is no uniform system for certifying professional teachers. Being a pro is as simple as declaring it, and that seems to be one of the most popular methods for differentiating right now.

[reb]

One great way to differentiate between a professional teacher and an amateur teacher is through certification.

I was talking to a professional teacher from Russia today. Here are a few of the points she made about the system there:
1. Almost all amateurs teach and charge for it
2. Amateurs tend to teach other amateurs below their level
3. Usually only the top amateurs take lessons from professionals
4. In order to be considered a professional teacher, you must pass a test

In my opinion, elisedance, you can certainly have different levels of teachers based on the level of certification they have achieved. In competition, you can have different levels of competitors based on the level of achievement of the competitor. Passing a test as a teacher and winning a division as a competitor are NOT the same thing, and I don't believe they should be treated as such.

One problem we have in the United States is there really is no uniform system for certifying professional teachers. Being a pro is as simple as declaring it, and that seems to be one of the most popular methods for differentiating right now.
That's quite a contrast.

[waltzgirl]

One objection that I do have is this - any person who social dances and has never competed, can if they wish, study and obtain Level O (the lowest) accreditation and teach. I, for one, would not pay for that teacher if I knew that they had no real dance history - the thing is that the clients don't know and can pay the same amount for a top Pro, top Am or a 'no-body'. I think this is really wrong.

Perhaps it depends on who they are teaching. Accomplished social dancers can have skills--like the ability to lead and follow a variety of partners well--that many comp-only dancers lack. Fo someone whose goal is to be a social dancer, such a teacher might be perfect.

[Josh]

Do Pro's become a little lazy as they put more time into teaching then their own dancing?

Obviously, in some cases yes. But in others it's not an issue of being lazy or not. It's an issue of time. Teaching even just 5 or 6 hours a day is often mentally draining, and the last thing a teacher wants to do is go bust it for several more! Now, with that being said, a dance teacher's own dancing should be his or her #1 priority, IMO.

One objection that I do have is this - any person who social dances and has never competed, can if they wish, study and obtain Level O (the lowest) accreditation and teach. I, for one, would not pay for that teacher if I knew that they had no real dance history - the thing is that the clients don't know and can pay the same amount for a top Pro, top Am or a 'no-body'. I think this is really wrong.

I agree that this is an unfortunate situation that many find themselves in meow... (paying high cost for someone who doesn't know much). However, one reason that studios often charge a flat rate regardless of experience (what they pay to students totally reflects the experience level though, let me tell ya) is the concept of perceived value. It's the same reason kids will buy a $110 pair of shoes not because of what it does for them, but because of what they perceive it does for them. Price that down to $30, still way above what it costs to make, and in a logical world you would sell to at least 3X more people, but in our world of reality your sales would probably drop by 50%. "If they only cost $30, how good can they be?" The effect is doubly disastrous in the dance business, as the customer now feels he is not getting a good product for no reason other than the money, even if the teacher is a good one; and secondly, the teacher is getting paid a measley $8/hr or something, and thus lacks the confidence to really believe in himself and what he's teaching, and thus becomes less effective (though this problem exists regardless of how much the customer pays when under a closed studio system typically).

If all this really bothers you, remember that in a free market system, the customers dictate the quality of their product. If a society does not demand that a dance teacher have certification or a particular experience level as they might with someone like a doctor, for example, then don't blame the teacher--blame the market! (more on certifications in my next post)

[etp777]

Now surely you aren't saying there's something wrong with chain studios who seem to hire teachers primarily on looks, regradless of dance experience, then teach them how to dance afterwards. ;)

[Josh]

One great way to differentiate between a professional teacher and an amateur teacher is through certification.

In my opinion, elisedance, you can certainly have different levels of teachers based on the level of certification they have achieved. In competition, you can have different levels of competitors based on the level of achievement of the competitor. Passing a test as a teacher and winning a division as a competitor are NOT the same thing, and I don't believe they should be treated as such.

One problem we have in the United States is there really is no uniform system for certifying professional teachers. Being a pro is as simple as declaring it, and that seems to be one of the most popular methods for differentiating right now.

The problem is even deeper than what you describe DM, and unfortunately it's a problem that always has and always will pervade most any field of expertise. The problem is that no level of certification can ever prove or validate a person's true value at what he or she does.

I highly value my own certifications because I know that it involves work and dedication and discipline to achieve, so I'm not trying to put a low value on certifications. That being said, I know of some certified professionals who are mediocre dancers, and who know all the right answers to all the right questions on the exam, and who know the book up and down, but who can't teach worth a lick. Exams are based on a manual, and it's easy to read and memorize a manual instead of studying it to really learn why things are the way they are (and unfortunately, manuals are not really a good reflection of how the dances are really danced anyway, so you only get a very, very basic view of important concepts).

Even on questions regarding essential concepts such as CBM, which is asked on every basic test, accepted answers rarely truly test the knowledge of the person (for example, just ask a new dancer who's had an exam recently to correctly demonstrate CBM, and see how many of them instinctively but incorrectly "twist" their torso while stepping forward or back). My whole point is that spewing answers in response to questions has merit, but ultimately demonstrates no real working knowledge.

I reiterate, certifications do have merit, but you don't have to have them to be a world-class teacher, and an average teacher is not made better by simply passing the exam.

[Josh]

Now surely you aren't saying there's something wrong with chain studios who seem to hire teachers primarily on looks, regradless of dance experience, then teach them how to dance afterwards. ;)

Well, I'll say that it's good for business, but not so great for the customers... the upside is that at least that way you get people in the door, interested in dancing! :-)

[etp777]

Ah yes, the argument about how valuable a certification is, or how applicable it is/how much it actually shows about how good you might be. That's always a popular discussion in the IT field. I got this job here almost exclusively because of a certification I hold if you look at it in mostbasic form.

That being said, it gets a little deeper as I studied for and passed the exam in only one week (not an easy exam) and have ~11 years of experience in the field to back that up, and just managed to come up with solution to a problem that was stumping everyone else in shop, most who are a lot better than me at this particular aspect of the IT field. Certifications can be useful, but in themselves, of course are not the end-all be-all. Sadly, there's no perfect answer to everything.

And yes, it certainly does get people in the door (in mass market ballroom, there is certainly a large part of the business that boils down to middle aged/older people, particularly women, who are at some level, though probably subconciously, paying for the time and attention of a young attractive male teacher). Luckily for me, being as almost all my friends are ballroom reachers, means I spend most of my time in states around attractive women. :)

[meow]

The problem is even deeper than what you describe DM, and unfortunately it's a problem that always has and always will pervade most any field of expertise. The problem is that no level of certification can ever prove or validate a person's true value at what he or she does.

I highly value my own certifications because I know that it involves work and dedication and discipline to achieve, so I'm not trying to put a low value on certifications. That being said, I know of some certified professionals who are mediocre dancers, and who know all the right answers to all the right questions on the exam, and who know the book up and down, but who can't teach worth a lick. Exams are based on a manual, and it's easy to read and memorize a manual instead of studying it to really learn why things are the way they are (and unfortunately, manuals are not really a good reflection of how the dances are really danced anyway, so you only get a very, very basic view of important concepts).

Even on questions regarding essential concepts such as CBM, which is asked on every basic test, accepted answers rarely truly test the knowledge of the person (for example, just ask a new dancer who's had an exam recently to correctly demonstrate CBM, and see how many of them instinctively but incorrectly "twist" their torso while stepping forward or back). My whole point is that spewing answers in response to questions has merit, but ultimately demonstrates no real working knowledge.

I reiterate, certifications do have merit, but you don't have to have them to be a world-class teacher, and an average teacher is not made better by simply passing the exam.

In most of your post I fully agree with you. For a long time we had the problem of whether or not Ams should teach and could it be policed etc. At the end of the day, Dancesport Aust set up the Accreditation system to endure that all coaches were on a level playing field to begin teaching. I know that to get any certification in Dancesport here is not just a question of knowing the theory but also in the examination, you must be able to show, with an unknown partner, the elements of asked movements which are randomly chosen by the examiner, dance them as both the lady and the man, and explain the movements/elements at the same time.
To be ready to pass an exam takes anywhere up to a year and then it is not just a pass or fail - there are levels of passing. So, I know that my kitten is very proud of his certifications as he has put in long hours of weekly Accreditation classes for at least a year in each one and has passed all of them with 'honours'. He is also one of this country's top Latin Ams, so he has his own dancing achievements.
In the examinations here, you are examined on not only knowing and presenting the material but also on how you, as an instructor, would explain,convey, impart that knowledge to a student - your own personal instruction technique is examined. So, just rattling off info from a manual would not cut it here.
This does not make him a great teacher. He is a very good one and is sought after. And his students are doing very well, both medallists and lower level and younger competitors. He is still only 21 yo, so what he produces as a coach in the future will determine 'greatness'.
He now has some top coaches who don't choreograph themselves referring their students to him for choreography, as he has proven and continues to prove how good he is in that area.
What my kitten looks for in a coach is - past and current results of their students. If they have and are producing some champions then they must be a good coach. Time will only tell with my kitten.

My kitten is one lucky dancer. He has, IMO, the very best coach and mentor ever.:D

[etp777]

Funny how many of us feel that way meow. :) Though I miss pro and coach now that I'm 8000 miles away.

[tangotime]

Would like to clarify the first stage in a prof. exam. There seems to be an understanding, ( in many cases ) that one who has acquired an Assoc. level exam. with any of the Major Soc. , would indicate that the individual is now equipped to answer all and every Q about his chosen profession -- NOT--

The first level has little, if any , theory attached to the exam . At this stage in the UK, one is still " in training " . Most assoc. levels are assistants and are many times given medal class type work thru Bronze level , usually under the guidance of the school principal .

Even under those reccommended guide lines, it is still possible to "set " up shop solo, with just an Assoc. qualif. or no qualis at all.

[Angel HI]

The problem is even deeper than what you describe DM, and unfortunately it's a problem that always has and always will pervade most any field of expertise. The problem is that no level of certification can ever prove or validate a person's true value at what he or she does.

I reiterate, certifications do have merit, but you don't have to have them to be a world-class teacher, and an average teacher is not made better by simply passing the exam.

At any rate, this isn't the kind of thing you can find answered in a book, and in a way the reality that the right answer/demo for the test is the one that the examiner expects to hear/see - regardless of what's actually needed when dancing - demonstrates your original point.

Agreed on all counts. Good posts.

[elisedance]

Well what if we apply the argument here to, say, medicine? You don't become a better teacher of medicine just because you have accreditation? But I think you miss the crucial reason for the test - its not to make a better teacher its to prevent lousy teachers from getting into the system.

That is why any career/education system/profession has exams/accreditation and is why dancing woudl be improved if there was at least some minimal standard that teachers HAD to have to teach. It would at the least stop the notorious cases of teahers who are two weeks ahead of you. Higher accreditation should mean the ability to teach at higher levels. Thus, in (developed country) medicine you can not get a responsible teaching position without a higher degree - usually, if not always now, a doctorate (though you can be a teaching assistant).

[etp777]

Oh, i certainly wasn't saying that accreditation/certification/whatever was worthless I hope that didn't come across (Esp. as I know I HAVE said it in exactly that way in past when I was particularly frustrated with someone, esp if they had same certifications I did and yet were clueless and hence lessened the value of my own certs). Was jus saying it's not a panacea, but then, nothing is.

But shouldn't you be asleep right now? :P

[elisedance]

nope - its 5.30 am and my brain just jumped out of bed.

My body, on the other hand....

[tangotime]

its to prevent lousy teachers from getting into the system.



Elise-- Wish that were true !-- - I, many yrs ago, had an on going correspondence with the late A. Moore , on this very subject .

He posed the Q to me-- " How, other than an exam, can you validate the credential ?"
I replied-- the only practical ( maybe inpractical ) solution-- the exams should be accompanied by the examiner attending an actual lesson at the level of the credential. He agreed, but said the logistics were a little complex .

[elisedance]

It is true (note the intent is to prevent, the outcome is to greatly reduce) - otherwise it would not be relied on in every area of professional activity, You can no longer hang up a shingle and become a dentist, lawyer or proctologist. Every profession that aspires to some credibility establishes credentials.

Sure this does not prevent bad lawyers, dentists or proctologists. however, it does two things: it makes it harder for the incompetent and untrained to get started and, perhaps more important, it necessesitates the establishment of a professional organization that can withdraw the certification. The latter is the 'other leg' that dance instruction does not have. The sport attracts and is populated by umpteen self-professed, untrained teachers. In medicine you would calll them snake-oil salesmen. And the sport turns a blind eye when the unwary get separated from their hard earned cash in one of these pits.

I know of one 'instructor' who talked his client into signing a lifetime dance contract (not kidding). I used to watch him teach - he would talk to this poor lady for 45 minutes and then walk around the floor for 15 more. Sure, buyer beware and all that and you may not have much sympathy for someone so gullible - but what does it say about dancesport?

[etp777]

ouch, lifetime contract? Even someone like me who is rabidly devoted to their pro won't do that. :)

[tangotime]

It is true (note the intent is to prevent, the outcome is to greatly reduce) - otherwise it would not be relied on in every area of professional activity, You can no longer hang up a shingle and become a dentist, lawyer or proctologist. Every profession that aspires to some credibility establishes credentials.

Sure this does not prevent bad lawyers, dentists or proctologists. however, it does two things: it makes it harder for the incompetent and untrained to get started and, perhaps more important, it necessesitates the establishment of a professional organization that can withdraw the certification. The latter is the 'other leg' that dance instruction does not have. The sport attracts and is populated by umpteen self-professed, untrained teachers. In medicine you would calll them snake-oil salesmen. And the sport turns a blind eye when the unwary get separated from their hard earned cash in one of these pits.



One-- the " sport " has little jurisdiction over theses type of events.

Two-- comparing Drs etc. to dance is really a non sequitor-- they deal with life affecting events -- we teach people to dance ( yes, rip offs can have dire consequences ).

Beind a dues paying member of 2 Soc. , I am not against any of your suggestions to legislate requirements.
Here in lies the problem-- enforcement . Fla. came up with a partial solution -- they now require independant teachers renting " space " to post a $ 300 bond . Needless to say-- a paper tiger .

Even here in the UK, the so called bastion of dance-- there are numerous unqualified ( in the certif. sense of the word ) individuals who are actively engaged in the teaching of dance-- it is not illegal ! .

This discussion has also arisen on another site ( 2, actually ) , with many claiming that letters behind you name guarantees little. I, of course , disagree vehemently .
One caveat-- Qualific. does not guarantee competance in the " art " of teaching, it only goes to show the level of your " book " knowledge to a greater or lesser degree .( no pun ).

[Chris Stratton]

Sure this does not prevent bad lawyers, dentists or proctologists. however, it does two things: it makes it harder for the incompetent and untrained to get started and, perhaps more important, it necessesitates the establishment of a professional organization that can withdraw the certification. The latter is the 'other leg' that dance instruction does not have. The sport attracts and is populated by umpteen self-professed, untrained teachers. In medicine you would calll them snake-oil salesmen. And the sport turns a blind eye when the unwary get separated from their hard earned cash in one of these pits.

The lack of the second leg that you mention could be an issue, yes.

But something even more glaring that's missing in my mind is something that played a key role in the transformation of the professions such as medicine from lone-experimentor dark ages to structured profession:

professional colleges and academic research

The state of ballroom knowledge won't really get off the ground organizationally until we add a layer of academic-type interaction between communities of experienced "professors" and advancing "graduate students".

Was thinking on the drive in this morning, something I'd still really like to see: a pair of comparable reputation ballroom authorities respectfully debating their differences of opinion on a particular subject. In person they would probably agree on more than you might think if you went by your own impressions from asking each separately, but the areas where they really do disagree once misunderstandings have been eliminated would be quite interesting.

[tangotime]

Was thinking on the drive in this morning, something I'd still really like to see: a pair of comparable reputation ballroom authorities respectfully debating their differences of opinion on a particular subject. In person they would probably agree on more than you might think if you went by your own impressions from asking each separately, but the areas where they really do disagree once misunderstandings have been eliminated would be quite interesting.

Have been part of, and witness to , several such " debates " over the yrs-- and yes , a common gound is usually, if not always , reached .

The one exception-- a very, very high profile coach, who would never retreat from his stance .

[DanceMentor]

I can see we are moving the discussion toward certifications, and I just want to point out that certification would more likely be a credential for a teacher, not a competitor. I want to emphasize these are two different topics. When it comes to certification of teachers, many organizations do offer this, and there are even schools where one can study to become a teacher. There are lots of people that are great teachers but rarely if ever compete. Just like in any other profession, a degree/certification does not guarantee a job.

On the other hand, the level one achieves as a competitor cannot be measured by one's teaching skill, or whether or not they have a certification, though it is likely a competitor will seek the help of a professional teacher to further their understanding of dance. A competitor's level is measured by what they do on the comp floor above all else, and this is the most natural measurement.

So in summary, I believe a professional (certified) teacher is not the same as a professional competitor. One becomes a professional teacher because they have studied a program and received a certification. One becomes a professional competitor because they have reached the highest level on the competition floor.

[Joe]

You'll never get certification requirements worked out here in the US. Too many competing interests (no pun intended).

[Josh]

professional colleges and academic research

The state of ballroom knowledge won't really get off the ground organizationally until we add a layer of academic-type interaction between communities of experienced "professors" and advancing "graduate students".


This will never happen, at least I hope not! Even though there is some general agreement in a field like medicine, even in such a vital human study there is no concensus across the board on even very important topics (like how to determine if a patient is having a heart attack). It will never happen in the dance world, because the field is more art than science, though it is both.

[Chris Stratton]

On ballroom academics:

This will never happen, at least I hope not! Even though there is some general agreement in a field like medicine, even in such a vital human study there is no concensus across the board on even very important topics (like how to determine if a patient is having a heart attack).The point isn't to establish consensus, the point is to have a mechanism for developing strength from the best ideas that the diversity of expert opinions offer - something beyond the "so and so says" - "but that's wrong because so and so says this!" You do this by moving from the lone-expert model towards developing communities of study with multiple experts who do not agree.

It will never happen in the dance world, because the field is more art than science, though it is both.On the contrary, it's happened to most of the other arts... they have their performance side, and they have their academic side, with a lot of the leading people having two hats that they wear - professor by day, performer by night. Plus you have those who study with no distraction from trying to do; and those out in the real world who do with little concern for study - they all have their role in other artistic fields, and should in dancing as well.

[tangotime]

This will never happen, at least I hope not! Even though there is some general agreement in a field like medicine, even in such a vital human study there is no concensus across the board on even very important topics (like how to determine if a patient is having a heart attack). It will never happen in the dance world, because the field is more art than science, though it is both.


Point well made !

[Another Elizabeth]

Obviously, in some cases yes. But in others it's not an issue of being lazy or not. It's an issue of time. Teaching even just 5 or 6 hours a day is often mentally draining, and the last thing a teacher wants to do is go bust it for several more! Now, with that being said, a dance teacher's own dancing should be his or her #1 priority, IMO.
Why? Isn't this a direct contradiction to your analogy about Barry Bonds and the hitting coach? The hitting coach's #1 priority definitely isn't his own swing - it's Barry Bonds'.

[meow]

I can see we are moving the discussion toward certifications, and I just want to point out that certification would more likely be a credential for a teacher, not a competitor. I want to emphasize these are two different topics. When it comes to certification of teachers, many organizations do offer this, and there are even schools where one can study to become a teacher. There are lots of people that are great teachers but rarely if ever compete. Just like in any other profession, a degree/certification does not guarantee a job.

On the other hand, the level one achieves as a competitor cannot be measured by one's teaching skill, or whether or not they have a certification, though it is likely a competitor will seek the help of a professional teacher to further their understanding of dance. A competitor's level is measured by what they do on the comp floor above all else, and this is the most natural measurement.

So in summary, I believe a professional (certified) teacher is not the same as a professional competitor. One becomes a professional teacher because they have studied a program and received a certification. One becomes a professional competitor because they have reached the highest level on the competition floor.

This is exactly what my kitten does and is doing.

He is an Am competitive dancer. That is his first priority. So, his own lessons and training time come first.

Then he teaches dancing BUT he has dance Accreditation and comp experience. This does not make him a Professional.

He has no intention of turning Pro until after (and if) he attains the highest he can in the world arena of dancing International Latin.

He plans to continue to gain further and higher accreditations and eventually become a Scrutineer, adjudicator, coach, demonstrator, lecturer, etc. His life revolves around Dancesport and he is continuing to build a future for himself.:)

[elisedance]

Meow: Do you want to share your son's and partner's names so that DF can 'adopt' them?

[etp777]

It's great to hear DFer's cheering/screaming their heads off for other DFers at a comp even though it was firs ttime they've met face to face. :) as I've said before, DF is a big family.

[Angel HI]

Two-- comparing Drs etc. to dance is really a non sequitor-- they deal with life affecting events -- we teach people to dance ( yes, rip offs can have dire consequences ).

This is probably the first time that we disagree. Perhaps, I take myself too seriously, but my job is every bit as life affecting as a doctor's.

That I am a degreed counselor has most certainly helped me to become known as a great teacher. I know that my real job is NOT to teach dance...that no one comes to me to learn to dance. Some come for relaxation; others, for exercize. Some come to strengthen...others to lose. Some are recently divorced, and wish to reacquiesce with being single, and others are looking for a spouse. I have had students who were molested as children, and are trying to get past the stigmas of being in an intimate situation with the opposite gender. If I were to teach these persons a slow-slow-quick-quick and send them to a social, I would have done them a great disservice. My job, as a dance teacher, is to find out why each student is here, and provide that "through" dancing. They will leave a more fulfilled individual, and will have learned some great skills and fun along the way.

Of course, compare us to doctors. And, do so proudly.

[tangotime]

This is probably the first time that we disagree. Perhaps, I take myself too seriously, but my job is every bit as life affecting as a doctor's.

That I am a degreed counselor has most certainly helped me to become known as a great teacher. I know that my real job is NOT to teach dance...that no one comes to me to learn to dance. Some come for relaxation; others, for exercize. Some come to strengthen...others to lose. Some are recently divorced, and wish to reacquiesce with being single, and others are looking for a spouse. I have had students who were molested as children, and are trying to get past the stigmas of being in an intimate situation with the opposite gender. If I were to teach these persons a slow-slow-quick-quick and send them to a social, I would have done them a great disservice. My job, as a dance teacher, is to find out why each student is here, and provide that "through" dancing. They will leave a more fulfilled individual, and will have learned some great skills and fun along the way.

Of course, compare us to doctors. And, do so proudly.


Actually , not really-- I completely agree with your analysis of " the --- reasons why"-- have preached that mantra for many yrs.

By "life " affecting, my point was more the analogy to a medical emegency that if mis treated could have dire consequences, whereas if we, as prof. misguide students, technically or otherwise, it is not a life threatning experience .
Of course we can affect their lives in an enriching capacity ( even mentally ) and I have, in the past , taught many groups of severely handicap people ( downs syndrome ) .
So yes , we do make impact.

[Angel HI]

Certification:
I believe that we all agree that papers do not a good teacher make. TT is correct to say that certifications only show that a teacher can read and regurgitate information. I am not dismissing the practical part of the exam. I know how difficult that is. I also know tens of teachers who can recite every paragraph in "the book" and can not dance; and, as many who can recite every 1/8 turn in "the book" and can not teach. The problem is that we are involved in an art/sport. It is, as someone said, an art and a science. A good teacher has to be cerebral as well as artistic. Yet, he/she must also be socially adept, and have the gift of teaching. This can be learned, but it is most often developed.
Academics:
This is the answer to the preceding paragraph. The powers that be are too busy arguing over who is going to have the right to say so, to fix the problem. USADance has done an excellent job with academics re YCN. The PanAm syllabus began as a wonderfully technical, academic teaching aide before it slipped into stupidly spastic patterns that no one with an ounce of musicality would ever dance.

Syllabi were supposed to be logical, academic progressions of important techniques and requisites of the dances. Somewhere along the way, they slipped into these pamphlets of ridiculous footprinted slows and quicks, Groucho Marx walks, and boxed incarcerations of originally melifluous movement.

We have academics. We just don't use them.

[elisedance]

Its been a fun discussion everyone - but can we get back closer to topic? That is:

Should we get rid of the amateur/professional distinction? If we did, what would we replace it with? I made a few suggestions in the first post but we have not really explored this.

OK, who's going first pro or am? :)

[Dancebug]

Should we get rid of the amateur/professional distinction? :)
Maybe the answer is we should. I do not care whether there is the amateur/pro distinction or not, as long as there is a dedicated category that allows only people like me to compete against each other. (People like me are those who have not gained any monitory compensation for dancing or teaching dancing and dance only for personal satisfaction.)

[meow]

Meow: Do you want to share your son's and partner's names so that DF can 'adopt' them?

Elise, are you serious or just mucking around? Even if I did say who they were, no-one in the US would know them. I guess they could look them up in Dancesportinfonet if they were interested.

Maybe you should watch the video first and then let me know whether DF would even want to 'adopt' them?

[telespin123]

I agree with Dancebug.

There should be 2 major formats - the Top Athlete level if you want to call it that (those who do it for a living) mainly pro's and top Am's now.

And then there should be the non profit org if you like (as Dancebug mentioned) the Pre Champ, Novice, Gold etc competitors.

In respect to Am or Pro, I know Am's who know more than some pro's, but to me teaching is not about that. Lots of pro's and am's alike have good information, they've all done the lessons in Europe and done the hours in the studio, but what makes a good teacher I believe is how they can deliver the information to the student.
Sifting through the complicated info and making it simplified for the student.

Like to hear thoughts.... :-)

[DanceMentor]

Studios will tend to hire the best instructors available for the amount they are willing to pay per hour. It does not matter whether are not they are certified, though many studios will run their own certification process, or through an organization for which they are a member. Studios will often put new instructors on the floor (usually for less pay), that are clearly not ready to compete at the professional level of competition.

Many amateurs will dedicate their life to dancing. They will spend hours and hours per week dancing. They will go to competitions, and try to get as much coaching as possible to increase their chances of winning. Some have a huge budget for competitions and coaching, but more often, they do not.

It is important to examine where the best amateurs are coming from and try to learn from their example, as they must be doing something right. Right now, Italy and Russia are producing most of the top amateur competitors both in terms of who is winning, and also how many they are producing. They have a system where dancers teach the people just below them, and in turn, receive lessons from those above them. They are able to earn money. You also have to look at the United States, and see where the top amateurs are coming from... New York. And then you have to observer what they are doing... very similar to Italy and Russia.

By the time you reach the championship division, and are placing in the top ranks, you have clearly dedicated a large portion of your life to dancing, and it is understandable that you are doing everything possible to improve, including teaching or doing shows. Most likely, you still are not "gaining" financially, because the cost of coaching and competition is so high, but you are doing all you can to keep getting better, including studying and trying to duplicate what the other amateurs worldwide are doing.

It is important to note that countries like the United States and England, that have more strict policies regarding amateurs, are also not winning when compared with countries like Italy and Russia. In addition, both countries allow teaching for their top amateurs, and it is those amateurs that are doing the best!

In the United States, what makes things more complicated is Pro/Am. How can the US compete internationally by allowing amateurs to teach (USA Dance fully allows it now), yet come up with a policy for amateurs involved in Pro/Am partnerships? These days it is quite common to see claims against amateurs in such partnerships. There are some "amateurs" that are very rich and do dozens of comps per year, and would never consider teaching. And there are other amateurs that find it almost impossible to compete against someone like this as they have far less money, so they decide to teach. I see no way to easily fix this situation anytime soon.

Then you have all sorts of programs being run to sidestep the issue. You have "interns" who may "help" at the studio, but are not considered "teachers", yet they receive certain benefits in exchange for their help. Often the activities are kept quiet to reduce the chances of a claim against them.

Things are very complicated, both from a wider World view, and from a narrower US view, but for me it keeps coming back to the separation of teaching and competing. People do all sorts of things to earn a living. Some people can afford a dozen private lessons per week, and some will practice for a dozen hours per week on their own. In the end, it comes down to working your way up from Amateur Bronze to Open Professional, and it is the judges that will decide who should move up.

The current thinking for many worldwide is that you become a pro by competing as a pro or declaring a status change. I support this view.

[meow]

Studios will tend to hire the best instructors available for the amount they are willing to pay per hour. It does not matter whether are not they are certified

Here that doesn't happen any more since DSA brought in Compulsory accreditation for teaching.

Many amateurs will dedicate their life to dancing. They will spend hours and hours per week dancing. They will go to competitions, and try to get as much coaching as possible to increase their chances of winning. Some have a huge budget for competitions and coaching, but more often, they do not.

Very true.

It is important to examine where the best amateurs are coming from and try to learn from their example, as they must be doing something right. Right now, Italy and Russia are producing most of the top amateur competitors both in terms of who is winning, and also how many they are producing. They have a system where dancers teach the people just below them, and in turn, receive lessons from those above them. They are able to earn money. By the time you reach the championship division, and are placing in the top ranks, you have clearly dedicated a large portion of your life to dancing, and it is understandable that you are doing everything possible to improve, including teaching or doing shows. Most likely, you still are not "gaining" financially, because the cost of coaching and competition is so high, but you are doing all you can to keep getting better, including studying and trying to duplicate what the other amateurs worldwide are doing.

This is basically what we do here.

The current thinking for many worldwide is that you become a pro by competing as a pro or declaring a status change. I support this view.

This is how things are seen here and how it works here.

[Chris Stratton]

USADance has done an excellent job with academics re YCN.

No. Not dancing by people in academia, but the academics of dancing - a very different topic with only limited overlap. Yes, because of the background and instincts of the people involved there may be a little bit of academic process applied, but only a limited amount unless the teachers share that approach. Dancing at a college is not the same thing as a college of dancing.

[elisedance]

Elise, are you serious or just mucking around? Even if I did say who they were, no-one in the US would know them. I guess they could look them up in Dancesportinfonet if they were interested.

Maybe you should watch the video first and then let me know whether DF would even want to 'adopt' them?


Sure I'm serious - we support DF members who compete wouldn't it be great to support their progeny too? You are very fortunate to have them - whish DS took to dancing (he did try it but...).

[Angel HI]

Dancing at a college is not the same thing as a college of dancing.
Agreed.

[ChenLing]

Sorry for the dissertation below. :)

Academics of Dancing -- sharing of knowledge:I think Chris is being misunderstood -- one thing we don't do enough of is talk amongst ourselves about the physical science of dancing. I only recently figured out how to lead a heel turn properly (in the minute steps necessary) and how to do a natural spin turn. I've been dancing standard for nearly 9 years now, and various teachers have explained it in different ways. Now when I explain to people what I figured out, they go "oh! that makes so much sense!".

Right now what we have is an apprenticeship system -- we learn from one or more masters of the trade (of varying quality), instead of building upon the *entire* knowledge of dancing. So we learn (at most) what a handful of people have figured out about dancing.

In a good ecosystem of dancing, the best ideas should win out, but only if all ideas can be easily accessible and considered. How many different ways of natural spin turns have you been shown? Were they different? If so, why, and which one is better? While everyone's dancing will eventually be different, there should be a basis of "best" knowledge that everyone can draw from....and at that point training dance teachers becomes feasible and worthwhile.

In summary: We should be taught the *best* ways [there can be more than one] to do things, not just what our teacher(s) happen to know at that time.
Amateur vs Professional:Our current system of levels is an artifact of a) the British system of pro and amateur, and b) the fact that we have a huge [monetarily even if not in numbers] Pro-Am market.

The taking money for teaching distinction is silly. The amount of time you spend (if dancing is full time vs part time) is hard to enforce or measure. One of the somewhat recent US 10-dance champions, for example, is a full time professor of mathematics. Is he not a pro because he has a full-time job that isn't dance related? Should someone who's parents own a studio and are amazing dancers be barred from being an amateur? Of course not!

At least for pro-pro and am-am, everyone should be treated and compete on the same playing field. The different proficiency and age levels are sufficient (in my opinion) so people compete in their own class. If people wanted, like chess they can use their official rating (such as the one generated by http://dancesportinfo.net) to determine their level, and you can further segregate by syllabus/non-syllabus/time limits if you wish.

Now for Pro-Am...the big elephant in the room. Let's suppose everyone is an amateur and there is no distinction. You can find a partner, but different life schedules, finances, personality, ability, motivation, etc....makes it frustrating and not worthwhile. So you find someone who is presumably better than you and willing to agree to the following: be my partner, be mature, professional, and pleasant while I'm around, accommodate my schedule as much as possible [dance as often as *I* want], teach me what you know, practice with me, compete at your best with me, don't complain or whine, and always be at least as motivated as I am,.....and I'll pay you for your time. Suppose you have a dancer who wants to devote their life and career to dancing, and to support that hires him or herself out for this purpose. Should that person compete in a different category than someone who say is a college student but is equally dedicated? My opinion is no -- they should be allowed to compete in the same category.

Having different levels of competition to make it easier for people to feel comfortable, for consistency, or help competition organizers plan events is helpful [and whether the levels should be things you place out of or place in to is an interesting question]. Having the distinction between "Professional" and "Amateur" is silly.
Teaching CertificationThe ISTD and IDTA certify instructors, and they do a pretty good job of it. Getting the ISTD certifications for example, require good oral/communications skills, dance skills, and yes, answers "from the book". The higher the level, the more strenuous the requirements that you can teach effectively. Unfortunately they don't test personality. People don't care about these though -- have you ever rejected a teacher because they didn't have certification (or something equally good like great competition results or great referrals). Until we do, the quality of teaching is going to be uneven. Of course, there are several groups (ISTD, ITDA, DVIDA, and then FADS & Arthur Murray) of varying quality. To contradict myself, most of these certifications improves only consistency and not quality of instruction (although I think ISTD and IDTA are better in this regard).

Part of the problem is that people who start out dancing don't know enough about it (vs when they go buy cars) to make good judgements....which suggests regulation [which has its own problems].

What we need perhaps is a well-publicized list of instructors and user ratings. This can be expanded to studios and vendors as well.

[meow]

Sure I'm serious - we support DF members who compete wouldn't it be great to support their progeny too? You are very fortunate to have them - whish DS took to dancing (he did try it but...).

I see your point but eeeekkk. After you watch the vid and the Aust C/ships are over, maybe then. There are too many Aussies on here at the moment and they 'would' know who they are and this is not a good time to reveal them.:)

[Angel HI]

Chen Ling, your post is most excellent. I agree. It is noteworthy to mention that withhin the apprenticeship system, many consider to be perpetuating, if not enforcing, some sort of standard. The missing link is not what should be the standard, but rather who will govern the standard. There certainly is a correct approach, and, in some cases, a definitive right/wrong way of executing the science. To some degree, I would imagine that there is also a better, or best, way to present the science to learners. Part of what makes the art beautiful are the diversities of execution. Yet, until we can overcome the need to own the right to say it, we will never acquire "...the best ways..."to teach it.

[elisedance]

Chen Ling, your post is most excellent. I agree. It is noteworthy to mention that withhin the apprenticeship system, many consider to be perpetuating, if not enforcing, some sort of standard. The missing link is not what should be the standard, but rather who will govern the standard. There certainly is a correct approach, and, in some cases, a definitive right/wrong way of executing the science. To some degree, I would imagine that there is also a better, or best, way to present the science to learners. Part of what makes the art beautiful are the diversities of execution. Yet, until we can overcome the need to own the right to say it, we will never acquire "...the best ways..."to teach it.

AngelHi: I am not sure what you mean by 'science' here - I can not see how it can fit for an activity that is in essence a mix of technique and art. Science is based on experimentation - that is the formulation of an hypothesis and the design of a controlled test of whether that hypothesis is correct. How do you apply that to dancing? Hypothesize that, for example, a heel turn will work better if you raise your left hand and then have 6 couples try it with and 6 without? The trouble then is what is 'better'? There is a mechanics answer - the arm raise may make the movement easier but by 'better' we also mean it looks better - and that is not a quantifiable value.

Its really the same issue as for dancesport as a sport - there are no milestones (longest distance, fastest times) to grade people.

[Angel HI]

My reference is to science simply as systematized knowledge in general, and/or knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. A skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency, if you will.

[elisedance]

I don't think that what you describes qualifies as a science. I much prefer your characterization as dance 'academics'- that is more general and I don't think will generate any dispute.

[Angel HI]

Your post is humbly noted. I would even agree. However, the definition of science that I eluded to is almost verbatim as written in a dictionary. Granted, there are several definitions and dictionaries.

[elisedance]

:)

[Chris Stratton]

Elise describes experimental science, but that's not the only sort. Astronomers don't build many experimental stars, but they do manage to figure out a lot about how they work - by observation, thought experiments, experimenting with numbers, and cribbing off the somewhat smaller experiments of their brothers in the physics department.

[Chris Stratton]

Chen Ling, your post is most excellent. I agree. It is noteworthy to mention that withhin the apprenticeship system, many consider to be perpetuating, if not enforcing, some sort of standard. The missing link is not what should be the standard, but rather who will govern the standard.

Part of the problem with perpetuating a standard through an apprenticeship system - and I mean specifically "dancing by the book for an exam" - is that it's justification can easily become "because that's what you have to do to pass" instead of "because this actually works better". Since there's no mechanism for reconciling real or apparent conflict between the standard and local competition practice of the moment, people quickly loose respect for the standard as a living thing - instead it becomes a relic used only for specific formal purposes.

Instead, a community-of-academics approach is more a viable system for mainting a standard - defending it, clarifying the misunderstandings, and when necessary, perhaps painfully, changing it. Stereotypically speaking, you'd have the old professors defending their theories, against the hotshot junior faculty and post-docs who want to revise it to fit their experiments and discoveries. The two camps would battle it out in symposia and journal papers - pointing out where the other side had misunderstood their arguments so as to eliminate misunderstands and concentrate on the actual differences. And every once in a while, someone who is good at summarizing would do a PBS show or popular press article on the new ideas now gaining acceptance...

[DanceMentor]

Amateur vs Professional:Our current system of levels is an artifact of a) the British system of pro and amateur, and b) the fact that we have a huge [monetarily even if not in numbers] Pro-Am market.

The taking money for teaching distinction is silly. The amount of time you spend (if dancing is full time vs part time) is hard to enforce or measure. One of the somewhat recent US 10-dance champions, for example, is a full time professor of mathematics. Is he not a pro because he has a full-time job that isn't dance related? Should someone who's parents own a studio and are amazing dancers be barred from being an amateur? Of course not!

At least for pro-pro and am-am, everyone should be treated and compete on the same playing field. The different proficiency and age levels are sufficient (in my opinion) so people compete in their own class. If people wanted, like chess they can use their official rating (such as the one generated by http://dancesportinfo.net) to determine their level, and you can further segregate by syllabus/non-syllabus/time limits if you wish.

Now for Pro-Am...the big elephant in the room. Let's suppose everyone is an amateur and there is no distinction. You can find a partner, but different life schedules, finances, personality, ability, motivation, etc....makes it frustrating and not worthwhile. So you find someone who is presumably better than you and willing to agree to the following: be my partner, be mature, professional, and pleasant while I'm around, accommodate my schedule as much as possible [dance as often as *I* want], teach me what you know, practice with me, compete at your best with me, don't complain or whine, and always be at least as motivated as I am,.....and I'll pay you for your time. Suppose you have a dancer who wants to devote their life and career to dancing, and to support that hires him or herself out for this purpose. Should that person compete in a different category than someone who say is a college student but is equally dedicated? My opinion is no -- they should be allowed to compete in the same category.

Having different levels of competition to make it easier for people to feel comfortable, for consistency, or help competition organizers plan events is helpful [and whether the levels should be things you place out of or place in to is an interesting question]. Having the distinction between "Professional" and "Amateur" is silly.

Wow, excellent post (I only quoted part of it). In many ways the top rated dancers (like chess) would tend to move toward the top competitive divisions.

[elisedance]

Elise describes experimental science, but that's not the only sort. Astronomers don't build many experimental stars, but they do manage to figure out a lot about how they work - by observation, thought experiments, experimenting with numbers, and cribbing off the somewhat smaller experiments of their brothers in the physics department.

Astronomy is still based on hypothesis and provable (repeatable, conseusual - lets not go into Heisenberg...) fact based on observation - not opinion or taste. Astronoymy does not advance by argument that constellation A is better looking or more favorably placed than constellation B - thats Astrolgy (which only the most extreme would classify as scinece).

There are, of course, 'soft' sciences - but its really a measure of to what extent they satisfy the above scientific ideal.

[ChenLing]

I think we are confusing the "art" of dancing with the basis of dancing. Take ballet for example: you teach different elements, explain why those elements work the way they do, and then you can use those elements to create art. To use another analogy it's teaching people how to draw with oil vs pencil vs watercolors.

I don't want to say that there is "One Correct Way" to do any step. However, there is a mapping between *what* you do and the *effect* of what happens. The "science" of dancing, then, is explaining the connection between what you can do and the effect. The dancer, then, can create an artistic expression with those elements, and create it *intentionally*!!!

Right now, we explain to people, for example, how to do a reverse turn in waltz. There are several ways to do it, with different outcomes. Some of that depends on the couple themselves. However, if I can explain to someone the various ways to do a reverse turn, how to intentionally initiate each version, and the expected outcome of each....the dancers then can *choose* what effect they want....which is the artistic expression part.

In Summary: The science of dancing is the connection between intent, action, and effect. The art of dancing is the ordering of those technical movements to create beauty. The science portion of dancing is something we can study systematically, and learn ways to explain them better and understand them better.

[elisedance]

ChenLing: Why call it 'science' when everyone else has called it 'technique'? I don't see any advantage - just confusion (and a danger of demagoguary). The nature of science is that it attempts to catalogue and explain the universe. To say 'science' to an art form - even to the mechanics of an art form - is to imply that you have 'solved' that aspect. I don't think that even the most self confident pro would claim to have solved ballroom dancing. Ballroom dance technique has and continues to be analzyed and improved on - and personally, I have no problem with someone trying to make this a formal process. Just please don't call it a science.

[DanceMentor]

I generally think of dancing as more of an art, but when it comes to body mechanics, there is very much a science to aspects of the art. You wouldn't call baseball a science or an art, but there is certainly a science behind pitching and hitting. But the end result of what is creating after combining technique, choreography and expression is very much a work of art, at least that would be what is generally accepted.

[Chris Stratton]

ChenLing: Why call it 'science' when everyone else has called it 'technique'?

As an engineer, let me point out that science is the methodicial study of what happens, while technique is the methodical application of scientific understanding to get what you want.

I don't see any advantage - just confusion (and a danger of demagoguary). The nature of science is that it attempts to catalogue and explain the universe. To say 'science' to an art form - even to the mechanics of an art form - is to imply that you have 'solved' that aspect.

Not solved, but made progress on the problems of... and people really have done that. That's basically where dance teachers' theoretical knowledge comes from - a slowly and often haphazardly collected body of knowledge about cause and effect in moving two bodies together.

When we talk about applying science to the problems, we're talking about systemized methods of study, and especially collaboration, aimed at improving the overall state of ballroom knowledge.

Ballroom dance technique has and continues to be analzyed and improved on - and personally, I have no problem with someone trying to make this a formal process. Just please don't call it a science.

You have no problem with the process, but you're still tripping over the terminology ;-)

[meow]

I am not a mathematician, scientist, doctor, engineer or any other such - but if I was told that I had to learn 'science' to improve my dancing then I would think of that as a problem.
It probably is just a question of which word one prefers but I have only and always referred to 'technique' - that is what every coach I have come across calls it.
When I think of science, I think of experiments, research, finding answers to the so far unsolvable. I do not think of dance or art.
So, IMHO, I prefer the word technique for dance. The word 'science' doesn't seem appropriate.

[elisedance]

You have no problem with the process, but you're still tripping over the terminology ;-)

Yup. Science of colour and composition of paints sure, but science of (visual) art? Science of vocal chords and noise generation, sure, but scinece of opera singing? Science of movement, joint apposition, muscle contraction, motor coordination, sure, but science of dance? Doesn't work for me. Science is the study of how things work if you like, technique is method of making them work while dance is an art - using the technique for expression in movement.

[Chris Stratton]

The overwhelming majority of the things actual dancers put their time and effort into have scientific knowledge or technique that is available to associate with them - and has usually been demonstrated as beneficial and widely adopted to address a similar problem in a different field.

And even the part that's left over - even after you've exhausted the possibilities of studying the art of those who came before you, there's still the possibility of studying the audience perceptions that you are performing for.

It's not a question of if there are tools you can use for these problems - it's a question of if you want to use them, and if there's a community of other people trying to use them in that way who can support you.

[elisedance]

I think we will have to differ - perhaps its an artists perception of science and a scientists perception of art that is the real issue?

[Angel HI]

Chen Ling, again, I find your post
http://www.dance-forums.com/showpost.php?p=494310&postcount=70 most excellent. Thanks. Good to have you on the DF.

Further, and this one is scary, :) I also find Chris' posts http://www.dance-forums.com/showpost.php?p=494242&postcount=67 and the post that began As an engineer, ..... also most excellent.

[Angel HI]

IMHO, I prefer the word technique for dance. The word 'science' doesn't seem appropriate.

The world of dance is too full of other more important things to discover, learn, and love than to worry about this. But, these 2 points are most excellent....

From Chris, "...science is the methodicial study of what happens, while technique is the methodical application of scientific understanding to get what you want." and,

From ChenLing, "The science of dancing is the connection between intent, action, and effect. The art of dancing is the ordering of those technical movements to create beauty. The science portion of dancing is something we can study systematically, and learn ways to explain [art and technique] better."

[elisedance]

Works for you Angel Hi. Great!

[elisedance]

Websters:

1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>
5capitalized : christian science

I think there is enough there to accomodate both (many) points of view... but personally, I particularly like the last one!

[Angel HI]

And, I believe I was more referring to #2. As I posted, "The world of dance is too full of other more important things to discover, learn, and love than to worry about this." We will respect each others' preferences, embrace, and continue dancing.

[ChenLing]

I specifically avoided the term "technique", because it has too many connotations in ballroom (we use the term a lot to cover way too many concepts).

Perhaps a better word is "mechanics". Developing the understanding of the mechanics of ballroom dancing (and dancing in general) does not at all detract from the artistic expression, beauty, or joy of dancing itself.

Reiterating what Chris said, having a forum (whether it's informal like a discussion forum such as this one or a wiki, to something formal like a journal with peer-reviewed papers) would increase the cross pollination of ideas and improve the level of understanding for *everyone*. Such a thing would improve at least two specific aspects that I can see: consistency of terminology and increasing the basic level of dancing and dance teaching. What it won't do is increase the highest levels of dancing, but will help (I think) to remove some issues such as the teacher that's two weeks ahead of their student.

For example: there is currently a thread about CBM (aka Contra Body Movement, aka Contrary Body Movement, aka Contra Body Motion). That thread has shown that a) if you ask 6 people to define it, you get 6 completely different answers, b) we use the term to cover several somewhat independent concepts, and c) discussion clears up a lot of the differences, and we all learn from it. It also shows how we look at the term differently, from something that initiates what follows (a turn) to something that is an internal body position, to something that initiates several steps, to something you do to lead your partner. The point is, right now we get an imperfect definition of CBM, and then it's used throughout our lessons, practice, and discussions. We all *assume we know* what another person means by it, but in fact it's such an imprecise (or perhaps just poorly defined or poorly communicated) term that it causes more confusion than clarity. This goes back to why I avoided using the term "technique". :)

*sigh*...why do all of my posts become long rants? :)
(Good) art is something that happens by hard study and focused intent. It can happen by accident as well, but any master of the art (in dancing or otherwise) has studied what effects their (for example) different mediums, colors, brush strokes, etc has. In turn they use these to create a specific effect, hoping to create a specific emotional response in the viewer of said art. Think about it--before widespread art colleges, where knowledge of the mechanics is systematically studied, cataloged, argued, and taught, finding a good painter was a rare thing. Now any art school graduate can paint a perfect portrait using any style you wish (even if they prefer to do other things). So having the systematic sharing of knowledge doesn't necessarily produce more masters, but it does make it easier and better for the rest of us.

That being said, anyone want to start a ballroom "mechanics" wiki? As a repository of ballroom knowledge? :) Although this isn't a bad start: http://www.ballroomdancers.com/Learning_Center/

[meow]

We will respect each others' preferences, embrace, and continue dancing.

Fine by me.:D

[Terpsichorean Clod]

Websters:

1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>
5capitalized : christian science

I think there is enough there to accomodate both (many) points of view... but personally, I particularly like the last one!
You think ballroom is Christian Science? :shock: Um...whatever works for you.

[elisedance]

OOOPPSSS thanks for picking up on that - I missed it with the collapsed 5c...

I think thats a no - #4 works for our discussion!

[elisedance]

Think about it--before widespread art colleges, where knowledge of the mechanics is systematically studied, cataloged, argued, and taught, finding a good painter was a rare thing. Now any art school graduate can paint a perfect portrait using any style you wish (even if they prefer to do other things). So having the systematic sharing of knowledge doesn't necessarily produce more masters, but it does make it easier and better for the rest of us. (my bold)

I take your point - and mechanics works fine although it does mean something a bit different from technique. With respect to dance, mechanics to me more restrictive than technique - it is literally how the structures of the body moves to generate a step but I see it as a robotic, if you like, element. Technique (again to me) includes mechanics but has more than mechanics since it includes intent and, to some extent, expression (much of expression is learned).

Maybe you overspoke a bit on the painting example? You give the impression that art school can generate an infiite number of Leonardos...

[ChenLing]

I take your point - and mechanics works fine although it does mean something a bit different from technique. With respect to dance, mechanics to me more restrictive than technique - it is literally how the structures of the body moves to generate a step but I see it as a robotic, if you like, element. Technique (again to me) includes mechanics but has more than mechanics since it includes intent and, to some extent, expression (much of expression is learned).


I was just trying to avoid the overused term "technique". For me it's the connection between intent, the actions necessary to achieve that intent, and the actual effects of the actions taken.


Maybe you overspoke a bit on the painting example? You give the impression that art school can generate an infiite number of Leonardos...

You won't get masters, but you do create a lot more capable individuals, and the state of the art is advanced more quickly IMO.

[elisedance]

I'm sure you are right.

[meow]

I was just trying to avoid the overused term "technique". For me it's the connection between intent, the actions necessary to achieve that intent, and the actual effects of the actions taken.

I agree with the description but I don't see why the term 'technique', overused or not, should be a problem. That is what it is - technique. And coaches often have the same core technique with their own style variations. I think that the term 'technique' is what 99% of the dance world uses - to use a different term just for the sake of it can confuse many, expecially if they are new to dance.