Syllabus vs Open

[Ravenmoon]

I'm just wondering how long most people are staying in syllabus level before moving onto open--novice that is. Or if people continue to dance syllabus while also dancing novice. I'm a college dancer and have been dancing for a year and half and have a good grasp of many syllabus steps. I am thinking of moving up to novice to add variety to my dancing, well as challenging myself. I've heard from some people that novice can be easier because it is a memorized routine rather than the guy having to come up with steps on the spot and because you only dance three dances versus four. What are your experiences with this topic?

[Lorelei]

When you start competing open and get open routines, it's a challenge to compete Gold at the same time. So easy to slip and do an open figure... Especially quickstep, once you start doing the syncopated timings.

On the other hand, you can always do Novice with Gold routines, I know several people who had good results in Novice with only syllabus steps.

[silverdancer]

In my college experience, I would not move to novice until you have a solid understanding of your fundamentals and partnering skills. While novice may seem cool to add open steps and side by side work, more than just an understanding of syllabus steps is needed or you will not be able to execute open moves with fluidity and technical profeciency. For my own self, moving through the syllabus ranks slowly while working on fundamentals is the way to go. My partner and I just won silver level smooth at nationals after dancing 2 years at silver and 1 in bronze, and just now decided to push ourselves into gold. We will probably stay there for 1-2 years to make sure we are strong before moving to an open level. That is not to say that we wont compete our gold routine in novice, but right now we need much more work in order to confidently dance an open routine. Your team coach, if you have one, would be able to help you decide what level is best for you. We unfortunatly do not have one, so if you do, use their advice and help to the fullest! Also, if you ask any of your private lesson instructors they should be able to give you an idea of where you should be at. If you are determined to start doing more open work, try doing a showdance/showcase rather than competing an open routine. You can work on your fundamentals as well as have a fun time learning open steps.

[Ravenmoon]

You made some very good points, silverdancer. I suppose that might be another idea too--that is, to work on a showdance while also working on syllabus. Some of our other team members are doing that, which enables them to get the best of both worlds. There are several other previous posts I read that said something similar.

[BM]

I have been dancing collegiate Syllabus for almost three years, and I'm still dreading open Latin. The few shows I've done that have incorporated open choreography have confirmed that my fundamentals are still not solid. Regardless, it looks like my partner and I will place out of Syllabus within the next few collegiate comps. Although I don't think that we're going to jump into Novice/Pre-Champ right away, we will hopefully get started on some open routines this summer, just to acclimate ourselves. Until we feel comfortable enough to hit the open collegiate circuit, we'll hopefully keep doing Syllabus at amateur comps so we can still get competitive floor exposure.

[BasicsFirst]

I'm happy to see the experiences of others being posted that may help to sway you from not rushing ahead too quickly. Here's ours:

My DP and I danced syllabus Latin for FIVE seasons (just finishing up six for Standard with more to come). At the close of our 5th season last May, we started working on Open Latin material. We debuted with our Pre-Champ Latin 9 months later and immediately finished in 2nd place. A month after that, at a Regional Final we finished in FIRST place. Our coach's wife said later and I qoute, "I'm so happy you took care of your footwork coming up through Silver and Gold" and then alluded to another couple (of theirs) who dance VERY WELL, but would benefit from better footwork.

Now clean footwork alone will NOT win you competitions, but having it down solid just makes EVERYTHING else that much easier. That's our experience!

[BM]

Now clean footwork alone will NOT win you competitions, but having it down solid just makes EVERYTHING else that much easier. That's our experience!

YES. Solid footwork is one of my focuses right now. When I finally start working seriously on competitive choreography, I don't want to have to worry about the clarity of my footwork. Other things that I would prefer to be more of a second nature before I start open:

- balance
- acceptable knowledge of syllabus figures
- interacting with audience and partner (not the floor)
- basic spins
- maintaining connections with partner
- appropriate hip action in cha cha, rumba, and samba
- maintaining appropriate posture in paso doble
- active arms
- creating nice lines

I'm sure that there is more, but that's what I could think of right away. Needless to say, I still have a ways to go. ::grins::

[Ravenmoon]

Yes, I totally agree that footwork is really, really important. As I was told once: First posture, then footwork, and then dynamic. But as BasicsFirst said, footwork alone will not win you a competition. Our team has a couple who has cleanest footwork I've seen in a while but not much dynamic, and don't get me wrong they place well but not as well as they could. I also really like the list of goals BM posted. Very nice. I'm actually going to take some ballet classes to help with balance, dance line, nice arms, and spinning.

[emkey]

I've heard from some people that novice can be easier because it is a memorized routine rather than the guy having to come up with steps on the spot and because you only dance three dances versus four. What are your experiences with this topic?

can i ask is this for american or international, Ive danced syllabus for the past year and we've always had a routine

[BasicsFirst]

We had/have routines in syllabus dancing International as well.

I'm all for optimism (even wish my DP had an ounce of it at this moment) but no matter how you slice it - - - IMO - - - it's NOT easier.

[TAK]

My partner and I flew through syllabus Latin (I was a beginner, but he had a lot more experience, so we progressed quickly). I couldn't wait to get to open but now I totally miss syllabus. Open choreography is not easy and it can be very frustrating. On the other hand, of course, I did need to get to open in order to realize the value of syllabus; I don't know whether I would have gotten much more out of staying there. But then again, we were basically placing out so we didn't have too much of a choice.

[emkey]

We had/have routines in syllabus dancing International as well.

I'm all for optimism (even wish my DP had an ounce of it at this moment) but no matter how you slice it - - - IMO - - - it's NOT easier.

yep I was talking about international as well

[Chris Stratton]

Maybe it's different in the apart position of the styles that features those, but in standard open material actually is, in a way easier.

Easier in that the challenges are fairly immediate but transitory - basically, something may be hard just to get through, but that's most of the near term concern, especially if the complexity serves to distract from quality of execution.

A lot of the syllabus material is in contrast transparently difficult - the more you learn about dancing, almost the harder it gets, because the more you know about what qualities you should be trying to bring out in it. And most of the truly challenging actions are found on the syllabus, no small number of them at the top of the bronze syllabus. In fact, some of those things are so challenging to make look right that they are quickly abandoned - when was the last time you saw the back half of a natural, or a closed change?

[tangotime]

when was the last time you saw the back half of a natural, or a closed change?




Every week in my classes ! ( or more precisely, an attempt )

[White Chacha]

I recently watched an open professional standard event. At the end of the quickstep round, I turned to a friend and asked, "doesn't anyone dance any slows anymore?". He said, "only if they're really good!"

[Joe]

Maybe it's different in the apart position of the styles that features those, but in standard open material actually is, in a way easier.
With all the syncopation in open, you pass through the "bad" parts more quickly. :D

Plus, in open you don't need to constantly thinking whether the maneuver you're planning is syllabus-legal.

[tangotime]

I recently watched an open professional standard event. At the end of the quickstep round, I turned to a friend and asked, "doesn't anyone dance any slows anymore?". He said, "only if they're really good!"


What a great answer !!!

[Josh]

in standard open material actually is, in a way easier.
...
A lot of the syllabus material is in contrast transparently difficult - the more you learn about dancing, almost the harder it gets, because the more you know about what qualities you should be trying to bring out in it.

Tell me about it--couldn't agree more. When starting a piece of open foxtrot choreography recently, my coach said, "well, we are going to start with ... to a fallaway reverse to a [open choreo] into the corner--we COULD just start with a feather, but it's way harder."

As for never seeing closed changes or 4-6 naturals, I do agree that they are very hard to execute cleanly, which is one reason they're not seen, but I think another big part of that is that those two in particular are just not very interesting to watch either, so I'm not sure why someone would do either when other similarly fundamental/basic options exist which are a bit more interesting (whisk? spin turn?). They necessarily limit the swing that can be danced preceding or following them, and that's not a sacrifice most are willing to make for such a small payoff.

[TAK]

Maybe it's different in the apart position of the styles that features those, but in standard open material actually is, in a way easier.

I agree with this. I wasn't sure whether my experience was typical -- since our transition to open coincided with a change in coaches -- but I have definitely found open Standard to be way more accessible, if not always easier to execute.

[tangotime]

As for never seeing closed changes or 4-6 naturals, I do agree that they are very hard to execute cleanly, which is one reason they're not seen, but I think another big part of that is that those two in particular are just not very interesting to watch either, so I'm not sure why someone would do either



The reasons why they should be attempted, is because they are part of any basic Exam syllabus, and the value in them ,is developing control of foot closure and rise and fall.
The down side of ignoring this ( and this may be seen in many amat. dancers )IS the lack of control and sustained rise , as and when needed.

Dancers are notorious for wanting to get to the "good stuff" .

[Chris Stratton]

The reasons why they should be attempted, is because they are part of any basic Exam syllabus, and the value in them ,is developing control of foot closure and rise and fall. The down side of ignoring this ( and this may be seen in many amat. dancers )IS the lack of control and sustained rise , as and when needed.

The real long-term problem is not controlling the rise or closing the feet, it's the challenge of creating a downswing from a position where the feet are closed. In an exam or syllabus teaching context, this would not be expected anyway - instead you would be expected to lower in place and then move. That's fine for simplifying things, but it takes the flow out of dancing, which is precisely why dancers who have come to expect flow avoid this situation whenever they can.

It it possible to do - and it is done in the one place where it remains, which is the lady moving forwards after 1-3 of a natural into some version of a spin turn. But most of the other possibilities are avoided, especially where the man would be moving forwards with his right foot.

[Josh]

The reasons why they should be attempted, is because they are part of any basic Exam syllabus, and the value in them ,is developing control of foot closure and rise and fall.
The down side of ignoring this ( and this may be seen in many amat. dancers )IS the lack of control and sustained rise , as and when needed.

Dancers are notorious for wanting to get to the "good stuff" .

tt, I was talking about using these once swing has developed to an extent that dancing them becomes all but impossible. You are right that there is much value in developing balance, foot closure, and rise and fall, but I don't like doing it on 4-6 of a natural, as it impedes the swing and does more harm than good in the long run. There are many more places to develop that.

Reverse, closed change, natural, closed change is the basic amalgamation I use in waltz, and as the student begins to develop more swing, 4-6 of a natural and closed change gets replaced with the spin turn and 4-6 reverse, which is far more useful in the big picture. 4-6 of a natural is more useful, IMO, as a teaching tool to get students moving around the floor.

[Chris Stratton]

I wouldn't call it impossible, just difficult. After all we make the lady do it... though in most couples she does get a little more legroom than the man would have.

[Josh]

I wouldn't call it impossible, just difficult. After all we make the lady do it... though in most couples she does get a little more legroom than the man would have.

This is true, but it's far easier for her with her poise. To counter the downswing on a 4-6 natural the man would have to do a level of shaping and counterbalance that is out of his character, and it wouldn't really retain the picture desired. Essentially, he would have to take on a poise much similar to hers. It could be done without this, but I think it would require a lot more muscular effort and discomfort than would be desired in a swinging dance.

[tangotime]

The real long-term problem is not controlling the rise or closing the feet,


In an exam or syllabus teaching context, this would not be expected anyway - instead you would be expected to lower in place and then move.


That's fine for simplifying things, but it takes the flow out of dancing, which is precisely why dancers who have come to expect flow avoid this situation whenever they can.




para 1.. Would disagree.. I still see it in Amat. comps where Nat. are being danced..( and they are ) and there are many Amat. dancers who still do not dance correct " rise " from a technical aspect .I know, Ive judged enough of them .

Para 2.. That depends upon the type of teaching one has received.. and the examined level .

para 3.. I,m not saying avoid or dont.. the point is ,its still fundamental to the basic concepts.

[Chris Stratton]

This is true, but it's far easier for her with her poise. To counter the downswing on a 4-6 natural the man would have to do a level of shaping and counterbalance that is out of his character, and it wouldn't really retain the picture desired. Essentially, he would have to take on a poise much similar to hers. It could be done without this, but I think it would require a lot more muscular effort and discomfort than would be desired in a swinging dance.

The problem is not really one of poise, and it's confined to the transition between the closing step and what comes next.

The issue is that you need to lower in a way that gets the standing heel on the floor, while also beginning to travel again, and generate enough body movement to permit real travel on the 4th step, but without taking the movement in the leg alone while leaving the body behind. This turns out to be really hard to do, especially if you are the taller partner and more constrained in the degree to which your leg can precede your body. It can be done, without sacrificing your masculine role in the slightest, but it's very challenging both in terms of specific strength and in terms of precise sequencing of body actions.

[tangotime]

but I don't like doing it on 4-6 of a natural, as it impedes the swing and does more harm than good in the long run.


.

There is no dis agreement there, but , I dont concede that it is more harm than good ... developing control is paramount in everything we dance.. where and how we develop it is a moot point. And, I dont think beginning students can conceptualise " swing " without the preceeding "exercises" given due diligence . ( I was made to do that, like it or not )

And of course, I develop the Spin as soon as is appropriate .

[Chris Stratton]

And, I dont think beginning students can conceptualise " swing " without the preceeding "exercises"

Swing is going to be a lot easier to conceptualize in the case of foot apart lowering. Quickstep is probably the best example - the upswings and downswings are both easy to find, the opportunity is frequent, and the tempo means that it's safe to let your weight progress without needing to control it so precisely.

I really don't think anyone is going to manage a true downswing from a close-on-3 situation until long after it's become a habit in the divide and lower case. Most aren't even aware of the possibility.

Digilent syllabus practice of the foot closure case almost always ends up being practice of lower, then move - which is not swing movement at all.

[Jananananana]

I say, go for it. If you want to dance open, just do it. It's different from syllabus especially in Latin. Standard, like it was said, you can get away with doing gold routines in novice.

In Latin, open routines are a whole different ball game since you're dancing on your own a lot more. If you want to do it, go ahead and don't let anything hold you back. Just don't let it get to your head and then stop progressing.

[MYLNYU]

I've seen a lot of bad open dancers, who look like they have skipped a few steps in syllabus. I don't think dancing in syllabus is a bad thing; it really builds clear technique, which sets you apart in open. There just seems to be a rush these days to place out/dance open.

[Chris Stratton]

I've seen a lot of bad open dancers, who look like they have skipped a few steps in syllabus.

Taking you perhaps more literally than you meant suggests something interesting - that much of the open choreography in use may inherit from a fraction of the steps on the syllabus list, while much of the rest of the list effectively dies out.

But speaking more generally, it's not uncommon for people to get out of syllabus without learning some of the extremely important and useful general concepts/lessons that could have been learned there.

[tangotime]

I've seen a lot of bad open dancers, who look like they have skipped a few steps in syllabus. I don't think dancing in syllabus is a bad thing; it really builds clear technique, which sets you apart in open.


Thats precisely why the medal test "work " that english dance schools were noted for, produced the excellence in techn.they once had .

Most everything in Comp. work is now rush ,rush, rush. The lack of closure ( feet in ) wherever an open finish in QS can be slotted in, is a prime e.g. Its started to look like Amer. silver FT at fast speed , or Peabody !.

All want to emulate the "top " Pros, before they are able to execute the most fundamental core issues assoc. with dance . Oh.. I forgot.. its called Progress.....
And, its NOT unique to the B/Room genre .

[Jananananana]

But speaking more generally, it's not uncommon for people to get out of syllabus without learning some of the extremely important and useful general concepts/lessons that could have been learned there.

While that is true, if someone is already a gifted dancer who has danced in other styles or is just a naturally good mover it's normal for them to go a lot faster than another person. It's also ok for them to go a lot faster. I can think of many people who jumped pretty much into open (after little experience in syllabus.)


:-D

[Larinda McRaven]

Learning is not linear (to quote Laura) and I think it is quite natural to move into patterns and concepts that are easy to one personaly, and backfill later when a certain amount of processing and comfort has already happened.

When a student of mine gets stuck and I realize we are just beating a dead horse I just move on and forward. They are surprised later on when they attempt that pattern or concept and it just naturally materializes. Learning is sometimes sympathetic.

[Chris Stratton]

While that is true, if someone is already a gifted dancer who has danced in other styles or is just a naturally good mover it's normal for them to go a lot faster than another person. It's also ok for them to go a lot faster. I can think of many people who jumped pretty much into open (after little experience in syllabus.)

It's also not uncommon for them to end up missing some key basic skills.

In the real world, it happens that people's comp placements sometimes outpace their fundamental mastery.

They tend to rise to the point where they run up against those who are not only as impressive, but actually dance better. Then they either hang around frustrated and not knowing why, quit, or start backfilling the missing fundamentals.

[Jananananana]

Then they either hang around frustrated and not knowing why, quit, or start backfilling the missing fundamentals.


In a way that is true. It is in no doubt important to learn and focus on your basics.

However, sticking around bronze just because, is counterproductive. I think moving into open and trying new figures especially in Latin is important. At the same time, going back to your basics and taking open figures and relating them to basics is just as important.

V and I try to do syllabus during practice at least once a week. We go through our entire syllabus in Latin just for fun and a refre$her. I've also began concentrating on learning on how to lead so that has been a great way for both of us to refre$h and work on our syllabus and basic technique.

At the same time, we're very happy with dancing pre-champ and are excited to take our dancing to the next level when we're ready. We both moved into open very quickly and it was a HUGE learning experience for us in terms of re-learning our syllabus etc.

I'm a big fan of individualized learning - if you are able to skip around and learn, go for it. If you need to take it one step at a time, that's cool too. :-D

[liz]

It's also not uncommon for them to end up missing some key basic skills.

In the real world, it happens that people's comp placements sometimes outpace their fundamental mastery.

They tend to rise to the point where they run up against those who are not only as impressive, but actually dance better. Then they either hang around frustrated and not knowing why, quit, or start backfilling the missing fundamentals.
I totally agree... I am a good example of what you are speaking of. I went pretty much head first into open after about a year in ballroom. I learned as I went along. There is really only so far you can go before it catches up to you. I realized the only way for my dancing to advance was to stop trying to move forward and go back and learn all that I had missed. So for the last 6-8 months that is what I have been doing. I have been getting some really great coaching,too. I actually went to one of my coaching sessions and told her" I have bull s$#@ my way to get to the level that I am. Now I know that I need to go back and learn to dance!"
It is not about winning to me anymore. What does it really mean anyway, when all is said and done and you don't really know anything.

[BasicsFirst]

Yep, us too! We placed out of Silver Standard over 3 years ago and have been dancing Gold ever since and not a "single" win yet, (got a nice 2nd place finish recently). We learned our Gold routines first and have been "back-filling" our fundamentals ever since.