Whither American Smooth?

[Warren J. Dew]

This is a continuation of a discussion of American smooth that started in the last few pages of http://www.dance-forums.com/showthread.php?t=26116. Looking at the open smooth videos from USDC reminded me of it. I figured the topic deserved its own thread.

But what would clean basic smooth look like? If you took the elementary continuity figures, I think you'd be accused of simply having re-invented standard with a different syllabus.

We might be accused of that, but so what? We'd know the accusation untrue, since American style predates International, so we coud just ignore it.

Even if you add some alternate holds and lines, that criticism might well still be there, as in the end all you've done is standard in alternate holds.

That might be true if it were just "alternate" holds. However, I think it's more than that; where the holds are different, they are not just different - they are better.

For example, for rotating actions like pivots and the standing spin, I contend that the fully right side to right side, left arms extended position actually results in superior dynamics relative to using a closed dance hold. The more symmetrical hold facilitates the rotation, and the greater moment of inertia from the extended arms stabilizes the movement. (For a visual, compare the pivots in "final a (9)" with those in "final a (10)" from http://www.dancesizzle.com/CompetitionVideo/tabid/53/Default.aspx?path=USDSC%202008!Pro!US%20National%2 0Pro%20Smooth).

In my opinion, the variations in the syllabus could also result in improvements. For example, the feather finish seems to be preferred to the front half of the foxtrot reverse turn; the feather finish is used much more frequently, and it's the feather finish that's "characteristic" of the dance. Why not replace the front half of the turn with a roles reversed feather finish? We already have; that's what an American style open left turn is. Danced correctly, it would be smoother, more flowing and more characteristic of the slow foxtrot than the International style figure. That's the kind of thing I think American style should be aiming for.

[jwlinson]

We'd know the accusation untrue, since American style predates International.



Um....no.

[tangotime]

We might be accused of that, but so what? We'd know the accusation untrue, since American style predates International, so we coud just ignore it.





I think it might be more accurate to say that Amer. F/Trot, was the forerunner of things to come .

I do believe however , they have both influenced each other to a smaller or larger degree in some respects .

If one was making reference to the Comp. style only, then I would be more inclined to agree.. but.. dance isnt all about comp, as we both know.

So, I would posit this to you..the american social at bronze and silver levels have many things in common ( even gold syl. ). The departure from closed hold does facilitate specific figures, and that is not even in question.
Hybrids in many areas of life sometimes improve and or enhance their origins, so it really becomes a moot point.

Both styles give variety of choice, and that to me is the more important aspect of the " division " .

[jwlinson]

I think it might be more accurate to say that Amer. F/Trot, was the forerunner of things to come .

I do believe however , they have both influenced each other to a smaller or larger degree in some respects .

If one was making reference to the Comp. style only, then I would be more inclined to agree.. but.. dance isnt all about comp, as we both know.

So, I would posit this to you..the american social at bronze and silver levels have many things in common ( even gold syl. ). The departure from closed hold does facilitate specific figures, and that is not even in question.
Hybrids in many areas of life sometimes improve and or enhance their origins, so it really becomes a moot point.

Both styles give variety of choice, and that to me is the more important aspect of the " division " .

The origins of each dance are different, and ultimately each style took bits and pieces from the other. You can't easily say one particular "style" predates the other.

[tangotime]

The origins of each dance are different, and ultimately each style took bits and pieces from the other. You can't easily say one particular "style" predates the other.


The references are always intended to reflect dance from a socially accepted norm.

I do not believe that anyone would deny its name of origin, ( Fox ) and its inclusion into the social scene from a stage performance is very well documented.

The " smooth " side of social is new age in comparison to the latin roots of dance .

Tango, Quickstep, even Cha and Mambo as social dances from a partnership standpoint , have been more than clearly defined as to their emergence in constrction and annotated dance forms.


I believe all would accept that they may all have derived their origins in large part from another source... but.. as we know them today, they have very distinct beginnings .

As to the origins of dance being different.. not entirely true.. Modern versions of Mambo, Triple Mambo ,Salsa, Gaujira, Guaracha, Cha, Bolero and Sq. Rumba et.al. , emanate from Cuban " Son " and Danzon. Their much older origins are African at its basest form ( the drum ).

[Warren J. Dew]

I think it might be more accurate to say that Amer. F/Trot, was the forerunner of things to come .

I do believe however , they have both influenced each other to a smaller or larger degree in some respects.

I would agree with that. As you note, the foxtrot started on the American side of the Atlantic; a slow waltz was also first seen here, though it's not clear the boston was a direct predecessor of today's slow waltz. Tango is said to have come via France, and the viennese waltz has a rather longer heritage on the European continent, though it still hasn't been fully accepted in England. I'd agree there have been borrowings in both directions.

That's all the more reason, though, to ignore any accusations of 'reinventing standard'. It may not be strictly correct to say American style came first, but it would be even more incorrect to say that International style came first.

My own point is that there's no reason why overlap should be avoided. Sure, if someone tries to pass off some ugly mishmash of standard and latin as "smooth", it should be rejected - but it should be rejected because it's ugly, not because it's "International style". Contrarily, if the standard folks are doing something right - one example might be allowing the lady to put her heel down in the continuity finish - smooth dancers shouldn't be afraid to do the same thing. Body geometry and action pretty much determine correct technique; one can't afford to handicap one's dancing just to avoid a particular look, if that look is a good one.

[Angel HI]

My own point is that there's no reason why overlap should be avoided. Sure, if someone tries to pass off some ugly mishmash of standard and latin as "smooth", it should be rejected - but it should be rejected because it's ugly, not because it's "International style". Contrarily, if the standard folks are doing something right - one example might be allowing the lady to put her heel down in the continuity finish - smooth dancers shouldn't be afraid to do the same thing. Body geometry and action pretty much determine correct technique; one can't afford to handicap one's dancing just to avoid a particular look, if that look is a good one.

I really have no interest, other than its historical significance, in which came first; the chicken or the egg, and whether the amer is the chicken and teh the It'l is the egg. But, I agree 1,000% with everything else in this statement. Good and proper dancing, and correct technique (defined by that which is necessary to best execute a movement), is good and proper dancing, and correct technique regardless of what label one places on it.

[Larinda McRaven]

one example might be allowing the lady to put her heel down in the continuity finish - smooth dancers shouldn't be afraid to do the same thing.

umm, we don't put our heel down?????

[Warren J. Dew]

umm, we don't put our heel down?????

Some instructors argue against putting the heel down as being a borrowing from International style, or at least they did 10 years ago. I have no idea whether it actually was, or whether it's a syllabus, studio, or individual instructor difference.

[Chris Stratton]

That's all the more reason, though, to ignore any accusations of 'reinventing standard'.

I was not actually speaking of re-inventing the material, but instead of re-inventing the competitive focus on extremely clean execution of a small core of material, instead of more flashy variety.

Take closed hold silver syllabus smooth and dance it at world class quality, and what you have is not very different from open international standard at all.

But dance that same silver smooth material in a pro or open amateur smooth competition, and people are going to look at you as a carpetbagging standard dancer.

[Chris Stratton]

Some instructors argue against putting the heel down as being a borrowing from International style, or at least they did 10 years ago. I have no idea whether it actually was, or whether it's a syllabus, studio, or individual instructor difference.

Yes, ran into the same thing, probably with the same instructor, and specifically verified that this was an intentional difference for smooth, not a misunderstanding of the standard technique.

[delamusica]

But dance that same silver smooth material in a pro or open amateur smooth competition, and people are going to look at you as a carpetbagging standard dancer.

Unfortunate but true, IMO.

[Angel HI]

Why unfortunate. i agree w/ Chris...on this one :) , 100%. There shouldn't be the difference. Good dance is good dance regardless of label.

[delamusica]

It is unfortunate that people are so used to looking at flash that when they see good clean smooth dancing without open holds they complain that the dancers are "cheating" by doing standard.

I'm agreeing with you.

[Larinda McRaven]

Some instructors argue against putting the heel down as being a borrowing from International style, or at least they did 10 years ago. I have no idea whether it actually was, or whether it's a syllabus, studio, or individual instructor difference.

I have Never Ever seen an American syllabus that said T instead of TH on a continuity ending. (USISTD, NADTA, DVIDA, AMI, FADS) And not one of my peers would ever teach it that way. I remember Very Clearly being taught that foot action as a newbie teacher, by an American who was raised in FADS.

I would say that was a personal thing a particular teacher in your past favored.

[Warren J. Dew]

Why unfortunate.

It would be unfortunate if high quality dancing were dismissed as "carpetbagging" merely because of perceived choreographic similarity of continuity style to International style.

I say "would be", though, because I don't think it generally is.

Now, one may hear, even fairly frequently, "I don't like that because it looks like International style". However, different people mean different things by phrases like that, and while some people may actually mean "I'd rather see flash than quality in American style", I don't think that's the most common case.

Rather, there are certain technical errors that are much more common among International style dancers than among American style dancers due to differences in emphasis between the styles. Sometimes these errors become accepted even among International style coaches and judges. They may, however, appear far more glaring to those with an American style background. To this latter group, "I don't like that because it looks like International style" may mean, "I don't like that because it has serious errors that American style dancers simply don't make."

For example, International style coaching often emphasizes body contact from the very beginning. American style coaches, in contrast, usually don't worry too much about body contact. In an ideal world, there might not be a difference: with perfect posture, poise, and action, body contact may just happen naturally as a result of correct technique, without any effort or focus on it at all.

In the real world, though, this is less true. In International style, with body contact considered near mandatory, competitors often force it in various ways. This leads to a class of errors - one example is arched backs - which don't tend to happen otherwise. Dancing with such errors - even if otherwise of a high level - may "look like" International style to people with an American style background, even if the specific error isn't explicitly identified.

Now, I'm not trying to say "International bad, American good" here. I'm sure the differences in emphasis lead to a separate set of errors that are more common among American style dancers. I'm just saying that when high level International style dancers are critiqued as "not dancing real American style", the issues may not be choreographic. Rather, the issues may well be technical errors that have become so prevalent in the International style community that people have simply gotten used to them there.

[Kitty]

For example, International style coaching often emphasizes body contact from the very beginning. American style coaches, in contrast, usually don't worry too much about body contact. In an ideal world, there might not be a difference: with perfect posture, poise, and action, body contact may just happen naturally as a result of correct technique, without any effort or focus on it at all.

In the real world, though, this is less true. In International style, with body contact considered near mandatory, competitors often force it in various ways. This leads to a class of errors - one example is arched backs - which don't tend to happen otherwise. Dancing with such errors - even if otherwise of a high level - may "look like" International style to people with an American style background, even if the specific error isn't explicitly identified.

this opinion of importance of body contact, of ways to achieve it, of its neccessity, and of ways people teach it is very very imprecise and limited,
and the way this opinion is presented here is partially wrong and mostly just very limited and misleading.

i'll just say there are couples that emphasize contact and keeping it no matter what as an important thing in itself, but in a way that never results in body arching
and there are Great couples that think there is nothing wrong with arching and that work on keeping the connection thru the dance no matter what

nowadays most couples work on keeping contact as one of top priorities with the assumpition that if that is achieved, other things will happen naturally (which is the opposite of what is described in the post above)..

[Angel HI]

Understand now, and agree. Thanks.

[Josh]

Interesting, my experience has been just the opposite--American coaches who emphasized body contact no matter what and intl coaches who are content to just let it happen. IMO, having tried both approaches, making contact a priority in and of itself is a huge mistake, and it will happen once other concepts are well in place.

Warren, any other examples of these kinds of errors?

[FatBaldGuy60]

Now, one may hear, even fairly frequently, "I don't like that because it looks like International style".

I actually avoid most of the open hold stuff in smooth. At my first [and only, so far] comp I saw a lot of open smooth dancing and to me it feels less like dancing and more like choreography. I saw couples who spent very little time in hold and it reminded me of synchronized swimming.

I prefer to dance in hold, being together, moving together. I get a chance to lead instead of going through programmed moves, one after another. [This is why New Vogue would not interest me.]

FBG

[waltzguy]

I agree with FatBaldGuy. Dancing together, when done well, just looks so... together. To me, that's the epitome of partner dancing. Two people coming together to harmonize into one.

[Kitty]

Interesting, my experience has been just the opposite--American coaches who emphasized body contact no matter what and intl coaches who are content to just let it happen. IMO, having tried both approaches, making contact a priority in and of itself is a huge mistake, and it will happen once other concepts are well in place.

This is misinformation!
making body contact a priority is NOT a mistake.

[Laura]

I think it depends on where you and your partner are with your dancing. If either of you need work on the fundamentals of the frame, posture, poise, or balance, then forcing body contact isn't always the best idea until those things are cleaned up. Or at least that's the approach that has been used on me over the years. I've never been instructed to maintain body contact at the expense of not developing these other things first. And I'm thinking, once the other stuff is set, then the body contact can happen and at that point should be striven for (strived for?)

[wooh]

I actually avoid most of the open hold stuff in smooth. At my first [and only, so far] comp I saw a lot of open smooth dancing and to me it feels less like dancing and more like choreography. I saw couples who spent very little time in hold and it reminded me of synchronized swimming.

I prefer to dance in hold, being together, moving together. I get a chance to lead instead of going through programmed moves, one after another. [This is why New Vogue would not interest me.]

FBG

I personally like the freedom of smooth to separate. But like any other freedom, while one should take advantage of it, one shouldn't abuse it either.

[jjs914]

I personally like the freedom of smooth to separate. But like any other freedom, while one should take advantage of it, one shouldn't abuse it either.

Nicely said. I agree.

[cornutt]

I actually avoid most of the open hold stuff in smooth. At my first [and only, so far] comp I saw a lot of open smooth dancing and to me it feels less like dancing and more like choreography.

That is a problem at some American style comps. I've noticed it in DWTS too; routines that are nearly all apart. However, I would claim that abuse of the style does not constitute grounds to criticize the style, but rather the dancers. I would further claim (and this is the bit that's going to get me in trouble) that dancing entirely in closed hold is, by definition, not American Smooth style.

[Warren J. Dew]

Interesting, my experience has been just the opposite--American coaches who emphasized body contact no matter what and intl coaches who are content to just let it happen. IMO, having tried both approaches, making contact a priority in and of itself is a huge mistake, and it will happen once other concepts are well in place.

There are certainly differences in approach between coaches. In International style, my experience is that coaches from the Eggleton school are unlikely to ask one to force body contact; Smith-Hampshire would probably have had you dancing holding a CD case between your bodies to make sure you kept contact. It may not be a coincidence that Smith-Hampshire was forced to retire in the middle of a competition due to a back injury.

I've never had a coach who insisted on body contact in American style; I wonder how such coaches teach underarm turns.

I do want to emphasize that I don't consider body contact, in and of itself, to be a bad thing, even in American style. Body contact is fine if it comes naturally and without effort. It's forcing the body contact that can be a problem.

Warren, any other examples of these kinds of errors?

There are certainly other ways to force body contact. For example, where I see some couples arching their backs, I see other couples get contact by taking a strong forward poise in the gentleman without a corresponding strong backward poise in the lady. This results in a higher contact point and a slight "leaning in" look. While this is more a stylistic variation than an error, it does tend to to make the top look a bit close. In American style, where contact is not required, the inward lean is unnecessary and eliminating it would provide more space and freedom of movement in the upper body.

Perhaps related is the rigid hold. Some International style couples seem to maintain a constant body positioning by holding a rigid frame, with quite a bit of tension in the arms, and without the softness needed to allow the top to breathe. This one is complicated by the difficulty of distinguishing visually between a rigid frame, which is in my opinion undesirable, and a hold that is merely constant because of accurate relative positioning of the partners, which is desirable.

An error that can come from International style latin rather than from Standard has to do with arm styling. In latin, sharp arm styling seems to be popular at present; one will often see couples moving quickly between poses, then essentially holding the pose for up to a beat or more. That may work with latin music, but it doesn't reflect the character of most smooth music; for smooth, a softer, continuous arm motion that fills the music is usually better.

At higher competitive levels, there is a certain freedom in American style to vary the body positioning and hold, even while remaining largely in closed position and even in body contact. An example that I mentioned in another thread is the more strongly right side to right side position with the left arms released and the lady's right hand on the gentleman's left shoulder. This position allows for more dynamic interpretation of figures such as the standing spin and pivots. While the figures can certainly be learned in a standard closed hold, at a very high level, failure to use available freedom in positioning may set off "International, not American" warning flags.

[reb]

Body contact is important when in closed position (standard-like).

Weight connection (and where it comes from, how much, and how it is applied) is important, particularly when not in closed position.

[Kitty]

I do want to emphasize that I don't consider body contact, in and of itself, to be a bad thing, even in American style. Body contact is fine if it comes naturally and without effort. It's forcing the body contact that can be a problem.



Perhaps related is the rigid hold. Some International style couples seem to maintain a constant body positioning by holding a rigid frame, with quite a bit of tension in the arms, and without the softness needed to allow the top to breathe. This one is complicated by the difficulty of distinguishing visually between a rigid frame, which is in my opinion undesirable, and a hold that is merely constant because of accurate relative positioning of the partners, which is desirable.

what you describe as a "rigid frame" actually can breath too. Unless by "rigid" you mean "locked" which of course is not good. but a strong frame with a lot of tone in the arms going towards partners is usually considered very good and can actually be flexible.
I am curious to see how you would execute some difficult choreography while maintaining constant hold merely by accurate positioning with no tension in the arms whatsoever. And do that for 2 minutes.
i mean something like the pivots by William and Alessandra in the beginning of this video (first 40 seconds) http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=VEGn4LzxEr4&feature=related
I don't believe that is possible to do while maintaining the hold by "accurate positioning" only. I think those require both a very toned frame (but not locked) and a purposeful contact.


regarding "forcing of body contact" that may become a problem.. I think forcing almost anything may become a problem. it is actually possible to dance with placing a priority on contact without having to "force it". Actually that's what most couples do..

[Angel HI]

[quote=FatBaldGuy60;599463]

I agree w/ the referenced post. When I am adjudicating, I prefer to see this. However, when I am competing, I know that if I don't open the lady right away and/or as much as possible, she won't place well.

Incidentally, Warren, I also agree w/ your last post, as well, in regards to the correctness being directly related to the naturalness of the positions/movements. Kitty has prudent points, though. Many forget that things such as toplines are not meant to be rigid (why I reluctantly use the term "frame", as it often projects a stiffened squared image).

[Chris Stratton]

what you describe as a "rigid frame" actually can breath too. Unless by "rigid" you mean "locked" which of course is not good.

It's specifically a reference to physically using the frame to keep the bodies in position, vs the right way, which is keeping the bodies in position so that the frame will be good ;-)

I am curious to see how you would execute some difficult choreography while maintaining constant hold merely by accurate positioning....i mean something like the pivots

Pivots are one of the more jointly dynamic elements, yes. The problem being spoken of though usually occurs even on fairly basic figures in couples that exhibit it. Everyone may fall into this to some degree in challenging contexts, but a couple that can move their own bodies most of the time is going to be at an advantage.

it is actually possible to dance with placing a priority on contact without having to "force it". Actually that's what most couples do..

And most such couples have distorted posture, because the contact is inconsistent with their overall body usage. The ones that don't are the ones that don't prioritize body contact, but let it develop only in proportion to the rest of their dancing. (or more likely today, have now grown up enough that the rest of their dancing has finally caught up with their previous contact over-emphasis). When done right there's a gentle head to toe curvature, when done wrong there's a concentration of curve (and thus stress and risk of injury) in the small of the back, with the belly protruding out of the overall body line.

In terms of the comments about american style coaches making more of an issue about contact, it's probably worth considering that american style is in general more over-the-top in terms of expressive body action and curved postures. It's not the desire for contact that really makes the difference, it's the habitual willingness to bend in places and amounts where an international coach would say you ideally shouldn't.

[Warren J. Dew]

I prefer to dance in hold, being together, moving together. I get a chance to lead instead of going through programmed moves, one after another.

That's certainly a reasonable preference. I'd certainly prefer lead and follow material in closed hold to automated open routines.

That said, I will note that a good American smooth couple that are really in tune with each other can redirect and vary their routines without ever touching. Good separated material can still be led and followed.

Perhaps I should add that to my list of "International style couple that doesn't understand American style" flags for Josh: couples who have clearly memorized open routines that they are unable to adjust. It's better not to separate until you can retain enough control not to run into other people.

[White Chacha]

...
Perhaps I should add that to my list of "International style couple that doesn't understand American style" flags for Josh: couples who have clearly memorized open routines that they are unable to adjust. It's better not to separate until you can retain enough control not to run into other people.

You might also call those "International style couples that don't understand International Style". You certainly see a lot of that sort of rote dancing at collegiate, regardless of style.

I totally agree that lead and follow do not require contact. Something as simple as returning to a closed hold from an open position requires so much coordination of movement to make a seamless transition between holds, even though there's no touching during that transition. Both partners being keenly aware of each other to the point of feeling the other's presence, both partners exquisitely timed to the music to make all this happen. Those sorts of actions are every bit as satisfying to accomplish as a complex sequence of closed hold Standard choreo.

All that being said, closed hold is hard to do right too. It appears harder to make look right. Just see all those talented dancers on the SYTYCD show. The choreographers keep them out of closed hold as much as possible because that kind of connected movement is unlike anything the dancers have done before.

[Warren J. Dew]

You might also call those "International style couples that don't understand International Style". You certainly see a lot of that sort of rote dancing at collegiate, regardless of style.

Sorry, I used ambiguous wording. To clarify, I meant "open" as in "separated", not "open" as in "open difficulty level". The "don't understand American style" bells go off when they are doing separated material by rote, but still seem able to use floorcraft when in closed position.

I agree that if they are doing a routine by rote in closed position, they don't understand International style either. I suppose if they were doing a routine in an open, separated position in an International style competition, by rote or otherwise, that would also show a lack of understanding of International style, but I've not seen that very often!

All that being said, closed hold is hard to do right too.

I don't disagree. In closed position, lead and follow can be easier due to the additional contact points, but positioning needs to be more accurate.

[gingerbread]

I am sure you don't want to use names of people who have distorted lines, as that would not be proper, but can you give names of American Smooth couples whose open position as well as closed work you admire? Who are leading the direction in which American Smooth should go?

[Kitty]

Pivots are one of the more jointly dynamic elements, yes. The problem being spoken of though usually occurs even on fairly basic figures in couples that exhibit it. Everyone may fall into this to some degree in challenging contexts, but a couple that can move their own bodies most of the time is going to be at an advantage.


partners need to use each other and maintain contact and tone in the frame in fast and fast turning choreography. That's the only way. It is neccessary and good. It is important to get it right, just as it is important to use the feet and legs and maintain good posture.
Whatever Warren was saying made the impression that concentrating on contact is always wrong because it should only happen automatically as a result of "positioning". Well, in bronze, yeah, i can agree.. if dancers can't move themselves, sure,
but there is dancing out there beyond bronze where contact is good and neccessary (like in Pino video)..

[Chris Stratton]

...and there are others who've won blackpool despite inconsistently maintaining contact...

Which says to me that it's not fundamentally necessary, but is instead a stylistic choice that is far from being universally considered an absolute priority, though it may be one for some dancers and their teachers.

Another way of looking at it is that for the couples where contact is very important, their dancing seriously looses something when they loose it. But for the couples who merely strive to be together, it doesn't really matter if they are in contact some of the time or all of the time, because in most situations of their dancing there is no functional difference between close and touching.

Part of what makes it work is the more advanced skill of being able to position each body to pre-emptively accommodate another, instead of being forced into a marginally compatible position by the physical presence of the other. It's that skill that tends to be missing on couples that spend little time refining closed hold - when they get together, it's a forced, over shaped together instead of the kind of inherently and pre-emptively compatible together that comes from years of practice perfecting closed hold.

[Josh]

This is misinformation!
making body contact a priority is NOT a mistake.

I'd like to ask you to consider for just a moment that "misinformation" or "correctness" is quite subjective in many areas of dancing (including this one), and that what one considers misinformation, another may consider good information. Just consider it, please.

With that being said, I have been taught in both schools--(1) body contact before anything else meaningful can happen, and (2) forget the contact for now, it will come in its own due time. After struggling with (1), I gave (2) a try, and lo and behold, now I have nice body contact and use it in a meaningful way for dancing, rather than having body contact so I can say that I use body contact.

For what it's worth, one major problem with too much emphasis on body contact too early is that it fails to teach the dancer how to dance on his/her own two feet, and in the search for body contact, true balance is not found. That's not to say that balance won't come, but it may not come as naturally as it would otherwise.

No doubt most any approach in dancing will work for some and fail for others, and all methods will have pros and cons.

[tangotime]

...and there are others who've won blackpool despite inconsistently maintaining contact...

.


Names please ?

[Chris Stratton]

Hawkins & Newberry.

They were of course a very closely coordinated couple to win, but demonstrate the difference between being actually in constant contact as a key element of the dance, vs. being closely coordinated and often in contact.

Contact as a specific priority vs. contact as a frequent result of sound overall technique.

I would doubt that anyone watching, or even they themselves would really have paid much attention to if they were literally touching or merely close at any given instant - unless they decided to ignore the dancing and specifically monitor that as a subject of interest instead.

[tangotime]

Hawkins & Newberry.
close at any given instant -



And you sincerely believe that was by design ?.

I have had the good fortune to have known, and been to lectures and taught, by the many of the " greats " from Scriv, Binnick, Egg. Irv. Gleave etc.

Not to mention all the other champs. I never recall ANY of them advocating, suggesting or even intentionally creating " space ".. on the contrary the opposite was true.

Have I seen them " drift " apart, you bet.. do I believe it was intentional ? I seriously doubt they would preach one thing and dance another .

[Chris Stratton]

Have I seen them " drift " apart, you bet.. do I believe it was intentional ? I seriously doubt they would preach one thing and dance another .

Exactly, there are couples who have won despite breaking actual contact at times.

What is intentional is not the breaking of contact, but the decision not to prioritize maintaining actual contact - to not make other sacrifices to insure that they are always in contact, but instead to dance well overall, in constant close coordination - something that frequently but not always results in actual contact.

[Kitty]

I'd like to ask you to consider for just a moment that "misinformation" or "correctness" is quite subjective in many areas of dancing (including this one), and that what one considers misinformation, another may consider good information. Just consider it, please.

With that being said, I have been taught in both schools--(1) body contact before anything else meaningful can happen, and (2) forget the contact for now, it will come in its own due time. After struggling with (1), I gave (2) a try, and lo and behold, now I have nice body contact and use it in a meaningful way for dancing, rather than having body contact so I can say that I use body contact.

regarding misinformation. I agree. Warren made it sound like making body contact a priority is a mistake. for some people maybe it is. for most it is not a mistake. saying it is a mistake for everyone is a wrong message

besides 1 and 2 there is also a 3 which you and Warre are not addressing. and that is what i am talking about. and not only contact, also frame. Contact and frame help partners time together the execution of difficult choreography, they are essential in many steps.

so if you are using body contact for dancing, how can you say there is only 1 and 2?

[Kitty]

Exactly, there are couples who have won despite breaking actual contact at times

if you prioritize connection thru body and frame, that is not the same as saying you must have it ALL the time.

in some figures it is necessary to break the contact


Also I am pretty sure that Hazel Newberry uses contact to help coordinating within the couple and to achieve perfect lead and follow.


I guess the problem is that by saying "using contact" or "maintaining contact" you mean "stuck" which is of course not good.. well there is a way to use and maintain contact a lot without it being stuck at all.

[Josh]

besides 1 and 2 there is also a 3 which you and Warre are not addressing. and that is what i am talking about. and not only contact, also frame. Contact and frame help partners time together the execution of difficult choreography, they are essential in many steps.

so if you are using body contact for dancing, how can you say there is only 1 and 2?

Sorry, I don't follow? I'm saying that some emphasize body contact much more than others do, that's all. I never said anything about the importance of frame.

[Angel HI]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Stratton http://www.dance-forums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.dance-forums.com/showthread.php?p=599845#post599845)
...and there are others who've won blackpool despite inconsistently maintaining contact...

Names please ? (posted by TangoTime)

Hawkins & Newberry.

Contact as a specific priority vs. contact as a frequent result of sound overall technique.

I must be having a weird month...I find myself agreeing w/ CS again. :rolleyes: The real answer to TT's question is, "Too many to mention, really,"

I sincerely believe that the real answer to this discussion is summed up in CS's last line above. I believe that there is no contest that body contact is more of a tradition of style than a requirement. We all understand, or should, that close and closed are practically synonomous when danced well, and that contact is a result of sound overall technique rather than a priority or requisite (setting aside, of course, such movements where it is, indeed, necessary to the proper application/execution).

For what it's worth, one major problem with too much emphasis on body contact too early is that it fails to teach the dancer how to dance on his/her own two feet, and in the search for body contact, true balance is not found.

I believe that you could have posted your thought as.....

For what it's worth, one major problem with too much emphasis on body contact too early is that it fails to teach the dancer how to dance .... Period

[Warren J. Dew]

I am sure you don't want to use names of people who have distorted lines, as that would not be proper, but can you give names of American Smooth couples whose open position as well as closed work you admire? Who are leading the direction in which American Smooth should go?

Unfortunately, I can't name such a couple unreservedly. Indeed, if I could, there wouldn't really be a reason for a thread like this.

I do think that if American smooth is going to reach more of its potential, it's as likely to be led by coaches as competitors.

[QPO]

http://members.isp01.net/hfsears/lessons/waltz4.html

Found this about the history of the waltz.

[tangotime]

Exactly, there are couples who have won despite breaking actual contact at times.

Snip.......

but instead to dance well overall, in constant close coordination - something that frequently but not always results in actual contact.




Now that , I am in complete agreement with .

[FatBaldGuy60]

For what it's worth, one major problem with too much emphasis on body contact too early is that it fails to teach the dancer how to dance on his/her own two feet, and in the search for body contact, true balance is not found. That's not to say that balance won't come, but it may not come as naturally as it would otherwise.

My wife and I have been struggling with this for a long time. We have been dancing over a year and she still cannot maintain her frame and position. She drifts in and out, left and right. Almost the only way I can keep her in position is a strong hold and maintaining body contact [and I know this is not ideal]. Even after all this time she has problems staying over her leg, or staying in time with the music, or starting some step without being led. Hell, sometimes we will be halfway through a dance and she will ask what dance we are doing.

When I dance with others who keep frame and position I can loosen my hold and lead with my body. Not to say my lead is perfect! I still have to concentrate all the time on things like CBM, and there are so many things I forget or get lazy about, or I get into a corner or something and can't think of a step to free us. But, I have good balance and timing, and I can maintain my position and respond to someone else's movements.

We work on this issue every lesson. Every single lesson. It can get a bit frustrating.

/whine

FBG

[Chris Stratton]

Almost the only way I can keep her in position is a strong hold

Sometimes the way to be listened to more carefully is to speak softer rather than louder.

However, you have not just a dance partnership going on, but a personal relationship as well, which can make trying to change anything very tricky.

[Easy]

I remember seeing some top couples years ago losing much contact yet still making it to the final. It was at the Royal Albert Hall. I'm sure they normally wouldn't dance that way. I'm not sure how many times they dance during that competition, but considering there are probably hundreds of participants, by the time a couple makes it to the final round fatigue is a big factor.

I too am liking Chris' explanations. It seems people in the early stages of learning body contact and connection, think of it as being trapped and a place where they MUST remain instead of thinking of it as a natural melding of two into one.

[Warren J. Dew]

partners need to use each other and maintain contact and tone in the frame in fast and fast turning choreography.

They don't need to maintain body contact in American smooth. Fast choreography can be handled simply by being in synch with the music in the same way; a really good American smooth couple should be able to do slow or fast choreography while separated, without even touching each other. I would agree that fast rotations around each other do require some contact, but even then it doesn't necessarily need to be body contact.

Of course, the beauty of American smooth is that if a couple wants fast rotations, they don't have to do them around each other; they can break apart and do them separately, and likely do them faster. If they are going to do joint rotations around a common center in American smooth, they might as well take advantage of what can be done better with two bodies than with one, namely, make the rotation bigger rather than faster.

You mention the Pino video you posted earlier. To be honest, I don't see any "difficult choreography" in the first 40 seconds that you talked about (I haven't watched the rest of it). Aside from the held positions, that's all fast choreography, and except for beginners who don't know how to spin yet, fast choreography is easier because there are more footfalls, allowing more adjustments for slight mispositionings. It's the slow choreography, where one has to continue the movement for one or two or even three or more beats, with no margin for error in an unchanging foot position, that's more difficult.

That's not necessarily a criticism of the video, of course. After all, it's not what one does that's important, but how well one does it. What they're doing is certainly not American smooth, but they're not trying to do American smooth.

[FatBaldGuy60]

Sometimes the way to be listened to more carefully is to speak softer rather than louder.

How perceptive! My wife missed last week's lesson due to work, so I spent the entire hour focusing on moving my body and being very quiet in my arms. I am getting a glimpse, where I can see that my lead is not my hands and arms, but my body. We worked a lot on CBM as well.

So in today's lesson I will "speak softly."

FBG

[JANATHOME]

I think one of the big misconceptions in smooth is that you are not in dance frame.... Sure there is a lot of open work but you are maintaining that same exact dance frame that you would in standard, just apart.

We actually put down smooth for a few years and concentrated just on standard so each of us could understand our dance frames, our relationship to each other. With a better understanding we then went back to smooth.

We use eye contact, body rise to dance together while apart. One of the favorite things we have recently been taught... Our waltz opening is apart, facing each other, we each take a deep breath, I can see his chest rising, match it, and then exhale together on our first side step... It is so cool for me to be in complete sinc with out ever in a closed dance frame. Its hard, but you find that connection all the same.

[Josh]

How perceptive! My wife missed last week's lesson due to work, so I spent the entire hour focusing on moving my body and being very quiet in my arms. I am getting a glimpse, where I can see that my lead is not my hands and arms, but my body. We worked a lot on CBM as well.

So in today's lesson I will "speak softly."

FBG

Great initiative working by yourself. It will do wonders for your dancing! A dance frame should be sturdy and firm, but it should also breathe and allow the lady to dance. And while the lead certainly must be given by your body, your hands will eventually play a huge role in leading the lady.

[Angel HI]

A dance frame should be sturdy and firm, but it should also breathe and allow the lady to dance.

Very important point. The word "frame" generally brings to mind the picture of something squared and hard and rigid.

And while the lead certainly must be given by your body, your hands will eventually play a huge role in leading the lady.

Dangerous territory, there. You might want to expound.