So you think you can dance

[Albanaich]

I just posted this over on the Swing thread - I'm fascinated that no one seems to want to answer the question.

One of these dance video's is significantly and obviously different from the others. Well its obvious to me.

Can anyone tell which one is different and what makes it different

Discofox, East Coast Swing and Modern Jive

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wztriiNWEHE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ3cZ...eature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ3cZsvdrnw&feature=related)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2nsp...eature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2nsp5Mnp4o&feature=related)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geam_pk5AwE

[wonderwoman]

Don't understand what you're asking. They're all different from one another. The last one sounds more like a cha cha?

[wonderwoman]

Why did you make another thread?

[Albanaich]

Well they are not. 3 are the same and one is markedly, obviously different.

To me its obvious - but not apparently to anyone else. I'm shocked :-(

[atk]

Albanaich, I think I'm going to reiterate wonderwoman's comment: all three seem different. If I had to categorize, one looks like a style of swing that I haven't seen before, one looks like hustle, one looks like east coast swing, and one looks like west coast swing. Since the names on the pages give away which three are discofox and modernjive, and I'm not familiar with those dances, I can't begin to comment on expected technique. Based on previous comments I've seen by you, I'm guessing that you think discofox and modernjive are the ones that are "the same". Could you narrow down your question, and the point of this thread? I get the distinct impression that you're trying to quiz the rest of DF using your knowledge as the scale. I must be missing it, but I just don't see what other conversation you're trying to start.

[Albanaich]

You've got three, slightly different forms of dance related to East Coast Swing, (you might consider 'Discofox' the European implementation of ECS and Modern Jive the British implementation).

They are all similar, though implemented slightly differently. It's not the dances that are different, its the dancers.

One pair of dancers are doing something the other three are not. It should be, or rather I expected it to be, completely obvious - apparently its not.

In the original post I took it for granted that dancers would see what was strange, what I took for granted clearly isn't so obvious.

Maybe this video makes it more obvious

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO7taxUAFCg

[samina]

the 1st vid ("discofox"...never heard of that) looks like a rather graceless hustle.
the 2nd vid (ECS) looks like a slow jive to me and is not like the others.
the 3rd vid (another discofox) is like the first, just better executed and with fancier lifts. although i don't care for the style.
the 4th vid (Ceroc...never saw that style before) is different from the others, but closer to the discofox than ECS example, IMO. the "lifts" and tricks look rather awkward and strange to my eyes.

don't know what you're point is in comparing these vids... would love to hear it. spit it out. :)

[Albanaich]

This is absolutely fascinating. . . . . . .

It's quite obvious which is the odd one out - and it has nothing to do with the style of the dance. . . . .

You can't see it?

Someone has got to get it!

[samina]

Well, it depends what you're criteria is. Is it the dance form itself, the showmanship/lifts, the quality of execution, the connection between the partners, the musicality... what are you evaluating these vids for?

[etp777]

fair question.

[Albanaich]

Well the last one should stand out absolutely from the others - why does it stand out, what makes it stand out. . . . .

3 out of the 5 completely lack something - what is it?

[Albanaich]

Ok. . . . I'll let you off the hook.

3 of them are not dancing, they are doing 'synchronised movements to a beat', if you used a compressor or a metronmome for the beat - you would get the same dance. The music played is unimportant to their 'dancing' :-(

They dance through the breaks, are out of alignment with the musical phrasing, and unaware of the emphasis points in the music.

What they are doing has no contact with the music being played, other than they are in time with the beat.

Technically though, some of them are very accomplished.

It's astonishing that people can be allowed to get that level (and they are all competing in significant competions) without any musicality whatsoever.

The idea I thought was that in dance you 'danced to the music' when what you do bears no relationship to the music, and could be done with a simple beat and nothing else - are you dancing?

The whole fact that I am (against my wishes) having to explain that, I find rather sad.

[DL]

The whole fact that I am (against my wishes) having to explain that, I find rather sad.

You seem to have this one single litmus test for "who's a good dancer." Every so often you break it out again, along with video clips of dancers who don't measure up to your standard.

Er, why?

[etp777]

Because only ceroc dancers have musicality. :)

[Steve Pastor]

Gee, maybe it's too bad I can't do YouTube unless I go to the library, and I'm doing exactly that in about an hour. Wonder if I would have gotten it, since I can't even watch people who aren't at least in time to the music, but can at least sort of tolerate people who don't do the the other things you mention - sort of.


It's astonishing that people can be allowed to get that level (and they are all competing in significant competions) without any musicality whatsoever.


Well, that's one of the reasons I don't put much stock in competition as credential.
It's kind of like when you wonder why so and so is in that position somewhere. Well, when you have to fill a position, you can only pick someone who has applied for the job. Even if you don't see a really good candidate, you still have to pick someone.

Then again, I see people teaching all of the time who don't teach ANYTHING about musicality or even being in time with the music.

Some one at the Country Western place I go to theorizes that "back in the day" music was taught routinely here in the States. It hasn't been for years, and even decades. Wonder if we are worse as dancers in general. Laure' Haile complained in the 80s that people used to study dance seriously, and that they didn't anymore.
Well, I lived through the 60s and I remember what kind of dancing "Do your own thing" most young people did in public.

[Albanaich]

Well no, the Ceroc dancers are chosen as probably the worst of the examples. . . . . if you can't see that. . . .

Steve. . . .I absolutely agree with you. That was the point of my post.

Now I've declared my position I expect lots of posts, before, there was nothing, because people could not see what was wrong and did not want to admit it.

Which was entirely the point I wanted to make.

If what you are doing has no contact with the music being played - then you are not a dancer, however athleticaly talented you might be.

Not a difficult one to understand. . . .

[atk]

Ok. . . . I'll let you off the hook.3 of them are not dancing, they are doing 'synchronised movements to a beat',It's astonishing that people can be allowed to get that level (and they are all competing in significant competions) without any musicality whatsoever

Albanaich, you do understand that different people have different goals, different dances have different requirements/techniques, and different organizations use different yard sticks, right?

[DL]

Now I've declared my position ...


Not for the first time. But, er, "why?"

If you were to ask me whether I agree that everyone should be sure they pass your one litmus test before dancing anywhere that might end up where you might find it on youtube, then my answer would be "no".

If you were to ask me whether I agree that your one litmus test is the only differentiator of "good" and "bad" partner dancing that matters, my answer would be "no" there, too.

[samina]

They are all similar, though implemented slightly differently. It's not the dances that are different, its the dancers.

One pair of dancers are doing something the other three are not. It should be, or rather I expected it to be, completely obvious - apparently its not.

In the original post I took it for granted that dancers would see what was strange, what I took for granted clearly isn't so obvious.

Maybe this video makes it more obvious

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO7taxUAFCg
i'll check it out. i purposefully *not* evaluating the dancers, but was looking at the dances.

[Steve Pastor]

Hmm.
I think dancing in time to the music should be a starting point for dancers.
Stopping there and, for instance, continuing to ignore breaks in the music rather than using them somehow, doesn't seem like a satisfactory end point to me. But, of course that's just me. But, as I pointed out already, Laure' Haile for one noted the difference in the general attitude towards dance in the 80s. ie most people didn't take it seriously anymore.
Yeah, people have different goals, but...

[samina]

The whole fact that I am (against my wishes) having to explain that, I find rather sad.
i was going to take the time to re-watch all the videos you've posted and look at the dancers, their performance and execution but...have to say your smugness has turned me off.

if you want people to take time to give you feedback and engage with you productively, i suggest in your next OP you take the time to be clear about what you want...rather than roll your eyes because others are not able to read your mind.

[Albanaich]

DL- fairly simple. If what you are doing on the dance floor has no relationship to the music being played - then you are not dancing.

'Strict tempo' music was created for ballroom dancers because 99% of them can't dance.

The whole concept of 'strict tempo' is an open admission that you can't dance to either the rhythm or the music.

[Albanaich]

You were given a challenge - and you failed.

The challenge was not intended, I assumed people would immediately see what was wrong, when they did not, I was astonished.

You should definitely go back to the video's. . . .

If you can't identify the 2 people who are dancing to the music and the 3 who are not. . . . .then you've learned nothing at all about dance, what you 'think' you know about dance is an illusion.

[DL]

DL- fairly simple. If what you are doing on the dance floor has no relationship to the music being played - then you are not dancing.

'Strict tempo' music was created for ballroom dancers because 99% of them can't dance.

The whole concept of 'strict tempo' is an open admission that you can't dance to either the rhythm or the music.

I understand exactly what kinds of assertions you're making (not for the first time). What I'm asking is WHY you're making them.

[Albanaich]

Maybe I want to define whether you believe music has anything to do with dance?

You can understand why I might want to do that surely?

[samina]

You were given a challenge - and you failed.

right...

okay, well i guess i know you better now. thanks for that.

[Albanaich]

The way the debate is going its pretty clear a lot of folks who want to be called 'dancers' don't want to do 'music'

That's interesting. . . . .

[samina]

you are full of assumptions, albanaich. personally, i'm definitely not in the debate you have in mind.

[atk]

Albanaich,

Exactly what are you trying to accomplish? Every post on this thread, your tone comes off as demeaning to either the people in the videos, their organizations, or the other posters on this thread. You haven't created discussion - you've posed questions that were near impossible to answer, and you've provided answers smugly as though you were some kind of school marm speaking to her class.

What's your point? Why did you bother starting this thread, if other than to sound smug?

[DL]

Maybe I want to define whether you believe music has anything to do with dance?

You can understand why I might want to do that surely?

If you're asking me whether I think musicality matters in dancing, the answer is, "yes".

However your assertions and characterizations seem to go much farther than that. Actually, to be honest, they seem a bit like trolling to me and, like Samina, I will steer clear of debating them.

[Albanaich]

The debate I have in mind is pretty clear cut.

Do you believe 'music' should have any relationship to dance.

That you want to avoid that debate clearly shows you are not interested in dance.

If you are not interested in dance - why are you posting here?

[atk]

The debate I have in mind is pretty clear cut.

Do you believe 'music' should have any relationship to dance.

That you want to avoid that debate clearly shows you are not interested in dance.

If you are not interested in dance - why are you posting here?

Smells of a straw man, and/or false dichotomy. Personally, I don't think that there's any debate. I think you're making lots of baseless assumptions for the benefit of making yourself feel better.

Actually, I'm reminded of your earliest posts on DF, where you came across as a troll. I've never seen anything to make me believe otherwise...

[Albanaich]

It's not exactly a complex or demanding question.

Do you think dancing to the music is important?

Clearly DL and Samina, you can't tell if someone is dancing to the music. You were given ample opportunity to show you that you could and failed.

Is that demeaning? Well of course it is. Some of us move on from failure to understanding why we failed.

So now you know that however able you are in technique, like those dancers in the video, you have no understanding of music.

Which is exactly the point I wanted to make.

[samina]

Actually, to be honest, they seem a bit like trolling to me and, like Samina, I will steer clear of debating them.
yes, this was my thought exactly.

this is not the kind of attitude that is welcome on DF, albanaich. despite the fact that DF is filled to overflow with passionate dancers who love to discussing every minute detail of dancing, i doubt you're going to find many willing to invest much time engaging with you. because it is trollish behaviour, IMO...

[samina]

It's not exactly a complex or demanding question.

Do you think dancing to the music is important?

Clearly DL and Samina, you can't tell if someone is dancing to the music. You were given ample opportunity to show you that you could and failed.

Is that demeaning? Well of course it is. Some of us move on from failure to understanding why we failed.

So now you know that however able you are in technique, like those dancers in the video, you have no understanding of music.

Which is exactly the point I wanted to make.

i saw lots of not dancing to the music, and found it ugly and extremely unappealing.

[Albanaich]

I'm not making baseless assumption at all.

You were given a challenge - can you distinquish between someone dancing to the music and someone who was not.

You clearly failed.

So we are not making assumptions here - we know that like the highly skilled atheletes in the video's, you have no conception of what dance is. . . .

Which is the point I was at all times trying to make.

[etp777]

While the cat's away

[samina]

<signing off from this silliness...>

[Steve Pastor]

While I agree with the point that Albanaich is making regarding musiclaity, I do agree that he is going overboard in the assumptions and over generaliztions he is making about people who "took the test".

I am going to encourage all of you to do exactly what you have written regarding not responding to posts that have a tone you think is not appropriate here.

[Albanaich]

If you found it ugly and unappealing - why did you not mention it?

That was the purpose of the examples. . . .they were ugly and unappealing, though physically and technique very good. . . . .

Why do you choose to mention it now?

It doesn't wash Samina, don't demean yourself by making excuses that are not credible.

[Albanaich]

Steve. . .. .as long as you agree with the validity of the points I'm making that's fine.

If people want to put their head on the chopping block - that's their problem.

It's not as if people were not given the opportunity to walk away. . . .

[Albanaich]

The whole thing about musicality is that so very few people who dance are even aware of it.

You know that Steve. . .. unless you bang them up short and hard they are never going to be aware of it.

It's like those highly skilled dancers in the video's, technical experts, but in reality, with no understanding of dance at all. . . .

[wonderwoman]

Okay ... Everybody could tell the fourth one was cha cha music, the thing is nobody really cares but you. Get a life.

[samina]

If you found it ugly and unappealing - why did you not mention it?

That was the purpose of the examples. . . .they were ugly and unappealing, though physically and technique very good. . . . .

Why do you choose to mention it now?

It doesn't wash Samina, don't demean yourself by making excuses that are not credible.
as i explained, i was not evaluating the dancers but the dance styles, since i had no idea what your point was to post the videos other than "watch these, what do you see different?" i very purposely overlooked the dancing i did not like in order to evaluate the styles of dance. had you been clearer, i would have looked instead at the dancers & their dancing.

clearly you don't know me from my posting here... i think those that do know me would never accuse me of disingenuousness.

[samina]

It's like those highly skilled dancers in the video's, technical experts, but in reality, with no understanding of dance at all. . . .
honestly...i think it's quite a stretch to generalize and call all the dancers you presented as highly skilled technical experts. there was plenty of sloppiness, awkwardness, and highly abbreviated dance lines/movements. there wasn't a lot about the dancing itself that really impressed me, except for the 5th video. they were connected, musical, and were the strongest technically, IMO.

[CANI]

Do you think dancing to the music is important?


Hi Albanaich -

I do think dancing to the music is important...and I am no where near being able to do that. (In fact, while I saw this thread after the answer was given, I don't think I would have passed the test:()

I was wondering if you could share how you mastered this. In other words, if you were to teach someone who didn't know how to do this based on your experience of getting to the point of being able to do it (I assume), is there advice you can pass along, or suggested steps to take? I would be interested in hearing your thoughts. Thanks! CANI

[Albanaich]

This came about because when I was out at a new venue I did what I usually to - that is try and spot who is dancing to the music. It's a very small percentage, less than 10% and clearly most of the people dancing were completely unaware that what they were doing was completely detached from the music.

In the examples shown you have people winning competions with no musicality whatsoever.

So musicality is an unusual thing and 90% of people who are dancing can't recognise it.

This raises some interesting questions.

If most people who dance, and a big percentage of the people teaching dance can't hear the music - what exactly are they learning and teaching?

How do we teach people to listen to the music?

The other point, and its difficult one, is how do you tell people (especially those with good technical skills) that they don't understand dance and that what they doing amounts to a parody of what dance should be. (some hackles have already be raised by this thread)

What's the point of doing a complex lift or pattern if it is at completely the wrong point in the music?

Before I took up dancing I believed most people could pick up a beat and hear the phrasing in a piece of music - I now know being able to pick the beat is unusual and being able to hear the pharsing rare.

How do we dancers who can hear the music communicate with those who can't?

I not being patronising here, in a sense I've also got an explanation for why I find learning dance so difficult. Teachers have always been confused why I have such difficulty learning steps and patterns - I now realise that my brain does not seperate the pattern from the music.

It is, as someone accurately described it, like playing tertris and doing gymnastics at the same time. If you concentrate on the 'tertris' game of trying to fit the pattern to the music, you are likely to lose you concentration on body control. As Mr Data said in Star Trek 'this is a complex set of variables to co-ordinate'

If you miss out the musicallity - its becomes so very much easier.

It's exactly same problem I had when I learned simple steps, I knew where my feet should be, I didn't have the physical skill to get them them there. To learn to dance the first thing I had to do was get used to dancing 'off beat' which anyone with any musical skills is a form of torture.

So there's a lot to discuss here - I hope everyone can get over there preconceptions and get into it.

[Albanaich]

The grouping of people were chosen because they represent a variety of similar dances and a variety of ability levels and technique.

I don't actually see much difference in technical ability between 1 and 5 (though I freely admit I'm not an expert on technique), there's a world of difference in musicality.

Number 3 did some awkward lifts (that were at the edge of their ability) but were hitting the breaks and trying to co-ordinate what they did with music.

1, 2 and 4 were not.

The other question is 'how do you learn musicallity' - I don't know, I had it before I started dancing.

I think in dance it starts with LISTENING to the music and trying to identify where it is going to change.

If you know a phrase is generally 16 beats long and repeats or changes at 16 beat intervals you'll know when to expect the change. (lets not get into 3/4 and 6/8 time!!!) but I only learned that after I could do it at the intuitive level.

[Larinda McRaven]

I haven't read through this whole thread because I am a little occupied at the moment but I get the feeling that things are a little heated. I urge everyone to remain mature and steer clear of personal attacks and name calling. We are all adult enough to disagree.... nicely.

[Albanaich]

Fair enough, but saying that 9 out 10 people dancing don't understand what it is about is bound to be contentions. . . . .

It's difficult to get across how those of us who have an 'ear' for music experience dance, its fairly black white in the sense that you can either hear the phrasing or you can't in the same you can either feel the beat or you can't.

As I get more experienced I realise that my early dance teachers didn't understand why I was such a bad dancer because they didn't understand what I was trying to achieve, which was something out of their experience.

It's an interesting debate - but some people are going to get hurt in the sense they will realise that there a whole, musical level of dance that they have been completely unaware of. . . .

It's something Steve alludes to in a lot of posts, but most people don't understand, or more accurately, they are unaware what it means to be able to follow the phrasing in a piece of music.

[CANI]

The grouping of people were chosen because they represent a variety of similar dances and a variety of ability levels and technique.

I don't actually see much difference in technical ability between 1 and 5 (though I freely admit I'm not an expert on technique), there's a world of difference in musicality.

Number 3 did some awkward lifts (that were at the edge of their ability) but were hitting the breaks and trying to co-ordinate what they did with music.

1, 2 and 4 were not.

The other question is 'how do you learn musicallity' - I don't know, I had it before I started dancing.

I think in dance it starts with LISTENING to the music and trying to identify where it is going to change.

If you know a phrase is generally 16 beats long and repeats or changes at 16 beat intervals you'll know when to expect the change. (lets not get into 3/4 and 6/8 time!!!) but I only learned that after I could do it at the intuitive level.

In the post before this one, you raised some interesting questions. I look forward to the discussion around this.

It is great that you had musicality before starting to dance. I think the example you gave about 'this is a complex set of variables to coordinate.' is a good one. I know when I listen to music I can think of how I would move to the music, but actually getting my body to do what I want it to do is a whole other matter. Perhaps similar to your experience when you were first learning to dance.

Since you raised competitions, I don't know if this applies to swing competitions, but I think (think -- I don't know) in top level Latin competitions, there is a routine that the dancers have practiced and are dancing. So, when a portion isn't lead-follow (for example when the dancers are dancing next to each other, separated, facing the audience in jive), if the music breaks, I guess they either have to continue with their routine, or they would get out of sync with each other...and then perhaps be awkward in trying to get back together. In your original 4 -- the one you said is best appears to be a showdance -- the dancers know the music, and have set their routine to work with that music. I would guess that their routine is also choreographed and not just lead-follow. I've often wondered how you can really dance to the music in a competition, when you don't know what music will be played, if you are doing something other than lead-follow. Perhaps this will come up in the discussion. (Of course, I'm not suggesting that by knowing the music, dancers automatically have musicality, it is just an area of interest to me.)

[Albanaich]

I'm mostly a Swing dancer - WCS, Lindy and Ceroc and the ulitmate test in this form of dance is the 'Jack and Jill' where the dancers are paired at random and dance to random music.

This is completely improvised from start to finish. Awesome

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3i6kyLLB2g&feature=related

In selecting the pieces I was interested in showing musicality - not improvisation or technique, so it was unimportant whether it was choreographed or improvisied.

I was actually trying to lead into an arguement about the difference between ECS and WCS and Lindy, but since folks couldn't see the lack of musicality in the first place - they debate didn't get anywhere.

A 'musical' dancer will demonstrate there musicality either way. . . . this too is completely improvised. (It's impressive in terms of musicality)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk_17vLycV8

Notice in the last piece Melissa Rutz is taking the lead (hijacking) whenever she feels the lead hesitate, she knows what's happening with the music even if her lead doesn't

It's a glorious, unmatched feeling you are dancing like that, both working with each other to hit phrasing and the breaks - its why I dance.

Knowing the music helps of course, but most popular music fits the same pattern.

http://www.irenejackson.com/phrasing.html
http://www.eijkhout.net/lead_follow/hit_the_breaks.html

[CANI]

I'm mostly a Swing dancer - WCS, Lindy and Ceroc and the ulitmate test in this form of dance is the 'Jack and Jill' where the dancers are paired at random and dance to random music.

This is completely improvised from start to finish. Awesome

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3i6kyLLB2g&feature=related

In selecting the pieces I was interested in showing musicality - not improvisation or technique, so it was unimportant whether it was choreographed or improvisied.

I was actually trying to lead into an arguement about the difference between ECS and WCS and Lindy, but since folks couldn't see the lack of musicality in the first place - they debate didn't get anywhere.

A 'musical' dancer will demonstrate there musicality either way. . . . this too is completely improvised. (It's impressive in terms of musicality)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk_17vLycV8

Notice in the last piece Melissa Rutz is taking the lead (hijacking) whenever she feels the lead hesitate, she knows what's happening with the music even if her lead doesn't

It's a glorious, unmatched feeling you are dancing like that, both working with each other to hit phrasing and the breaks - its why I dance.

Knowing the music helps of course, but most popular music fits the same pattern.

http://www.irenejackson.com/phrasing.html
http://www.eijkhout.net/lead_follow/hit_the_breaks.html

Wow, Albanaich, those videos are amazing. Thank you for sharing. And I can see your point that a musical dancer will be able to demonstrate their musicality even when improvising -- and even when dancing to music they have never heard before. Incredible.

And this statement is just beautiful: "It's a glorious, unmatched feeling you are dancing like that, both working with each other to hit phrasing and the breaks -- its why I dance." To be able to really dance to the music as you describe would be such a wonderful feeling. I'm not anywhere near it, but it is definitely my goal.

I'm running out, so I haven't read the information in the last two links, but will when I return -- thanks for sharing.

I'm sorry the discussion didn't take the original turn you were hoping for...perhaps it still will as more people read the recent posts you've made in this thread. I don't have anything more to contribute, unfortunately, but will definitely continue to read as the thread develops.

Thanks again...

[Albanaich]

If you really want to 'dance to the music' you'll have to become a Swing or Argentine Tango dancer :-)

[Dave]

3 of them are not dancing, they are doing 'synchronised movements to a beat', if you used a compressor or a metronmome for the beat - you would get the same dance. The music played is unimportant to their 'dancing' :-(

What they are doing has no contact with the music being played, other than they are in time with the beat.This is obviously not true for the Ceroc competition video, (as well as the choreographed DiscoFox routine that you are singling out as musical). You may not think they are doing it well, but they are clearly paying attention to more than the beat.

They dance through the breaks, are out of alignment with the musical phrasing, and unaware of the emphasis points in the music.There's a big difference between being aware of the emphasis points and being able to accent them while still dancing to everything else. In the heat of a competition, I've certainly had the experience of trying to repeatdly get back 'on phrase' and finding that the move I was planning to use to do so has taken too long because my partner started a little slow (and so I replaced a single spin by a double to stay on beat), or I overturned, or (most often) simply because the move I was planning to do takes longer than I realised.

It's astonishing that people can be allowed to get that level (and they are all competing in significant competions) without any musicality whatsoever.There's a lot more to musicality than whether you hit the breaks and phrasing. One thing Ceroc (and I'd say the Discofox couple to a fair extent) tends to be bad at is characterizing the music. Other than "fast/slow", the 'feel' of a Ceroc dance tends to be the same, whatever the music being danced to. (This is improving, but not by a lot, IMHO). Ballroom dancers consider this very important, and they consider Ceroc dancers unmusical because of it, just as we consider them unmusical for dancing through breaks.

Incidentally, have you ever videoed yourself dancing? (Dare I ask, have you ever posted some on YouTube?). There's a huge tendency amongst MJ dancers (possibly others - I mainly know MJ dancers) to think that their dancing looks a lot more musical than it actually is. A lot of what is going on "in the head" doesn't actually show up on video.

Which isn't what's in the head doesn't exist: I've led variations to hit something in the music, my partner has said "hey, it was totally awesome the way you did that variation to that bit in the music", and then you look at the video, and the totally awesome variation is completely invisible there. Which just goes to show that video is a very harsh judge when it comes to musicality.

[Albanaich]

Well firstly I'm not a Ceroc dancer, its something I do when I can't get Swing or Argentine Tango. It's my 'dance McDonalds'.

I haven't videoed my self, (and wouldn't doing Ceroc) though I regulary practise in a dance studio with mirrors (AT and Swing) - so I do know what I look like dancing.

WCS and Lindy force you to be on top of the phrasing because you have to hit the anchors. In fact I got into Swing because someone noticed I was trying, instinctively, to put anchors into Ceroc, which then becomes a different dance - I now throw in ocho's and gancho's as well as Swing stuff into Ceroc.

Ceroc 'competion' video is interesting in that the couple in the foreground are ghastly, (not even on beat, the guy hardly moves his feet!) while the couple in the background are fairly compentent.





Ceroc is, as you point out, generally difficult to put musical emphasis on because of the music, which is a steady beat which generally drowns out the melody.

I would consider both Ceroc and Ballroom to be 'unmusical' and locally it shows up in the choice of dance people do, with a lot of crossover between Swing and Tango but not between Swing and Ceroc or Ballroom.

[wooh]

Dancing in front of a mirror is different than dancing on video. You automatically make adjustments when you can see yourself in the mirror, for good or bad.
Please put some video of yourself online so we can all learn what dancing musically is like.

[Dave]

Well firstly I'm not a Ceroc dancer, its something I do when I can't get Swing or Argentine Tango. It's my 'dance McDonalds'.

I haven't videoed my self, (and wouldn't doing Ceroc) though I regulary practise in a dance studio with mirrors (AT and Swing) - so I do know what I look like dancing.Speaking as someone who used to practice 3 days a week in a studio with mirrors and a video camera, I think it's completely different looking in a mirror. I also find it hard to imagine how you can really get a good idea of what your overall dancing looks like from a mirror.

WCS and Lindy force you to be on top of the phrasing because you have to hit the anchors.Depends what you mean - it's perfectly fine not to anchor on the "8-count" phrasing in WCS:

From the Lead and Follow FAQ: there are all kinds of variations ... but the predominant count is still 6-count. The fact that the music is 8 counts just means that on one move, you're accentuating "1", the next move "3", the next "5", etc. That's the beauty of the dance as far as I'm concerned.

(Personally, I find the performances I enjoy most stay pretty much on 8-count phrasing, whatever the FAQ might say, but it's not required according to the dance, or indeed even desirable according to the FAQ).

[CANI]

If you really want to 'dance to the music' you'll have to become a Swing or Argentine Tango dancer :-)
:D Love it!! I've got my hands full with the five International Standard dances right now. From your post and others, I definitely can see the beauty of Swing and Argentine Tango...I'm not trying them yet, but I'm sure some day I won't be able to resist! :D

Enjoy -- and I'm interested to hear people's opinions on the questions you've raised. Hopefully more will chime in soon with their opinions.

[Dave]

Ceroc 'competion' video is interesting in that the couple in the foreground are ghastly, (not even on beat, the guy hardly moves his feet!) while the couple in the background are fairly compentent.If I actually look at what he's doing, I see:

(a) His movements are not simply synchronised to a beat.
(b) He is not (usually) dancing through the breaks.
(c) He is clearly aware of emphasis points in the music.

Compare with what you said:

3 of them are not dancing, they are doing 'synchronised movements to a beat', if you used a compressor or a metronmome for the beat - you would get the same dance.
They dance through the breaks, are out of alignment with the musical phrasing, and unaware of the emphasis points in the music.

and you are far more wrong than right. (I'm inclined to give you "out of alignment with the phrasing" - I think they're more 'on phrase' than would happen purely by chance, but it's not by much).

In fact, as someone whose dancing can often fall into the same flaws, I'd say his main problem is what you get by following your advice unthinkingly: concentrating too much on hitting breaks and accents, and letting the basic dancing to the beat suffer.

(The other really grating thing in it are some horrible lifts that bear no link to the music. This is kind of a "competition" thing - lifts are allowed but not required. Doing them often makes no sense and looks bad, but it's what people think the judges expect them to do. And very very few people have the ability to do freestyled lifts with any kind of musical connection whatsoever).

Ceroc is, as you point out, generally difficult to put musical emphasis on because of the music, which is a steady beat which generally drowns out the melody.Disagree. Consider the clip under discussion - it's hardly a steady beat that overrides the melody.

I would consider both Ceroc and Ballroom to be 'unmusical'

Ceroc: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keFOf44GbpM&feature=related (not in the same musicality league as the WCS pros, but I'd put it comfortably above the "good" Discofox clips personally)

Ballroom: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQv8FSi37NA&feature=related

[Albanaich]

After closely examining the Ceroc video - which I did not do in the first instance - I am forced to agree with your observations Dave, they guy is trying to hit the emphasis points in the music, but somehow or other everything else goes horribly wrong.

The lifts (as in the Discofox and ECS) are done at random points in the music and he has lost 'synchronisation' probablly, as you point out because he's trying to be 'too clever' with the lifts and musical interpretation.

He would probablly pick up the beat better if he moved his feet, but he needs to stay on both feet because he's on a continous roll of lifts and dips.

What attracted by eye was the same as what caught my eye with the other video's - the random lifts and dips.

[DL]

Is musicality important in dancing? I think "yes," and as far as I can tell nobody here is suggesting otherwise.

Is musicality the *only* thing that's important in dancing? I think "no."

Do people have different talents, aptitudes, learn things in different orders, teach things in different orders, and place different importance on different aspects of dancing? I think "yes." Is this valid even when musicality doesn't take priority over other aspects of dancing? I still think, "yes."

Do people's priorities in dancing shift over time? I think, "yes."

Are there people who don't (yet) do a good job of incorporating musicality into their dancing? I think, "yes."

Should everyone refrain from learning and having fun with dancing unless/until their musicality "measures up" to an arbitrary qualitative standard posted in a DF thread? I think, "no."

Is there a useful purpose to be served by picking videos off the web and finding ways to agree upon and pick apart all of the perceived flaws in the depicted dancing? I think, "no."

Can we pick out whole styles (e.g. "ballroom") and suggest that musicality is inherently absent from them, or that they are lesser dance forms? Is there any merit to the suggestion that 1 in 10 naturally gifted people, regardless of training, have a better understanding of dance than the other 90% of the dancing population? Is it productive to assert that particular fellow DFers don't understand dancing?

I can't see any reason to start down any of those roads, except as a troll; but am I blindly missing a point? (I'm really asking.)

As for musicality, surely its importance is independent of style. There's no question in my mind that -- "even" in ballroom -- one may observe the same figures danced to the same music by two different couples, and appreciate each couple's dancing quite differently based upon the way they interact with the music. In fact, how could musicality matter at all if it were style-dependent?

[CANI]

As for musicality, surely its importance is independent of style. There's no question in my mind that -- "even" in ballroom -- one may observe the same figures danced to the same music by two different couples, and appreciate each couple's dancing quite differently based upon the way they interact with the music.

I agree. It isn't something I've paid particular attention to, nor remembered as a frequent topic in the time I've scanned DF. After searching, there are some really interesting threads on this for Standard (and other styles).

[Albanaich]

The more we dance, the more different kinds of dance we do, the more different kinds of dance we watch, the more we learn, the better dancers we become.

If music is not important to dance why not just have a steady beat and skip the melody (I suppose that is what 'strict tempo' ballroom music is mind you)

I think the point is dance means different things to different people, which was the point I was the making. The 10% or so of people who are musical, or have a natural ear for music see and experience dance as something quite different from those who do not.

In the same sense, a trained gymnast will experience dance as something quite different from the couch potato piano player.

Different dance forms demand different abilities from the dancer. If you are a musical dancer, you literally have to 'switch yourself off' from the music if you are to do ballroom well - I know, I've had to do it.

If you are Ballroom dancer your inclination will be to learn more and more physical detail (steps) but it won't improve your creativity or interpretation in Swing ot AT.

I've had experience of all the major dance forms (I don't mean few weeks, I mean a year or so at least of classes) and its much like learning a new language and culture.

If you speak German, and you are in Germany, you start to think like a German, the language shapes the way you think.

So it is with dance, which is in itself a form of language, the vocabulary of Ballroom shapes the way you think about dance, just as it is the vocabulary of music that shapes the musicians understanding of dance.

If we are to understand dance as whole we have to broaden outlook.

[Dave]

If music is not important to dance why not just have a steady beat and skip the melody (I suppose that is what 'strict tempo' ballroom music is mind you)

I think the point is dance means different things to different people, which was the point I was the making.The problem is, your posts have a habit of coming across as "dance means different things to different people, but my interpretation of what it means is the right one".

Different dance forms demand different abilities from the dancer. If you are a musical dancer, you literally have to 'switch yourself off' from the music if you are to do ballroom well - I know, I've had to do it.And if want to dance WCS well, you have to dance WCS timing and styling even if the music is crying out for a Cha Cha.

If your dancing looks the same, regardless of the style of music you're dancing to, that is arguably just as unmusical as it looking the same regardless of the highlights and phrasing in the music.

Different dances, different emphasis.

Now I *like* the way WCS emphases musicality. But it's a heck of a stretch to go from there to say other approaches "aren't dancing".

[DL]

If music is not important to dance...


Did you notice anybody asserting that, here?

[Albanaich]

My interpreation 'right'??? - just forthright and based on my experience. What's right for me might not be right for you.

It took me a while to figure that out, which is a reason for pointing that only about 10% of people intuitively dance, or attempt to dance, to the music.

I put a lot of effort into trying to 'crack' ballroom before realising the problem was in my head - not my feet. Similarly, going back to try some ballroom recently after doing AT changed my whole perspective.

It's a complex issue, but think its important that we know 'where we at in terms of our natural abilities as dancers'

It would have saved a lot of grief if some dance instructor has said something like

I'll score you 8 out 10 for musicality, 7 out of 10 for agility and balance and 3 out of ten for the ability to learn steps - you should be doing this style of dance. . . . .

Contradicting myself, its also true to say I learned a lot from trying to learn something I did not have a talent for.

You have to make the effort struggle with something to understand where the problem lies.

In a sense posting video's of people dancing and asking the question 'what do you see right or wrong' about this is a way of measuring out own abilities against others.

Why does this work and why doesn't this, or why do you see this differently from me is what it is all about.

There's not enough of that kind of discussion on this board. . . . . .

Or to remembering what one well known very musical Ceroc instructor said to me after we had both danced with a well co-ordinated but utterly unmusical girl. 'I can't begin to imagine what she is hearing in her head'

[Dave]

My interpreation 'right'??? - just forthright and based on my experience. What's right for me might not be right for you.When you start saying (effectively) "people who disagree with me aren't dancing", then yeah, you're insisting your interpretation is the right one.

In a sense posting video's of people dancing and asking the question 'what do you see right or wrong' about this is a way of measuring out own abilities against others.

Why does this work and why doesn't this, or why do you see this differently from me is what it is all about.Which is very definitely not what you did. By your actions, you very obviously set it up as a "I'm going to test you people, and I'm not going to explain what criteria I'm looking for, and if any of you don't give the 'right' answer, I'm going to look down on you".

That is *no* way to have a civilised discussion.

As a secondary point, I think that if you're going to discuss people's dancing, you should at least be polite about it. This is particularly true if the people you're talking about may well see your comments. Ceroc's a relatively small world, particularly in Scotland. (I know personally every couple in that video clip, and I know at least one other poster to these threads does as well).

[Albanaich]

No, what I'm saying is that if you are unable to hear the phrasing, timing and breaks in a piece of music and intutitively respond to them - then by my estimation (and it is 'by my estimation and the estimation of those of us who are 'musical) you cannot understand dance.

I'm saying that those who do not have similar abilities to me can't appreciate how I see the world.

I happen to be blind in one eye - I don't have stereovison - I see the world in a completely different way from most people (and its not the same as shutting one eye because if you are blind from birth you develop interperative 3D cognistion)

I did NOT set out to test people - I intially made the assumption that people would see things the same as me (like when they hand out 3D glasses at the cinema) I was then curious to see how many people DID see what was different.

It was a not a test to see 'who is cleverer than me' but rather an attempt to see what cognition people were having of the situation.

To put it another way, if you'd asked what dance they were doing I would have guessed they were all doing Modern Jive - not ECS, Discofox and Ceroc, because I would not have been able to identify the slight variations in footwork, my cognition of what is important in dance is different.

So the answer the question turned up was not the one asked. I had assurmed the most people would interpret dance in terms of its relationship to the music, the answer I got was that most people are concerned what the structure of the form was.

And Dave, for someone who doesn't like lecturing, you're doing a pretty fine job. . . . . .

And of course, perhaps more importantly, its got people posting, sometimes you need to liven up quiet message board. . . .

'So you think you can dance' is a bit more provocative than 'understanding musicality in dance'

[Albanaich]

And. . . DL

"Is musicality the *only* thing that's important in dancing? I think "no.""

If music is not the 'only' thing that its important in dance - why not just drop it . . . .I'm sure a lot of dances would enjoy dancing to the rhythm of an air compressor.

It wouldn't make a lot of difference to most ballroom dancing if you took away the music and replaced it with a steady beat or continous repeating phrase.

If you can do what you want to do without music - are you dancing?

Is music integral to dance or isn't it? Can you have dance without music?

[Dave]

No, what I'm saying is that if you are unable to hear the phrasing, timing and breaks in a piece of music and intutitively respond to them - then by my estimation (and it is 'by my estimation and the estimation of those of us who are 'musical) you cannot understand dance.No, you said "3 of those couples are not dancing" (the ones you considered unmusical). So you did, effectively, say that people who disagreed with you weren't dancing.

It was a not a test to see 'who is cleverer than me' but rather an attempt to see what cognition people were having of the situation.

Quotes from you:

"To me its obvious"
"The whole fact that I am (against my wishes) having to explain that, I find rather sad."
"people could not see what was wrong and did not want to admit it."
"You were given a challenge ... you clearly failed"
"If people want to put their head on the chopping block - that's their problem."

That's not the behaviour of someone wanting to see what cognition other people were having, it's the behaviour of someone playing dominance games.

In addition, several people asked for clarification, as they saw several differences between all the dances, and you were completely unhelpful. Again, not the action of someone actually wanting a discussion.


And Dave, for someone who doesn't like lecturing, you're doing a pretty fine job. . . . . .I'll note that I'm not the one who has (multiple) forumites complaining about my posts.

However, since I disagree strongly with your view that such arguments make for good 'forum reading', and since I like the way discussions on dance-forums.com are usually cordial and polite, I'll shut up now and take the moderators advice on ignoring certain people.

[DL]

So the answer the question turned up was not the one asked. I had assurmed the most people would interpret dance in terms of its relationship to the music, the answer I got was that most people are concerned what the structure of the form was.


Do you really think that's the message at the heart of the replies on this thread? It seems to me that nobody has argued against the importance of musicality. It even seems to me that some people have even tried to support its importance directly.

However it also seems to me that discussion of musicality here has been muddied by provocation, denigration of other people's dancing, dismissal of whole dance styles, and the like. That kind of thing is contentious and wholly unnecessary to explore the kinds of issues you're raising now (which in fact do seem like worthy fodder for discussion, to me).

I personally found it aggravating to encounter commentary such as:

DL- fairly simple. If what you are doing on the dance floor has no relationship to the music being played - then you are not dancing. 'Strict tempo' music was created for ballroom dancers because 99% of them can't dance. The whole concept of 'strict tempo' is an open admission that you can't dance to either the rhythm or the music.


That you [(DL)] want to avoid that debate clearly shows you are not interested in dance.



DL ... you can't tell if someone is dancing to the music. You were given ample opportunity to show you that you could and failed. Is that demeaning? Well of course it is. Some of us move on from failure to understanding why we failed. So now you know that however able you are in technique, like those dancers in the video, you have no understanding of music. Which is exactly the point I wanted to make.


Is this all just because

sometimes you need to liven up quiet message board


??

[Albanaich]

Three of those couples are indeed 'not dancing' in the sense that what they are doing has little or no contact with the music.

You have a problem with that Dave?

And - To me it is obvious - next question

"To me its obvious"
"The whole fact that I am (against my wishes) having to explain that, I find rather sad."
"people could not see what was wrong and did not want to admit it."
"You were given a challenge ... you clearly failed"
"If people want to put their head on the chopping block - that's their problem."

That is the behaviour of someone who can't understand why someone can't see the obvious,

Or to put it another way, I've just put the 3D glasses on in the cinema and am complaining that they don't make a difference.

You take them off me - they work for you, I put them back on again and tell you they still don't work - where's this going to go Dave?

We have mutually incompatible cognitions of the situation. The point is, and this is central, that our perception is correct ONLY from our point of view, we don't know, and can't understand why someone would see something completely differently.

You either end up shouting at each other or both walk away thinking the other is a completel idiot.

[DL]

And. . . DL

"Is musicality the *only* thing that's important in dancing? I think "no.""

If music is not the 'only' thing that its important in dance - why not just drop it

Didn't I say this immediately before the selective quote you picked?


Is musicality important in dancing? I think "yes," and as far as I can tell nobody here is suggesting otherwise.



Moving on:


It wouldn't make a lot of difference to most ballroom dancing if you took away the music and replaced it with a steady beat or continuous repeating phrase.



That's simply not true.



Is music integral to dance or isn't it? Can you have dance without music?


Someone once told me that sometimes in flamenco, the musicians follow the dancers, not the other way around.

I've seen some pretty good "a capella" tap performances.

I could go down the road of the other aspects of dancing that I think have merit in addition to musicality, but honestly what's the point? I've gained the impression that you would be completely dismissive no matter what.

For a while there you talked about your personal learning experiences in dancing and it seemed like there could be useful discussion of, I don't know, which dance styles are most accessible to which learning styles, or which dance styles showcase which elements of dancing in particular, or things like that. That sort of discussion seemed like it might be interesting.

[wonderwoman]

Why is this nonsense still going on?

[SDsalsaguy]

If you really want to 'dance to the music' you'll have to become a Swing or Argentine Tango dancer :-)
About as ignorant a statement as I've ever seen... especially as "dancing to the music" is a function of the dancer, not the dance. Perhaps you could try to continue posting without this sort of drivel?

[Dave]

Why is this nonsense still going on?Perhaps I shouldn't have fed the troll. However, I think the responses have been informative in removing any doubt about certain people's behaviour.

I think a discussion about musicality across dance forms could actually be interesting and informative: I'm pretty sure there actually are quite different priorities between different dances. But I don't think you can have such a discussion unless everyone works very hard to be open-minded and not judgemental. People have to open themselves up quite a bit if they're going to say "actually, I can't see that in the dancing at all - can you explain it for me?", or "I don't really worry about that in my dancing". Someone responding with "How can you possibly not see that?" or "Well in that case you're not dancing" is just going to kill the conversation stone dead.

[Albanaich]

In Cape Breton step dance the singer and the dancer accompany each other, the same happens in Purit a Bheul - here's a pretty neat example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqxFTotvvo8

Of course I'm dismissive of you DL you can't the music. . . . .I can't explain to you what I hear any more than than I can explain what a Pre-Rhaphaelite painting looks like to a blind person.

The point is that there is small minority of dancers whose cognition, understanding, of what dance is completly different from the mainstream. That has good aspects and bad aspects, but it is completely different.

And this is a recurring debate, there are threads, articles and discussions across this board about how musicians experience dance as something different to non-musicians.

You keep saying that 'music' is an important factor in dance - but asked if you can have dance without music the answer is. .. . .

"That's simply not true."

Music is not just an 'important' factor in dance its an 'essential factor' in dance., certainly dance has other elements, but you can't have dance without music, and if you can't hear the music, you aren't dancing.

[dancelvr]

You keep saying that 'music' is an important factor in dance - but asked if you can have dance without music the answer is. .. . .

"That's simply not true."

Music is not just an 'important' factor in dance its an 'essential factor' in dance., certainly dance has other elements, but you can't have dance without music, and if you can't hear the music, you aren't dancing.


Hmmmmm.......ya think? I've seen some heartbreakingly beautiful lyrical routines danced to whale song and the sound of wind in the trees. Not a musical instrument or human voice anywhere near.

Just sayin..................

[wooh]

but you can't have dance without music, and if you can't hear the music, you aren't dancing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZxfRpL5GVo&feature=related

Yeah, Savion Glover and Gregory Hines certainly "aren't dancing." :rolleyes:

[etp777]

Love both those guys, an dcan certainly dance. When you choreograph a number for a cartoon penguin, I think you know something about dance. :)

[DL]

Of course I'm dismissive of you DL you can't the music.


Have we met and I haven't realized it? I think you're in no position to render your assessment -- for whatever that's worth -- of my ability to (hear?) the music.


You keep saying that 'music' is an important factor in dance - but asked if you can have dance without music the answer is. .. . .

"That's simply not true."
Actually, it was like this:



It wouldn't make a lot of difference to most ballroom dancing if you took away the music and replaced it with a steady beat or continuous repeating phrase.


That's simply not true.



Moving on:

Music is not just an 'important' factor in dance its an 'essential factor' in dance.
If it is an essential factor, it surely isn't the ONLY essential factor.


...you can't have dance without musicThat, also, is simply not true.

[samina]

I think a discussion about musicality across dance forms could actually be interesting and informative: I'm pretty sure there actually are quite different priorities between different dances. But I don't think you can have such a discussion unless everyone works very hard to be open-minded and not judgemental. People have to open themselves up quite a bit if they're going to say "actually, I can't see that in the dancing at all - can you explain it for me?", or "I don't really worry about that in my dancing". Someone responding with "How can you possibly not see that?" or "Well in that case you're not dancing" is just going to kill the conversation stone dead.

We've had discussions on this before and they've been very enjoyable and interesting, and I find the topic applicable to all styles... including Standard. In fact, I *really* enjoy watching videos of the best Standard dancers in the world in that style to see how they are able to express themselves through the music.

IMO, the harder the technique, the longer it may take before genuine musicality can find its way into fluid expression. The vehicle and the couple are limited in many ways until technique evolves and the dancers acquire mastery. Then, they begin to experience the freedom that allows for beautiful mastery.

Musicality in WCS and AT seem easier at first -- or at least, more immediately practicable -- because the technique is...what's the word... less complex? more "codified"? Ballet, Standard, and Latin all strike me as requiring extremely rarified training just to get the body to move in the desired manner. Musicality is secondary at first.

Reminds me of when I'm learning a new piece of classical piano -- musicality has to be set aside for a time, until the technique is learned. But in a freer style of music, such as improvisational jazz, a simple framework is provided and musicality is there straight from the start (and the dance analogy for that style would be for me WCS and AT).

So perhaps it can't be a blanket statement as to where, when, and how musicality comes into play. Although for an advanced, technically proficient dancer, that's where it can be realized fully. Just my thoughts on it...

[etp777]

FInally placed where I've heard this same type of claim before. Jazz musicians who claim that traditional orchestral musicians don't truly understand music because they're playing from sheet music instead of improvising.

[Albanaich]

"But I don't think you can have such a discussion unless everyone works very hard to be open-minded and not judgemental. People have to open themselves up quite a bit if they're going to say "actually, I can't see that in the dancing at all - can you explain it for me?", or "I don't really worry about that in my dancing". Someone responding with "How can you possibly not see that?" or "Well in that case you're not dancing" is just going to kill the conversation stone dead."

So basically Dave you agree with what I've posted but would have tried to get a social consensus before saying it. . . . . .It's only right if first we get permission to say it?

Unfortunately, the 10% of dancers are who are musical driven in their dance are never going to get permission to say what they REALLY think, because it is at odds with the rest of what the dance community want to hear.

You can't have serious debate without conflict and you can't even start a debate if you have to have consensus first. . . . .

So any serious debate has to start with conflict and disagreement - not the other way round, once we get past the intial outrage phase we start exploring and defining what we are actually disagreeing about.

You don't move from consensus to disagreement, you start with disagreement and then through arguement and debate move to a consensus.

Of course if you want an enviroment where everyone tells everyone else what they want to hear, you make sure anyone who disagrees with the consensus is gagged.

It makes quiet and boring message boards. . . . . ..

[j_alexandra]

The statement that there's no musicality in ballroom dance is so egregious that it provokes me to wonder if the OP is being deliberately provocative just to stimulate bandwidth use on DF, or simply wants to pick a fight with someone, anyone, and chose DF as the arena.

You want musicality in ballroom?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OukSJSpQN-g

[samina]

but you can't have dance without music
Thing is... there is a quality that precedes the music...the music is just an audible expression of something else. So if one is hearing that inner resonance, or connecting with a partner and feeling it mutually, there is no need for music to be playing for dancing to occur.

Not at all. I fell in love with dance because of something far more profound than the music playing. Paying attention to the music itself is several layers up from the source of real dancing between two people, IMO. It's an interplay between what is felt and communicated between the fingertips, the ground, the natural forces moving through the individual and between the two bodies...the connection that occurs between two central nervous systems. I can feel all these things without music playing.

"Music" is a very limiting way to narrow all this down.

[Albanaich]

Wooh awesome, absolutely awesome. .. . . .. . now put socks over their shoes so you can't here the drumming of their shoes. . . . . shaking head in disbelief.

[samina]

[FONT=Book Antiqua] it provokes me to wonder if the OP is being deliberately provocative just to stimulate bandwidth use on DF, or simply wants to pick a fight with someone, anyone, and chose DF as the arena.


well, yes...ergo the multiple trollish implications... ;)

but it's a great subject overall, and perhaps we can salvage the thread, yet. :D

[Dave]

So basically Dave you agree with what I've posted but would have tried to get a social consensus before saying it.No I don't agree with what you've posted. In case you missed it in my previous reply to you, I don't think it helpful if I continue replying to you, so let's just leave it at that.

[samina]

FInally placed where I've heard this same type of claim before. Jazz musicians who claim that traditional orchestral musicians don't truly understand music because they're playing from sheet music instead of improvising.

yes, exactly. and again, i think it gets back to the more codified technique or framework. freedom of expression can come in only after that has been mastered, or at least in stages.

[samina]

Wooh awesome, absolutely awesome. .. . . .. . now put socks over their shoes so you can't here the drumming of their shoes. . . . . shaking head in disbelief.

huh...have no idea what you mean.

if my standard instructor ever heard the drumming of my shoes i'd get an earful. *grin*

[etp777]

I think he's stating that tap doesn't qualify as dance in his book either. Better not let flashdance see that. :)

[DL]

Unfortunately, the 10% of dancers are who are musical driven in their dance...


Do I remember incorrectly, or did you simply make up that 10% number?

Edit to add:
I started to replace this post with just:
<oh, never mind>

but etp777 replied to it before I did so.

[etp777]

90% of all statistics are made up. :)

[samina]

I think he's stating that tap doesn't qualify as dance in his book either. Better not let flashdance see that. :)

Or at least, set up a trayful of cakes to ease the shock. ;)

[etp777]

Red velvet, I hope.

[samina]

Ah yes... twas my wedding cake many years back. A lotta good that did me, heh. :D

[wooh]

Literally "can't hear the music" (I find it to be pretty cool stuff...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jTdvlIz6To

Albainach, you don't have to have people agree with you, but being polite goes a long way. Once again, I ask you to please post some videos of your dancing so we can all learn what "real dancing" is...

[etp777]

How about a pistachio honey cake from island of Aegina then? Looks interesting at least. :) And I'm always a fan of recipes with honey

[samina]

How about a pistachio honey cake from island of Aegina then? Looks interesting at least. :) And I'm always a fan of recipes with honey

oh, oh... now that's something i know about! :D

been to aegina...brought home kilos of pistachios from aegina...in love with greek thyme honey...okay, thanks for the fresh inspiration. :D

(not quite sure if i'm done with the hijack yet...it's a worthy detour)

[etp777]

oooo, good reminder wooh. One of pros at my studio is deaf in one ear, and partially deaf in other. And he's one of top (or rather, him and his partner) couples in his style in the country right now. But of course, it's a ballroom event, so that doesnt' count as real dancing. ;)

[Albanaich]

I see little or no musicality in the link you posted. . . . . could you explain where it is? I can't see it.

It may be obvious to you - it isn't to me.

Seriously. . . . .

Which is why we are having this debate, and why it is so fractious, some of us, have a way different perception of what constitutes dance and musicality.




(http://www.dance-forums.com/member.php?u=39685)

[wooh]

I see little or no musicality in the link you posted. . . . . could you explain where it is? I can't see it.

It may be obvious to you - it isn't to me.

Seriously. . . . .

Which is why we are having this debate, and why it is so fractious, some of us, have a way different perception of what constitutes dance and musicality.




(http://www.dance-forums.com/member.php?u=39685)

I saw the musicality. Maybe because I've played a number of instruments over the years. Some I even played well. It's shocking to me you didn't see it. You earlier claimed to be musical, but now I see that obviously you can't dance. (Although, I'd prefer to critique actual video of you instead of judging your dancing based on comments, as you seem to enjoy doing.) If you were as musical as you claim, you'd see the beautiful musicality, the many working as one to create a visual symphony to match the symphony of music being played.

[Albanaich]

I've not been impolite at all - I've just said what think, and what I think is somewhat different from the consensus.. . . . .for a lot reasons, which we are, now at last, exploring.

If your idea of what constitutes 'good dancing' is diametrically opposed to the consensus - then its impossible to say what has to be said without causing offence of somekind.

As for tap, would it be tap if was silent? What you are talking about is dance as form of music in its own right. . . . . again, I would've thought of that as mind bogglingly obvious. . .

[Albanaich]

Haven't you taken this thread back to exactly where it started?

The challenge now is for you to explain to me politely, without causing offence, that I have not got a clue about the musical interpretation of the Foxtrot.

Off you go. . . . .

[wonderwoman]

Stop trolling!

[samina]

you're speaking about the pino & alessandra foxtrot posted on the closed thread?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OukSJSpQN-g

brilliant. they are IMO two of the most musically nuanced standard dancers on the planet. this is a very good example.

[Albanaich]

After months of looking on this board to see some really enthusiastic debate, and finding none, we finally get some going and its killed.

You can't have a lively board without disagreement and conflict. . . . and I do find it quite amusing that we actually went full circle. . . . .

[etp777]

Funny, all the rest of us seemed really happy with the forum before your post. maybe you and the rest of DF have different needs in a forum.

[wonderwoman]

you're speaking about the pino & alessandra foxtrot posted on the closed thread?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OukSJSpQN-g

brilliant. they are IMO two of the most musically nuanced standard dancers on the planet. this is a very good example.

Wow, this was really cool!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mpEMH9LByg&feature=related

[GJB]

you're speaking about the pino & alessandra foxtrot posted on the closed thread?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OukSJSpQN-g

brilliant. they are IMO two of the most musically nuanced standard dancers on the planet. this is a very good example.

OT: William and Alessandra just got married !

[samina]

OT: William and Alessandra just got married !

i know...such a joy to celebrate that! *sigh* :D

[wonderwoman]

Awwww! :)

[bjp22tango]

Different dance forms demand different abilities from the dancer. If you are a musical dancer, you literally have to 'switch yourself off' from the music if you are to do ballroom well - I know, I've had to do it.

If you are Ballroom dancer your inclination will be to learn more and more physical detail (steps) but it won't improve your creativity or interpretation in Swing ot AT.

I've had experience of all the major dance forms (I don't mean few weeks, I mean a year or so at least of classes) and its much like learning a new language and culture.

If you speak German, and you are in Germany, you start to think like a German, the language shapes the way you think.

So it is with dance, which is in itself a form of language, the vocabulary of Ballroom shapes the way you think about dance, just as it is the vocabulary of music that shapes the musicians understanding of dance.

If we are to understand dance as whole we have to broaden outlook.

Albanaich, I don't dispute a lot of what you say, but if you've only had a year or so of many styles of dance you are just scratching the surface of what can be done in those dances.

To make a blanket statement that you have to switch off your musicality to dance ballroom is to show your ignorance of the dance.

I am going to assume that you are a "natural dancer" as you have mentioned before with a "natural feel for musicality". You state that 90% of "dancers" don't have this and shouldn't therefore be called dancers.

I would just like to point out something. Michael Jordan might be considered one of, if not THE, most natural talent to come out of basketball and Tiger Woods the same in Golf. However, if they thought that 90% of the people they played with weren't really playing basketball or golf, they would quickly find themselves alone.

As has been mentioned before, people come to dancing for many different reasons and from many different vantage points. They progress at different speeds. What they are working on at any given point is different from everyone else.

If I were you, I wouldn't spend my time at dances looking at the 90% of the dancers that don't measure up to your standards. I would be searching out the 10% that do and keep improving myself.

[bjp22tango]

I lurk a lot because I tend to write books when I do post.
I'm going to break up what I have to say in, hopefully, small chunks.


I'm going to describe the average social dancer I dance with. By "social" I will define someone who takes group classes either regularly or sporadically and wants to progress around the floor without getting in anyone elses way.

Many of these dancers want to "socialize" with the person they are dancing with. It's a date night out for couples, friends want to catch up on each other, someone is looking for a potential date.

In other words, they AREN"T listening to the music other than the underlying beat.

They enjoy the time moving to the music with each other, leading/following simple basic moves.

A "DANCER" is going to look at them and see no musicality other than keeping rhythm (maybe not even that). But they are having fun, enjoying themselves and consider themselves to be dancing.

[bjp22tango]

I'm going to describe a beginning dancer, in any style.

They have learned a few movements, maybe in a pattern, maybe not and have been told to dance them to music.

If they are not in any way athletic before they start dancing, this is going to be a challenge in itself, because they will be constantly be fighting for balance. Attach another person to them and it's a wonder they can keep rhythm at all. Add any kind of inhibition about being close to another person and another set of hindrances get added to the mix.

These "dancers" might look like they are stopping and starting, over and over trying to find a rhythm together. Any hope of being "musical" is a far distant thing.

[bjp22tango]

I'm going to describe an "Intermediate" dancer who has been dancing for awhile, taking group lessons. They know several patterns and can dance them without much thought. They may or may not be dancing connectedly with their partner. The follow may be dancing themselves instead of listening to the lead. The lead may assume the follow knows all the same steps and fail to lead. If either of the partners attempts to dance to anticipated break, swell, or hit in the music it may happen or not. When it does, those are the happy accidents that get dancers excited about improving.

[bjp22tango]

In the mix of social dancers a many like to dance for the dancing and music itself, but not all.

Those who do are going to invest in the time themselves to listen to music, to dance to music, to take lessons, to listen to all the points made in class, in private lessons, and on forums like this and will take them and try to implement them.

However, we cannot take everything in all at once.

We may intellectually know how to emphasize musical "light and shade" long before we can put it into physical practice. So much depends on the partnership between dancers.

West Coast Swing, Lindy Hop, Blues, Argentine Tango all emphasize musicality and improvisation. BUT, I've danced my fair share of dances in all these styles with leaders who had NO concept of either.

Of the above, all but the Blues take a good investment of time before the dancing becomes comfortable and recognizable as "dancing". I don't know how many people I've heard say they dropped Argentine Tango because they got tired of "walk, walk, walk"

The Ballroom dances were "designed" to teach people to dance quickly and easily. Patterns are taught as a shorthand. However, these patterns are based on lead/follow principles and when developed beyond the basics allow the dancers a vast amount of room for playing with musicality and improvisation.

[bjp22tango]

I both lead and follow.

I learned to lead because I was frustrated with the inevitable over ratio of women to men at dances and because I find it hard to sit still when music is playing.

I love to follow because it allows me to go quiet in the mind and respond to balance challenges. Staying with the leader while he changes my direction, tempo, and frame is just as much fun as listening to the music and making sure he stops just THERE or slows down just THERE.


I love to lead because it allows me to play with the musical rhythms, counter rhythms, and melody. I find it great fun to get the follow to dance a syncopation that matches the music when she/he wasn't expecting it. But I get just as much satisfaction from getting the follow to keep a steady rhythm with me if that is all that they are capable of or all I want to dance.

[bjp22tango]

Rhythm is what makes us dance. All the musical embellishments over the top of rhythm is what makes us emote to it.

Most people will hear or feel rhythm, so will dance to it.
Some people will hear the dance possibilities in the counter rhythms and melodies and will expand the dance possibilities.

All we can hope is that we find someone or someones of like mind and abilities to share our love of dance with.

End of rant.

THE END

[Terpsichorean Clod]

In the examples shown you have people winning competions with no musicality whatsoever.
I think what people do in competiton will tend to vary depending on what the judges at that particular competition are marking. In cases where the judges have only a few seconds to look at each couple, it may be be very difficult for the judges to mark musicality, so the judges may prioritize other qualities. Outside the competition floor where a couple would likely be doing what it takes to win, a couple's dancing might look very different.
How do we teach people to listen to the music?
I've taken a few west coast swing group classes from Kelly Casanova (2-time U.S. Open Swing Dance champion). One was an intro to musicality. She explained how WCS songs are often structured, how many measures till the break. Then, to simplify things, she had us walking slowly in a circle, one step per beat, counting towards the break. Kelly suggested some options to execute for the break, but suggested we just freeze, as the purpose was to find the break rather than to style. When we'd gotten somewhat comfortable with this exercise, we tried doing it without counting, so we could learn to find the break by feel. Then we tried actually dancing, but sticking to bare basics - sugar pushes, side passes, and underarm turns. I found it interesting that this was just an ordinary group class that anyone with about a month's experience (like I) could've walked in on. In my experiences with other dance styles, musicality tends to be taught only in special workshops, often advertised for advanced dancers.

I'm not saying that WCS, AT, salsa, etc. are less technical, but I feel that at least for ballroom, technique is a prerequisite for musicality. :)

[Terpsichorean Clod]

Some people have posted videos of competitions while others have posted videos of performances/show dances. I think it's important to distinguish between performances where the dancers select the song and competitions where the dancers don't know what song is going to be played. In the former, musicality is usually a given, while in the latter, any musicality is improvised.

I think the dancing in this video is improvised.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWIAjPhAkgs

[Dave]

I've taken a few west coast swing group classes from Kelly Casanova (2-time U.S. Open Swing Dance champion). One was an intro to musicality. She explained how WCS songs are often structured, how many measures till the break. Then, to simplify things, she had us walking slowly in a circle, one step per beat, counting towards the break. Kelly suggested some options to execute for the break, but suggested we just freeze, as the purpose was to find the break rather than to style. When we'd gotten somewhat comfortable with this exercise, we tried doing it without counting, so we could learn to find the break by feel. Then we tried actually dancing, but sticking to bare basics - sugar pushes, side passes, and underarm turns. I found it interesting that this was just an ordinary group class that anyone with about a month's experience (like I) could've walked in on. In my experiences with other dance styles, musicality tends to be taught only in special workshops, often advertised for advanced dancers.

I'm not saying that WCS, AT, salsa, etc. are less technical, but I feel that at least for ballroom, technique is a prerequisite for musicality. :)Speaking from a swing perspective, the most useful advice I was given for learning musicality was:

"when you think the music is going to do something interesting, acknowledge it in your dancing. Even if you're in the middle of a move, and all you can think of to do is stop abruptly, do that".

Now part of the rationale for that is "when you first start trying to acknowledge breaks and accents, you're going to suck at it, and you have to get through that, and the best way of getting through it is to try to acknowledge them anyhow". (Edit: and it's for this reason I think it was useful to me - it got me to try, even if I was worried about getting it wrong).

But I do think there's also quite a different attitude about whether it's better to mess up the technical side of the dancing in order to try to acknowledge something in the music, or to keep the technical side as clean as possible even if it means ignoring changes in the music.

In some ways I have a foot in both camps: when I dance Modern Jive socially, it's very much about the musicality - the rest is just mechanics, and you try not to mess up, but I'm pretty happy to mess up if I'm trying to do something interesting with the music.

But when I competed in Modern Jive it was in the airsteps (lifts to freestyle music) category. And that category is really all about doing as many technically impressive lifts as possible in the time. If you only did them at appropriate points in the music, you wouldn't get anywhere. And obviously, you're not going to risk messing up during an overhead lift because you noticed something you wanted to accent in the music.

[Dave]

I think the dancing in this video is improvised.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWIAjPhAkgsI don't know ballroom or most of the tracks well enough to make well-informed comment. But I have danced (swing) to the Quickstep track, and I have a couple of ill-informed comments to make: :)

Starting at about 1:55, the lyrics go "I've got you and you've got me so reach for the stars" (emphasis mine). To a swing dancer, I'd say the one accent you're really wanting to hit in that sequence is the word "reach" (not coincidentally, it's the name of the track) and I don't really see it in the clip (I see a change in the dancing, but it's not very big).

Then, Victor puts Anna into a dip at 2:16 to end the section. Now I'm somewhat reaching here, because it might be that he had to stop at that point for some reason (it looks like he stopped and then the DJ faded the CD, but I wouldn't swear it wasn't the other way round). But to a swing dancer, that's a really weird time to stop and do a dip - less than two seconds later, there is a big break in the track which I would consider the perfect place for the dip. (The music fades out so you never hear the break - but if you listen to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6cbsFzdBr4 it's at about 1:31).

In fact, if I were dancing to that section, those two things would be the two most important things to acknowledge in the music - the dancing for several bars before each of them would have been largely trying to make sure I was well set up for when they happened. So Victor and Anna's handling of them does look quite strange to my ill-informed eyes.

To be clear, I'm not saying my interpretation is the right one; in fact, I'm expecting to be told why they did it differently, or that I'm missing something in their dancing. I'd be interested in hearing what people with better knowledge of ballroom think. (I confess that I have no idea how you would reasonably accent "reach" in that track while dancing quickstep, which may well be a telling point).

[kayak]

Notice in the last piece Melissa Rutz is taking the lead (hijacking) whenever she feels the lead hesitate, she knows what's happening with the music even if her lead doesn't

This came up a bunch of pages back and I didn't read the thread very closely because they are usually the same.

I have had the privilege of meeting both dancers in the video and they are very talented. I was just going to point out that while Melissa no doubt has tons of natural dance talent, she is not untrained. There are few ladies on the planet that have more or better training than I believe she has.

I thought the depth of training was important because the same thread comes up every 6-8 weeks. The comparisons always end up comparing swing gods vs swing mortals. As a swing mortal, it isn't hard to see that both Melissa's technique and musicality is better than mine or most of the example videos.

[CANI]

I'd be interested in hearing what people with better knowledge of ballroom think. (I confess that I have no idea how you would reasonably accent "reach" in that track while dancing quickstep, which may well be a telling point).

Interesting discussion...I'm interested as well.

[CANI]

This came up a bunch of pages back and I didn't read the thread very closely because they are usually the same.

I have had the privilege of meeting both dancers in the video and they are very talented. I was just going to point out that while Melissa no doubt has tons of natural dance talent, she is not untrained. There are few ladies on the planet that have more or better training than I believe she has.

I thought the depth of training was important because the same thread comes up every 6-8 weeks. The comparisons always end up comparing swing gods vs swing mortals. As a swing mortal, it isn't hard to see that both Melissa's technique and musicality is better than mine or most of the example videos.

I think it was very nice to include great dancers showing great musicality. The foxtrot example provided is also of top level dancers.

[kayak]

I think it was very nice to include great dancers showing great musicality. The foxtrot example provided is also of top level dancers.

I think it is actually better to showcase the master's skills in videos. Comparing a master dancer's videos against all the rest of our videos is just an exercise in the obvious isn't it? It is like comparing a ripe apple to a bud - most of us are searching for our potential.

Someday, my Waltz is going to look like Victor and Anna's :p

[CANI]

I think it is actually better to showcase the master's skills in videos. Comparing a master dancer's videos against all the rest of our videos is just an exercise in the obvious isn't it? It is like comparing a ripe apple to a bud - most of us are searching for our potential.

Someday, my Waltz is going to look like Victor and Anna's :p

Oh, I have come to love some of the you tube posts as I never search for them on my own. ;) I love the inspiration.

You raise an interesting point -- one that came up earlier. Does one have to have a certain level of technique before they can dance with musicality?

I'm inclined, with my admitedly limited knowledge of standard to say that one does -- even if one has a natural talent for musicality. What do others think? Actually now that I ask this question, it might be impossible to answer because so much depends probably on your physical abilities prior to starting standard I would guess.

It leads to an interesting question also about learning and when a teacher might introduce this concept to students in a particular style.

I don't know really anything about WCS and AT or other styles...but would be very interested about musicality in all styles, not just standard.

I'm sure you will waltz like Victor and Anna one day!! That would be a dream come true for me looking at that video. :D

[Terpsichorean Clod]

Now part of the rationale for that is "when you first start trying to acknowledge breaks and accents, you're going to suck at it, and you have to get through that, and the best way of getting through it is to try to acknowledge them anyhow". (Edit: and it's for this reason I think it was useful to me - it got me to try, even if I was worried about getting it wrong).

But I do think there's also quite a different attitude about whether it's better to mess up the technical side of the dancing in order to try to acknowledge something in the music, or to keep the technical side as clean as possible even if it means ignoring changes in the music.
Yes, I think that's where competition can be at odds with musicality. It takes a bit of time to recognize a dance couple's musical expression, but only a split second to spot their technical slip-up. Depending on the number of couples on the floor, there may not even be enough time to recognize musicality. It seems the potential costs are substantial, while the benefits, if any, are pretty slim.

[Terpsichorean Clod]

I don't know ballroom or most of the tracks well enough to make well-informed comment. But I have danced (swing) to the Quickstep track, and I have a couple of ill-informed comments to make: :)
I think you should stop with the ill-informed references to yourself. I don't think you would necessarily have to know ballroom. And I'm not sure why you would need to know the tracks well. The dancers probably don't know all the tracks either, so you're on even footing. :)
Starting at about 1:55, the lyrics go "I've got you and you've got me so reach for the stars" (emphasis mine). To a swing dancer, I'd say the one accent you're really wanting to hit in that sequence is the word "reach" (not coincidentally, it's the name of the track) and I don't really see it in the clip (I see a change in the dancing, but it's not very big).
I didn't really see much at 1:55, either. In fact, that's one of the reasons I think it very likely that they were improvising to a song they hadn't heard before. At about 2:00, they begin some hopping while turning (I don't know the proper term). It's about 3 measures late, but I think it fits the character of the song's chorus. At 2:07, they do a contracheck to accent the 3rd "reach".
Then, Victor puts Anna into a dip at 2:16 to end the section. Now I'm somewhat reaching here, because it might be that he had to stop at that point for some reason (it looks like he stopped and then the DJ faded the CD, but I wouldn't swear it wasn't the other way round). But to a swing dancer, that's a really weird time to stop and do a dip - less than two seconds later, there is a big break in the track which I would consider the perfect place for the dip. (The music fades out so you never hear the break - but if you listen to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6cbsFzdBr4 it's at about 1:31).
As mentioned earlier, I suspect they may not have heard the song before. I've never heard it at any socials, competitions, or on any ballroom music CDs. Also, I think it was meant to be a very informal technical demo/illustration, with musicality being secondary. Possibly not knowing the percussive section was coming up soon, they may have just decided the studio audience had seen enough and to stop right there.

In fact, if I were dancing to that section, those two things would be the two most important things to acknowledge in the music - the dancing for several bars before each of them would have been largely trying to make sure I was well set up for when they happened. So Victor and Anna's handling of them does look quite strange to my ill-informed eyes.
Hmmm, I agree about trying to acknowledge accents, but I also feel there is a lot of music in the 16 measures between that should also be acknowledged. I guess there's a question of trade-off between preparing for a break vs. concentrating on dancing the current music. If it were like 0:37 in here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bB5xL577r4, where everything but the vocals stop, I would tend to interpret it as an accent or break deserving of more attention. In "Reach", it feels like the vocals, instruments, and percussion keep going. It is the beginning of a new phrase, but I get the feeling more of stress rather than accent. I feel similarly about 1:31 in "Reach" when it's just the percussion playing. But that's just my interpretation. :)

[kayak]

You raise an interesting point -- one that came up earlier. Does one have to have a certain level of technique before they can dance with musicality?

I'm inclined, with my admitedly limited knowledge of standard to say that one does -- even if one has a natural talent for musicality. What do others think?

A lot of recent discussion has focused around technically sound dancers not connected to the music. I think the opposite is equally as bad and maybe worse. The counter to the robot look is the total spastic look of musicality without structure.

[kayak]

Speaking from a swing perspective, the most useful advice I was given for learning musicality was:
"when you think the music is going to do something interesting, acknowledge it in your dancing. Even if you're in the middle of a move, and all you can think of to do is stop abruptly, do that".


I liked how stopping was used as a musicality tool in a bunch of the workshop demo clips from Victor and Anna to accent phrase changes in the music.

[Dave]

I don't think you would necessarily have to know ballroom. And I'm not sure why you would need to know the tracks well. The dancers probably don't know all the tracks either, so you're on even footing. :)Well, I think I know enough ballroom to know I don't know enough ballroom, if that makes any sense. A lot of what I hear about ballroom musicality is things like altering the timing by stealing slightly from one beat to put the emphasis on another. I think I'd really have to struggle to notice that (other than subliminally), it's quite an alien concept to me.

As for knowing the tracks well: that was somewhat badly put on my part, and probably confusing. I don't need to know the track well to comment on musicality, but I do need to "understand" the genre. In the first piece of music they use, I'm really struggling to see anything I'd latch onto in the music myself, so it's much harder to comment on what they did.

I didn't really see much at 1:55, either. In fact, that's one of the reasons I think it very likely that they were improvising to a song they hadn't heard before.Even if I'd not heard the track before, I'd have a pretty good idea that something interesting was going to happen at 1:55. The phrase starts about 6-7 seconds earlier and you can hear that the music changes, moreover, that the music is now 'building'. You don't know for sure when the climax is going to be, but odds are it will be 8, 16 or 32 counts from the start of the phrase. As you approach 8 counts in, there's nothing to indicate a change, so it's probably not there. As you approach 16 counts, there's a big change in the drums, and you can be confident that something will happen.

At about 2:00, they begin some hopping while turning (I don't know the proper term). It's about 3 measures late, but I think it fits the character of the song's chorus. At 2:07, they do a contracheck to accent the 3rd "reach".Agreed. They're very definitely using the music rather than "dancing to a metronome". The thing is, if you're coming from another genre, I think it's much easier to spot where someone didn't do something that where they did, so there's a tendency to only criticise.

As mentioned earlier, I suspect they may not have heard the song before. I've never heard it at any socials, competitions, or on any ballroom music CDs.It's pop music and was a fairly big hit in the UK. I'd expect most people (dancers or not) would have heard it a few times, but that may be different in the US. Though in a sense that's not enormously relevant, because even without knowing the track, I'd know it was likely something was going to happen 2 seconds after they stopped from the phrasing of the music. It would be much more natural as a place to stop.

Hmmm, I agree about trying to acknowledge accents, but I also feel there is a lot of music in the 16 measures between that should also be acknowledged.Oh absolutely, but (IMHO), for a swing dancer, the two "priority one" things to acknowledge are those I mentioned. (This is true even if I don't know the track, incidentally - I don't know where those 'moments' are going to be, but I'm looking for them).

My personal feeling is that swing tends to emphasis musicality "in the large". The focus is about structure and phrasing over many bars. With some tracks you might be discussing what happens 96 counts down the line. There's relatively little discussion about "feel", and what happens during an individual bar, let alone an individual beat. Ballroom seems rather opposite. At the highest level, in either dance, you need to deal with both, of course.

I guess there's a question of trade-off between preparing for a break vs. concentrating on dancing the current music.For me, absolutely. And it's why I really don't agree with Albaniach's comment about "those people don't understand music". Lots of time I know what the music's going to do, but we're committed to finishing one quite long move we'd already started and then the follow's momentum coming out is in the wrong direction for what I'd really like to do next, and "Oh dear, we've danced through the break".

[Obviously this may also be happening with Victor and Anna; on the other hand, they're (at least) a couple of orders of magnitude better dancers than I am, so I'm kind of assuming that's not an issue.]

If it were like 0:37 in here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bB5xL577r4, where everything but the vocals stop, I would tend to interpret it as an accent or break deserving of more attention. In "Reach", it feels like the vocals, instruments, and percussion keep going. It is the beginning of a new phrase, but I get the feeling more of stress rather than accent. I feel similarly about 1:31 in "Reach" when it's just the percussion playing. But that's just my interpretation. :)And everyone will have their own feelings about what's appropriate, and probably their own terminology. For what it's worth, when I say "accent", I'm generally meaning something you'd acknowledge without really interrupting the dancing - something like the contracheck would be fine, but a dip that took 4 beats would really be too much.

On the Reach track in particular:

I agree that the first accent (on "reach") is actually fairly small. It's interesting, because just listening to the build-up, I'd say it probably "ought to" be a bigger accent than it actually turns out to be. So if you didn't know the song, I'd actually expect you to overreact there, at least the first time.

The second accent, I would say is really a break. It's pretty large, and I think it would be pretty strange to dance normally through it in a swing dance context.

[Albanaich]

Yes Dave, most Modern Jive and even WCS dances think about dance as linear process, or at least try to interpret it as a linear process. The music comes towards you, you've got to fill the time till the next accent. You either change the length of your patterns, lengthen them or fill them with anchors to hit the accents and breaks.

Do that and you'll look good. . . . but what makes exceptional?

What I've learned from Lindy Hop and Argentine Tango is that you've got more than that to play with than that. . . . . .you've got your frame and feet.

How often do you see a MJ dancer drop to the floor - its very rare, but its routine in Lindy. How often to you see a MJ dancer one leg, its unusual.

You can't do hieght changes or patterns in AT so to emphasis the accents you have use footwork, gancho's ocho's etc.

Height changes (Lindy)

http://www.kevinandcarla.com/videos/video_barswingona2003Lg.htm

Footwork (Argentine Tango)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj12nUQKrBE

Now take another look at Melissa Rutz in that masterpiece of improvisation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk_17vLycV8

The changes in hieght are oh so subtle, but they make all the difference.

He drops his hieght at 08

She drops at 31 and 40

They both drop at 1.08

Footwook at 1.17, then a footwork lock at 1.20 for the break, then more footwork.

And so on, go through it yourself. If they did that routine without using frame or footwork, to emphasis the music, it would look good, but it would not look exceptional.

This is all being done at the 'instinctive level', they are not thinking about when the next break is coming or changing frame or moving feet. They are certainly familar with the track which is a WCS standard, but they are just letting thier bodies, frame, footwork, and patterns flow alongside as another element of the musical process.

And I expect nobody told taught them that. Certianly that kind of control over your body and feet takes a lot, maybe a lifetime, of practice, but how you use those skills are function of the music and who you are dancing with.

To show the difference, here's a strong WCS (perhaps you'll recognise him :-) dancer not using his frame and footwork for improvisation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BpqX7WYyb8

Get the idea?

[Albanaich]

Kayak - While Melissa Rutz's ability might be the product of a lifetime of training, its worth pointing out that Tessa Cunningham, who is certainly in the same bracket as Melissa Rutz, did not start dancing till she was out of college and did not move to Swing till she was in her mid 20's, having done ballroom and latin first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEMWulxPQ9U

So pure talent, natural ability, counts for a lot. . . . . . . .

[Peaches]

you're speaking about the pino & alessandra foxtrot posted on the closed thread?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OukSJSpQN-g

brilliant. they are IMO two of the most musically nuanced standard dancers on the planet. this is a very good example.
OK. I'm sticking my neck out here and half expecting it to get chopped off, but oh well. It won't be the first time. :rolleyes:

I don't see how that is an example of musicality.

It's beautiful, to be sure. And I'm assuming it's more than adequately technically proficient. ;)

But I honestly don't see how the dancing fits the music. Before they really start dancing FT I can see how things have been fitted...but then not so much. I see them moving to the underlying beat, but I don't see how the dancing fits with the other things (smooth v. sharpness, what the vocals are doing, etc.).

Could someone, please, point out what about this performance makes it stand out as being musical? (Asking honestly, not trolling or snarking.)

[Peaches]

You can't do hieght changes or patterns in AT so to emphasis the accents you have use footwork, gancho's ocho's etc.Haven't read this entire thread. Don't much care to. But didn't want to let this go by without commenting.

You are absolutely incorrect. Height changes, or what I'd call rise and fall (not, obviously, in the traditional BR sense), can be a very big part of AT dancing. Not a lot of leaders use it, which is quite unfortunate, but the more--dare I say it?--musical ones do. But you absolutely can use height changes in AT.

[Albanaich]

I agree Peaches, but its not, as you point out, the general pattern of things, there is far more emphasis on using the footwork for musicality for most people.

I was using the AT - Footwork, Lindy - Frame examples to show how a broad experience of dance affects our understanding of other dance forms and our ability to see what is going on in terms of musicality.

If you look at that example of Lindy Hop - I see some AT influences there. Do you?

AT is pretty much like Lindy in that you can use ANYTHING for musical emphasis, a Lindy expert would tall you that footwork is essential to musical interpretation (check the video out!) I was generalising for the sake of example.

You were right to correct me. I do have a habit of didactic generalisation that often gets me into trouble :-(

As for the video - I don't see much musical interpretation in either, or to be honest, I do see it, but only because I've done a little ballroom.

Ballroom dance is so rigidly defined as a form, tiny variations show up a lot - to another ballroom dancer. It would be nice to get someone from the ballroom community to explain where the musicality is.

[Peaches]

If you look at that example of Lindy Hop - I see some AT influences there. Do you?Not particularly. I see a few moves that look very similar to AT steps, but I wouldn't say it looks AT-influenced. If anything, I'd guess that the AT moves were influenced by other genres, not the other way around.

I love Lindy. One of these days I think I'd like to learn it. It always looks to me like a neat cross between ECS and WCS, and since I like both of those dances...

[Albanaich]

Lindy, certainly in Europe, is much closer to the AT ethos than either WCS or ECS. Locally we have a huge 'crossover' between the two communities (possiblly because they share the same venue on alternate nights!)

A lot of WCS dancers (who often have little musicality) want to convert WCS to a rigid ballroom type formula that is readily reproducible and understandable for the masses, they want to do to WCS what the ballroom community did to Argentine Tango. . . . . Yuk!!!

I like to see Swing as a community like that of AT, with WCS in the role of salon style and Lindy as Milonga.

[Dave]

Yes Dave, most Modern Jive and even WCS dances think about dance as linear process, or at least try to interpret it as a linear process. The music comes towards you, you've got to fill the time till the next accent. You either change the length of your patterns, lengthen them or fill them with anchors to hit the accents and breaks.

Do that and you'll look good. . . . but what makes exceptional?

What I've learned from Lindy Hop and Argentine Tango is that you've got more than that to play with than that. . . . . .you've got your frame and feet.I don't particularly disagree with the last bit, but I think you've misunderstood my earlier post. The point I was making is that "as a swing dancer, if nothing else, you're going to try to hit those two big accents". That doesn't mean there should be "nothing else", but pretty much everyone will agree about those accents, and what you should do with the rest will be much more open for debate.

How often do you see a MJ dancer drop to the floor - its very rare, but its routine in Lindy.
How often to you see a MJ dancer one leg, its unusual.But I think has much more to do with technique (and fitness) than musicality. You don't often see MJ dancers drop to the floor, because the typical MJ dancer would end up climbing back upright in a most ungainly fashion. You won't see them on one leg because they don't have great balance, or the extension and control to make the other leg look anything other than some withered offshoot they've forgotten about.

.

I think you'd have more a case talking about general use of level changes in MJ. But the average MJ dancer is struggling enough simply to control their posture beyond "horribly hunched" (I know I am), so again, there's a big technique hurdle here.

As far as feet - I use them; not as well as I should, but I do. Can't generally lead what I'm doing to my follow though. Again, MJ footwork technique varies between bad and horrible.

This is all being done at the 'instinctive level', they are not thinking about when the next break is coming or changing frame or moving feet. They are certainly familar with the track which is a WCS standard, but they are just letting thier bodies, frame, footwork, and patterns flow alongside as another element of the musical process.I don't see how you can know this is all instinctive, at least in the general case. I've heard quite a lot of WCS pros talk about musicality, and I'm always surprised just how analytical many of them are about it. (God knows I couldn't possibly count 27 beats from the previous accent while carrying on dancing as some of them seem to expect!)

Of course many people can just "hear" the music, and that seems to be a more 'instinctive' thing than something you can learn. The problem is that if you're leading a partner, you need to actually predict what the music's going to do so you can actually lead it. More than that, you need to predict it early enough that you're not going to be stuck doing something completely inappropriate that you started 8 beats ago, and you're committed because your partner has a load of momentum to control.

In addition, although you can fairly easily tell "OK something shoud be about to happen in the music", it's much more difficult to tell what that something is going to be. In a lot of cases, it's impossible. So in practice most leads have a pretty big mental database of "stuff that happens in tracks". (Extreme case: Robert Royston talked about a track where a rhythm change caused a 1 beat shift in the timing, with the result that even top pros would end up dancing off time and wondering what on earth just happened).

So to sum up, I don't think the instinctive understanding of music is that crucial (and I also think it [i]can be learned to a large extent, but that's maybe a different discussion).

Certianly that kind of control over your body and feet takes a lot, maybe a lifetime, of practice, but how you use those skills are function of the music and who you are dancing with.My feeling is that that level of technique is much rarer than the musicality though.

As a sort-of thought experiment: If I were to dance that track by myself, then, in my mind, I'd say I'm as musical as they are. Sure, we might take different approaches, and maybe I'd look at something they did and think "yeah, that was cool, I wish I'd thought of that", but I don't feel outclassed. But with two huge caveats:

I said "in my mind", and I know that what's going on in my mind isn't going to be translated into my dancing. An earlier quote from Kayak: "The counter to the robot look is the total spastic look of musicality without structure." comes to mind.

Secondly, dancing it by myself (without a partner) gives orders of magnitude more freedom than dancing with a partner. In terms of "instinctiveness", it's much much more possible for me to dance it instinctively, because I only have to anticipate maybe 1 beat ahead.

So I really do think a huge amount of this is to do with technique, at least as far as MJ dancers go. Even things like leads not moving their feet on beat (which seems a fundamental musical error) often has a lot more to do with "not being able to do two things at once and I was concentrating on my arms" than anything else.

[CANI]

OK. I'm sticking my neck out here and half expecting it to get chopped off, but oh well. It won't be the first time. :rolleyes:

I don't see how that is an example of musicality.

It's beautiful, to be sure. And I'm assuming it's more than adequately technically proficient. ;)

But I honestly don't see how the dancing fits the music. Before they really start dancing FT I can see how things have been fitted...but then not so much. I see them moving to the underlying beat, but I don't see how the dancing fits with the other things (smooth v. sharpness, what the vocals are doing, etc.).

Could someone, please, point out what about this performance makes it stand out as being musical? (Asking honestly, not trolling or snarking.)

Hi Peaches -- I'm glad you stuck your neck out -- because I was too chicken to do so!! I have all the same comments and questions. And, like you, they are honest questions because I don't understand.

[samina]

You are absolutely incorrect. Height changes, or what I'd call rise and fall (not, obviously, in the traditional BR sense), can be a very big part of AT dancing. Not a lot of leaders use it, which is quite unfortunate, but the more--dare I say it?--musical ones do. But you absolutely can use height changes in AT.
my exposure has been only brief, but my very first couple dances in AT clearly included height changes.

[Dave]

Hi Peaches -- I'm glad you stuck your neck out -- because I was too chicken to do so!! I have all the same comments and questions. And, like you, they are honest questions because I don't understand.I don't really get it either. (Perhaps unsurprisingly, given my background)

I can point out places where I think there's obvious musicality (the section from 1:55 to 2:02 is the best example for me), but that's a very long way from being able to say whether it's a great musical performance and if so why.

And certainly there are parts of it that I don't see reflecting the music - the strangest bit to me is at around 1:45 to 1:50; to be honest it actually looks to me like they go *wrong* there - the head movements don't quite seem to match the timing of the crescendo, and then there's a big hesitation a couple of beats later, than I assume was intentional, but just looks like, well, a hesitation to me.

[samina]

I don't see how that is an example of musicality.

It's beautiful, to be sure. And I'm assuming it's more than adequately technically proficient. ;)

But I honestly don't see how the dancing fits the music. Before they really start dancing FT I can see how things have been fitted...but then not so much. I see them moving to the underlying beat, but I don't see how the dancing fits with the other things (smooth v. sharpness, what the vocals are doing, etc.).

i watched again to see...and still see it. look in the areas before and after the long stretches of floor-crossing figures. look at their rhythmic foot placement as they delicately create delay or play out some feature of the music. i can see phrasing as they do the longer patterns, when they choose to initiate a movement with the swell of a turn in the music. i see turning of the head to punctuate the music, not as a superficial action but as the outcome of connected movement between the two. there is certainly the use of sway to move and express the music. each time i watch the vid, the cleanness of their connection to the music becomes more apparent.

with these two, what i love so much about their dancing, is that they have a kind of sensitive articulation i more associate with latin dancing, and while this particular dance doesn't showcase that articulation very well -- IMO because of the music they're dancing too -- when they are doing tango and QT, by comparison, i see their use of it a lot to express musicality quite dynamically. they are interesting to watch because of it.

[DancingMommy]

Agreed, Samina. I was having a hard time *not* seeing the musicality. The thing of it is, Foxtrot by it's very nature is understated. It's not necessarily "in your face", ya know?

[samina]

Agreed, Samina. I was having a hard time *not* seeing the musicality. The thing of it is, Foxtrot by it's very nature is understated. It's not necessarily "in your face", ya know?

ya, i agree, with FT it's pretty subtle.

i think that appreciation for any art form, especially the more codified and technically demanding ones, increases with familiarity of what makes that particular form so challenging.

i'm sure that pros who've been around this stuff for years will see all kinds of things my own eyes can't yet see.

[Dave]

ya, i agree, with FT it's pretty subtle.

i think that appreciation for any art form, especially the more codified and technically demanding ones, increases with familiarity of what makes that particular form so challenging.If it's not too big a request, I think those of us who aren't familiar with the form would find it helpful if you could mark out a couple of places where you think the musicality is particularly apparent and explain what you see going on there.

[samina]

sure, i can do that. bear in mind, i'm no pro, i'm no expert on this...but i can certainly share what i see thru my own eyes.

[Albanaich]

I think the answer here Dave is that the way I experience dance is completely different from your. . . .

I couldn't walk the dance through in my mind detached from the other person or the environment

To me that would be sort of equivalent to playing air guitar in silent room.

I need the feed back from the instrument I playing, the press of my finger on the frets, the tension of the strings, the base guitar, the drums - its a total experience, in the hear and now, not something I could isolate, or want to isolate.

Logically you would expect dealing with a partner who hijacks the lead more difficult - I actually find it easier. I don't know why, but I think its something to do with dance as a dynamic experience,

As for the two ballroom dancers - I expect you would see the musicallity much more if you poured 4 pints of Stella Artois in them.

It's there, the movements of the head, the slight rockings movement of the torso, but so subtle as to be invisible to a non-ballroom audience.

[Dave]

sure, i can do that. bear in mind, i'm no pro, i'm no expert on this...but i can certainly share what i see thru my own eyes.Thanks. I know that as it's much less "in your face", it's probably a lot more difficult to describe than we've been getting away with on the swing side. (A few years ago, I vaguely recall seeing a multi-page discussion about one step being taken by a top ballroom couple, with frame-by-frame analysis and all. Yikes!)

[CANI]

I think the answer here Dave is that the way I experience dance is completely different from your. . . .

I couldn't walk the dance through in my mind detached from the other person or the environment

To me that would be sort of equivalent to playing air guitar in silent room.

I need the feed back from the instrument I playing, the press of my finger on the frets, the tension of the strings, the base guitar, the drums - its a total experience, in the hear and now, not something I could isolate, or want to isolate.

Logically you would expect dealing with a partner who hijacks the lead more difficult - I actually find it easier. I don't know why, but I think its something to do with dance as a dynamic experience,

As for the two ballroom dancers - I expect you would see the musicallity much more if you poured 4 pints of Stella Artois in them.

It's there, the movements of the head, the slight rockings movement of the torso, but so subtle as to be invisible to a non-ballroom audience.

I can relate to your point that people experience dance in different ways. I could relate to Dave's points from practicing alone and picturing myself dancing while listening to music in my car.

That's fascinating that you can find hijacking a lead easier to deal with. It reminds me of posts I've read on DF about WCS experiences.

I do see some musicality in the foxtrot, but like Dave (and I'm in the ballroom community), there were a lot of places where I couldn't see it. I'm interested in continuing to hear the thoughts of those who do see it.

[samina]

If it's not too big a request, I think those of us who aren't familiar with the form would find it helpful if you could mark out a couple of places where you think the musicality is particularly apparent and explain what you see going on there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OukSJSpQN-g
okay, so i'll leave out the entrance and start at around :39.

there's a nice little wing around :40 slipped into a syncopation in the music.
there is a passage after that of long figures across the floor, and i see pino initiating movement in time with the vocals.

around 1:03, (the sequence with the lady's forward movement) the timing of the dancing is phrased nicely around the vocal phrasing, ending delicately on a musical pause movement coordinated in time to "late tonight" before picking up the next sequence.

look at 1:14-1:19, an expressive sequence leading into a sequence ending around 1:36 which is coordinating beautifully with the music -- watch their feet, when they initiate movement, how they handle the turns... FT is actually very interpretive within the framework of the general rhythm -- there is just so much room for invoking rubato movement by "hanging" and hovering, and it takes so much control and mastery to have that kind of freedom and be so gentle with it. just because it is gentle and nuanced here doesn't mean it's not an example of masterful musicality. it's subtle.

around 1:40, and in the sequence that follows -- more coordination of movement with the music. delay, use of feet, shoulders, connection to express the music... it's nuanced and wonderful.

after that, 1:55-2:03... should speak for itself. and they wait to step out of that in exact accentuation of the music.

i love the passage that follows, ending around 2:12 - crisp, delicate, and with the music. watch feet, the dynamic movement shared between them as it gets expressed through her head and back.

leaving that til about 2:23 -- use of feet and movement to play with the music seems obvious to me.

same from 2:29 til the end.

[samina]

As for the two ballroom dancers - I expect you would see the musicallity much more if you poured 4 pints of Stella Artois in them.

yikes. well, maybe it's simply just not your kind of dancing.

but musicality doesn't have to be big & sloppy. if it's in a more technically refined dance, it makes sense the use of musicality is going to be more technically refined...

the musicality of boisterous boogie-woogie on the piano is a far cry from the nuanced musicality of brahms...

[DancingMommy]

Agreed Samina. "Liquid courage" doesn't equal musicality. I feel sorry that there are those who can't or won't see the inherent musicality of each dance form for what it is.

This reminds me of the situation between Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor in Cleopatra. If I recall correctly, Cleopatra was Burton's first film, having come from "legitimate theatre". He played his scenes to the back row and felt that Taylor was not as accomplished an actor because she was so understated. As the story goes, he realized just how amazing she was when he saw the dailies and how just the arching of an eyebrow could say *so* much.

I think that prior to criticising the lack of musicality in [dance form], one might be better served to attempt it properly for themselves and then re-evaluate their stance. Which is the really nice way of saying "If you can't do better yourself [in the identical art form], don't criticise others".

[samina]

I think that prior to criticising the lack of musicality in [dance form], one might be better served to attempt it properly for themselves and then re-evaluate their stance.
i agree, in that attempting it does reveal how challenging it really is and what's involved. it then makes it easier to see and appreciate the control that is required for such delicate musicality.

it's the difference between expecting to hear a gale force wind when it's really the feather-breath of a baby. it's hard to notice at first. but gale force movement in standard=brutish and clumsy. controlled nuance=mastery & power.

that's what i appreciate so much about standard dancing -- the ability to be so lyrical comes only after so much hard work & training. it takes so much blood, sweat, and tears just to be mediocre...and it's pretty hard to be very musical at that level. take it from me. ;)

[Albanaich]

Yes, but you get the idea, ballroom is such a controlled, contrived environment, it would be nice to see the controll drop and see them responding freely to the music.

Interestingly WCS/Hustle is often a favourite with ballet dancers for 'relaxation' and 'creative experession'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDtypBWJeUA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uSsselX1zg&feature=related

Makes me wish I had the balls to go into a ballet studio and ask for lessons. . .. . .

The point was that the 'musicality' is so subtle only and insider can see it. With 4 pints of lager it might be a bit more obvious to the rest us.

[samina]

yes, but that freedom *is* what you're seeing in the musicality...acquiring that control is what allows the freedom. and if they drop the constraints of the dance, then... it's not that dance anymore.

they could break out into WCS in an FT but it's no longer an exhibition of FT, it's a composite show-piece.

[Dave]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OukSJSpQN-g
okay, so i'll leave out the entrance and start at around :39.

there's a nice little wing around :40 slipped into a syncopation in the music.
there is a passage after that of long figures across the floor, and i see pino initiating movement in time with the vocals.

around 1:03, (the sequence with the lady's forward movement) the timing of the dancing is phrased nicely around the vocal phrasing, ending delicately on a musical pause movement coordinated in time to "late tonight" before picking up the next sequence.

look at 1:14-1:19, an expressive sequence leading into a sequence ending around 1:36 which is coordinating beautifully with the music -- watch their feet, when they initiate movement, how they handle the turns... FT is actually very interpretive within the framework of the general rhythm -- there is just so much room for invoking rubato movement by "hanging" and hovering, and it takes so much control and mastery to have that kind of freedom and be so gentle with it. just because it is gentle and nuanced here doesn't mean it's not an example of masterful musicality. it's subtle.

around 1:40, and in the sequence that follows -- more coordination of movement with the music. delay, use of feet, shoulders, connection to express the music... it's nuanced and wonderful.

after that, 1:55-2:03... should speak for itself. and they wait to step out of that in exact accentuation of the music.

i love the passage that follows, ending around 2:12 - crisp, delicate, and with the music. watch feet, the dynamic movement shared between them as it gets expressed through her head and back.

leaving that til about 2:23 -- use of feet and movement to play with the music seems obvious to me.

same from 2:29 til the end.Thanks for this. I can see a lot of what you're saying now you point it out (to be fair to myself, I saw some of it before, but it's quite hard as a 'outsider' to know what bits are "clever musicality" and what bits are "well, that kind of happens automatically if you're dancing foxtrot to a foxtrot piece of music", if that makes any kind of sense).

I am still confused about what is going on at 1:45 to 1:50, but I'm not sure it would be useful to discuss it further unless you want to.

[samina]

I am still confused about what is going on at 1:45 to 1:50, but I'm not sure it would be useful to discuss it further unless you want to.
i'll take a look...hang on...

[Peaches]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OukSJSpQN-g
okay, so i'll leave out the entrance and start at around :39.

there's a nice little wing around :40 slipped into a syncopation in the music.
there is a passage after that of long figures across the floor, and i see pino initiating movement in time with the vocals.

around 1:03, (the sequence with the lady's forward movement) the timing of the dancing is phrased nicely around the vocal phrasing, ending delicately on a musical pause movement coordinated in time to "late tonight" before picking up the next sequence.

look at 1:14-1:19, an expressive sequence leading into a sequence ending around 1:36 which is coordinating beautifully with the music -- watch their feet, when they initiate movement, how they handle the turns... FT is actually very interpretive within the framework of the general rhythm -- there is just so much room for invoking rubato movement by "hanging" and hovering, and it takes so much control and mastery to have that kind of freedom and be so gentle with it. just because it is gentle and nuanced here doesn't mean it's not an example of masterful musicality. it's subtle.

around 1:40, and in the sequence that follows -- more coordination of movement with the music. delay, use of feet, shoulders, connection to express the music... it's nuanced and wonderful.

after that, 1:55-2:03... should speak for itself. and they wait to step out of that in exact accentuation of the music.

i love the passage that follows, ending around 2:12 - crisp, delicate, and with the music. watch feet, the dynamic movement shared between them as it gets expressed through her head and back.

leaving that til about 2:23 -- use of feet and movement to play with the music seems obvious to me.

same from 2:29 til the end.
THANK YOU!!!! I don't have the time right now to dig into this and watch to see what you've pointed out, but thank you for taking the time to explain what it is that you're seeing. For those of us who don't have the eye for it, for one reason or another, this is so helpful!

I think that prior to criticising the lack of musicality in [dance form], one might be better served to attempt it properly for themselves and then re-evaluate their stance. Which is the really nice way of saying "If you can't do better yourself [in the identical art form], don't criticise others"Good point, but I don't think it's strictly necessary to be able to execute the same thing yourself before you criticise. Helpful, but not necessary, so long as everyone knows the critique comes with huge grains of salt. But what is necessary, IMO, is an understanding and appreciation for what's going on.

DH often asks for my input when he's practicing a (piano) piece. It's happening right now as he's gearing up for his sister's wedding. I used to play, years and years ago, but nowhere on his level and it's been at least 10 years since I got near a piano bench to play. I freely admit that I can't do what I suggest to him. But, that said, I trust that I have a good enough ear to understand music to offer some valid criticism. Sometimes he takes my advice, sometimes we disagree and he doesn't, sometimes he tells me why something was done a particular way and not how I suggested. No, I can't do it...but I can understand and appreciate it.

I can't do standard, and I don't (yet!) understand enough to truly appreciate it. Which is why, when I say I don't see the musicality, it's not a slight and not saying it isn't there...it's just that I don't know what to look for, or how to look for it. I don't see it.

[samina]

And certainly there are parts of it that I don't see reflecting the music - the strangest bit to me is at around 1:45 to 1:50; to be honest it actually looks to me like they go *wrong* there - the head movements don't quite seem to match the timing of the crescendo, and then there's a big hesitation a couple of beats later, than I assume was intentional, but just looks like, well, a hesitation to me.

hmm...i don't seem to be seeing what you're seeing. i see their movement punctuating the music in a kind of building transition, and the turn of their bodies and heads beautifully right in with the syncopation of the music.

not sure about the hesitation you're seeing...around 1:55? just seems like there's just a bit of hover goin' on during a change of direction, there.

[samina]

Good point, but I don't think it's strictly necessary to be able to execute the same thing yourself before you criticise.

i agree...you just have to fail (at acquiring the control that will allow the freedom you want so you can really dance) long enough to wanna bash your head against a brick wall. appreciation comes pretty quickly after that. :cool:

[Dave]

i'll take a look...hang on...OK, to be specific, and please take it as read that I'm saying "I don't understand this", NOT "They're doin' it wrong".

I don't really get the timing of the dancers heads turns relative to the crescendo in the music. It's earlier than I would expect, and I can't really work out what the timing is connected to.

I find it strange that the dancing at this point is so understated, given the liveliness of the music.

In particular, there's one really big hesitation at around 1:48, that (upon repeated watching) I realise is certainly intentional, but I'm just not understanding why they'd want to do it during this crescendo.

[N.B. this crossed with your reply; I don't know if it makes things any clearer]

[samina]

I don't really get the timing of the dancers heads turns relative to the crescendo in the music. It's earlier than I would expect, and I can't really work out what the timing is connected to.
what i noticed about the timing of the turning of their heads (in that sequence) is that it's not with the crescendo of the music, but with almost staccato accent of underlying rhythm in the music (can't remember -- was it horns? they were clearly demarcating quarter notes...), and that alessandra turned her head sharply on the beat *before* pino. they were in sharp sequence, and it has such an artful effect to my eyes.

I find it strange that the dancing at this point is so understated, given the liveliness of the music.

again, i hear it as highlighting those quarter notes, which creates a kind of crescendo effect overall during that sequence. right after it, the tension is released and the music (and dancing) is soft...

In particular, there's one really big hesitation at around 1:48, that (upon repeated watching) I realise is certainly intentional, but I'm just not understanding why they'd want to do it during this crescendo.
yep, that's the sequence i'm talking about.

[DancingMommy]

Yes, but you get the idea, ballroom is such a controlled, contrived environment, it would be nice to see the controll drop and see them responding freely to the music.

...

The point was that the 'musicality' is so subtle only and insider can see it. With 4 pints of lager it might be a bit more obvious to the rest us.

The thing is... dropping the "control" of a dance like Foxtrot would NEVER make it better. It would only be SLOPPY. One can have control and still be musical.

And subtle is one of the intrinsic characteristics of Foxtrot. So dropping the subtlety would be dropping the character. Once the instrinsic character of a dance is divorced from it's dance form, then it is no longer the dance form itself, it's just *bad* dancing.

[DancingMommy]

i agree...you just have to fail (at acquiring the control that will allow the freedom you want so you can really dance) long enough to wanna bash your head against a brick wall. appreciation comes pretty quickly after that. :cool:

Too true!

[Peaches]

The thing is... dropping the "control" of a dance like Foxtrot would NEVER make it better. It would only be SLOPPY. One can have control and still be musical.

And subtle is one of the intrinsic characteristics of Foxtrot. So dropping the subtlety would be dropping the character. Once the instrinsic character of a dance is divorced from it's dance form, then it is no longer the dance form itself, it's just *bad* dancing.Agreed. (Saying that knowing full well that the same sentiment is often used against me when it comes to defining "what AT is," since I'm a no-holds-barred heretic when it comes to AT. Heh.)

Have gone back and looked a bit at the video along with the notes. It's making more sense now. A bit more, at least. It almost seems like there's a bit of a different way of thinking about how musicality is expressed within the confines of a "rigid" dance structure like FT...admittedly, I don't quite get it, but having specific bits pointed out is most helpful.

[Peaches]

i agree...you just have to fail (at acquiring the control that will allow the freedom you want so you can really dance) long enough to wanna bash your head against a brick wall. appreciation comes pretty quickly after that. :cool:Heh. I just got the bashing my head against a brick wall part, and then took the "Bugger all that for a lark" approach and high-tailed it away from anything remotely resembling a court shoe. And my feet (and neck, and back, and ego...heh...) have thanked me for it since then.

[Dave]

what i noticed about the timing of the turning of their heads (in that sequence) is that it's not with the crescendo of the music, but with almost staccato accent of underlying rhythm in the music (can't remember -- was it horns? they were clearly demarcating quarter notes...), and that alessandra turned her head sharply on the beat *before* pino. they were in sharp sequence, and it has such an artful effect to my eyes.In terms of my connecting it to something, her head is fine (if attached to an earlier beat than I'd expect), his head is more problematic (I can just about hear a high-hat that happens on the head turn, but it's very subtle).

again, i hear it as highlighting those quarter notes, which creates a kind of crescendo effect overall during that sequence. right after it, the tension is released and the music (and dancing) is soft...I can see it in a "darkest before the dawn" kind of sense, but it's still a strange choice to me.

For what it's worth, I'm actually very happy with the "conclusion" at this point, even though we are perhaps disagreeing. I think I understand what you're seeing here, and I can see it's valid, but I would personally have preferred a more direct approach to interpreting the music there.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I think a lot of the difference is about "subtle" v.s. "in your face". (For what it's worth, I have no problem with the idea that ballroom dancers are better at understanding subtle musicality than I am).

Which I think is actually all rather constructive, in terms of the discussion we've been having.

[samina]

And subtle is one of the intrinsic characteristics of Foxtrot. So dropping the subtlety would be dropping the character. Once the instrinsic character of a dance is divorced from it's dance form, then it is no longer the dance form itself, it's just *bad* dancing.
exactly.

"control" does not equal "rigid". control is mastery...to be able to hold or release however you wish, to be able to initiate movement and manage the energy of what you initiated.

[samina]

Which I think is actually all rather constructive, in terms of the discussion we've been having.
i agree, dave! :D

[DancingMommy]

Well, there's "innovation" and innovation, lol. One can innovate without destroying the character of a dance. Some people "innovate" with no respect to the origins of a dance form while others bring something fresh and new to a classic.

[samina]

Heh. I just got the bashing my head against a brick wall part, and then took the "Bugger all that for a lark" approach and high-tailed it away from anything remotely resembling a court shoe.

i can fully appreciate this, peach. it was... <<counting>>... two years of taking lessons with my instructor before i began to experience any enjoyment of standard. two years. of lots and lots and lots of privates, and pretty much living it outside of studio time to figure out how to unlock the keys that would get me out of standard hell.

it took one lesson with AT, and one lesson for WCS in which the basic framework was explained.

standard is a different beast. :D

[Peaches]

"Beast." Heh. Perfect word for that.

I'm just lazy. No way I'm gonna spend two years of lesson money to get two years worth of the World's Worst Migraines, to be remedied with two years worth of Advil, only to deal with the fallout of two years of leaving lessons feeling like dog poo on the bottom of someone's shoe...in the hopes that after I'll like it. Heh. It's just me and my instant gratification urges.

[Dave]

Slightly different note:

If you look at the routines performed on Strictly Come Dancing (UK) or Dancing With The Stars (US), the musicality is much more "in your face".

What do people think about this? I know (from being on a SCD discussion forum where most are non dancers) that that form of musicality is appreciated by the general public. But should the programs be trying to show a more 'classical ballroom' form of musicality (in the pro routines, if nothing else).

[kayak]

Kayak - While Melissa Rutz's ability might be the product of a lifetime of training, its worth pointing out that Tessa Cunningham, who is certainly in the same bracket as Melissa Rutz, did not start dancing till she was out of college and did not move to Swing till she was in her mid 20's, having done ballroom and latin first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEMWulxPQ9U

So pure talent, natural ability, counts for a lot. . . . . . . .

Again, Tessa Cunningham is not untrained. She in hanging out with Myles and Toby who are very technical dancers. I have taken classes with Toby and workshops with Myles and Tessa. Yes, they have musicality, but they also have incredible attention to detail. They are the technical level of instructors that you are so angry at.

[samina]

I'm just lazy. No way I'm gonna spend two years of lesson money to get two years worth of the World's Worst Migraines, to be remedied with two years worth of Advil, only to deal with the fallout of two years of leaving lessons feeling like dog poo on the bottom of someone's shoe...in the hopes that after I'll like it. Heh. It's just me and my instant gratification urges.
it's such a bummer that it caused you so much physical pain. it shouldn't, not in the way you've described. but i understand, because it wasn't until just before i went on hiatus that i felt like i figured out how to stop contorting myself in a particular way.

it's a complex thing...or rather, it's a complex thing to learn how to make simple. :D

anyway, even after all that, my musicality in standard was minimal last i left off. it peeked out now and then, and my instructor would say he could begin to feel me almost dancing or "ready" to dance.

i have a feeling it would be much better now, after i ironed the kinks out.

[DancingMommy]

What do people think about this? I know (from being on a SCD discussion forum where most are non dancers) that that form of musicality is appreciated by the general public. But should the programs be trying to show a more 'classical ballroom' form of musicality (in the pro routines, if nothing else).

As regards DWTS since I've never seen SCD... From my vantage point, those are all pretty much showdances and not "classical" ballroom... I know a lot of people really dislike Len because he's such a stickler for details. Mark & Shawn's QS was a great example of this. It had flair and style but was clearly a violation of the rules. Let's not confuse "musicality" with "production value".

I hate to sound like Barry Fife, but there it is. TV networks don't want "classical" ballroom because it's boring to the majority of viewers and it won't get them "ratings".

[kayak]

Well, I think I know enough ballroom to know I don't know enough ballroom, if that makes any sense. A lot of what I hear about ballroom musicality is things like altering the timing by stealing slightly from one beat to put the emphasis on another. I think I'd really have to struggle to notice that (other than subliminally), it's quite an alien concept to me.


In my WCS community, musicality is a lot more than just freezing on the breaks. The whole dance is about stealing time and the same subtle body movements. Freezing on the breaks gives is a very dramatic movement, but I think it only fits once or twice in a song.

The rest of musicality is much the same as the ballroom world. Adding body movement, syncopated rhythm and footwork in the midst of a pattern, just little things to show connection.

[etp777]

Of course, to be fair, a showdance doesn't have to preclude musicality or high level technique, but I agree that DWTS numbers generally do. Just not enough time for them to know that technique yet. But I've been drilling technique into a showdance with one of my pros for all my recent lessons, so can definitely have both. :)

[DancingMommy]

@etp - There's no denying that one *can* achieve both, it's just that the technical merits would be lost to most viewers of the TV screen. So what one sees on a national show that is produced strictly for "the masses" is going to be a totally different animal from that which is produced for the discriminating eye. And it's helpful for folks (not you!) to remember that when comparing apples to oranges and so on.

[etp777]

no argument at all. :) Just didn't want anyone to mistake that statement to say that all showdances have no technical merit. Watching a couple like Max and Beata can quickly show how untrue that is, but rather just avoid going down that mistaken path at all. ;)

[madmaximus]

yes, but that freedom *is* what you're seeing in the musicality...acquiring that control is what allows the freedom. and if they drop the constraints of the dance, then... it's not that dance anymore.

they could break out into WCS in an FT but it's no longer an exhibition of FT, it's a composite show-piece.

Well said Sam.







m

[Steve Pastor]

Makes me wish I had the balls to go into a ballet studio and ask for lessons.

Hey, come on. Do it. I took jazz class (with a ballet warm up) for a couple of years. The whole time there was only ever one other guy, and everyone was decades younger than me. Got along well with the instructor, though, probably because I was the only adult in the class!
You're right it's not an easy thing to do!

[kayak]

@etp - There's no denying that one *can* achieve both, it's just that the technical merits would be lost to most viewers of the TV screen. So what one sees on a national show that is produced strictly for "the masses" is going to be a totally different animal from that which is produced for the discriminating eye. And it's helpful for folks (not you!) to remember that when comparing apples to oranges and so on.

I got bored with their show because all the dances looked the same.

[Albanaich]

Well nobody is untrained Kayak.

I was pointing out that Tessa Cunningham had no contact with dance till her 20's and Swing till her mid-twenties.

Melissa Rutz was dancing from childhood.

There is a vast difference in the amount of training between them - something like 15 years.

[CANI]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OukSJSpQN-g
okay, so i'll leave out the entrance and start at around :39.

<snip>



Thanks for going through this. Some of what you pointed out was obvious to me the first time I watched it and some of it I didn't see (and actually still don't, unfortunately). I'm going to watch it again another time, but it was helpful taking the time to share this.

[CANI]

Slightly different note:

If you look at the routines performed on Strictly Come Dancing (UK) or Dancing With The Stars (US), the musicality is much more "in your face".

What do people think about this? I know (from being on a SCD discussion forum where most are non dancers) that that form of musicality is appreciated by the general public. But should the programs be trying to show a more 'classical ballroom' form of musicality (in the pro routines, if nothing else).

Hi Dave -

I've only see a small bit of two seasons of Dancing with the Stars and I don't have any issue with the ballroom presented. Any time I've seen it, I've seen what I love about ballroom dance. People enjoying themselves, working hard, trying, being happy with their successes, improving, happiness and smiles. Having said this, I've noticed that when I see people dance, there is rarely an occasion when I don't see tremendous beauty - from the first showcase done with a few lessons to the pros dancing at professional competitions. So, I may be the odd ball on this point -- but quite happily so. :D

[kayak]

Well nobody is untrained Kayak...

Exactly, all the big pros have fabulous technique from tons of training. No missed steps while dancing. We don't get to use musicality as an excuse for bad dancing.

[Terpsichorean Clod]

Well, I think I know enough ballroom to know I don't know enough ballroom, if that makes any sense. A lot of what I hear about ballroom musicality is things like altering the timing by stealing slightly from one beat to put the emphasis on another. I think I'd really have to struggle to notice that (other than subliminally), it's quite an alien concept to me.
Apologies if you've heard this before. You might think of waltz, foxtrot, and quickstep as kind of like a roller coaster. Descending coincides with speeding up, ascending with slowing down. For example, in the Bucciarelli/Pino foxtrot video at 1:38, you can see them rising and hovering to draw out the "somebodyyyyy". You would use different shapes of roller coaster track depending on the music. Perhaps it's because of that fairly continuous momentum that these dances seem to place more emphasis on the music between the breaks rather than the breaks themselves. I wonder if the International Latin/American Rhythm dances, and maybe ballroom tango, might tend to have musical expression closer to what you see in swing.
As for knowing the tracks well: that was somewhat badly put on my part, and probably confusing. I don't need to know the track well to comment on musicality, but I do need to "understand" the genre. In the first piece of music they use, I'm really struggling to see anything I'd latch onto in the music myself, so it's much harder to comment on what they did.
For the waltz, the main thing I see is from 0:25-0:28, during the sort of rising arpeggiation at the end of the phrase, when they do a picture line (throwaway oversway? won't argue with anyone who wants to call it an x-line :razz:).
Even if I'd not heard the track before, I'd have a pretty good idea that something interesting was going to happen at 1:55. The phrase starts about 6-7 seconds earlier and you can hear that the music changes, moreover, that the music is now 'building'. You don't know for sure when the climax is going to be, but odds are it will be 8, 16 or 32 counts from the start of the phrase. As you approach 8 counts in, there's nothing to indicate a change, so it's probably not there. As you approach 16 counts, there's a big change in the drums, and you can be confident that something will happen.
I think there isn't much usage of counting in ballroom. There is understanding of 8, 16, 32, etc. measure units, but it tends to show up in the form of phrased routines (not improvised).
It's pop music and was a fairly big hit in the UK. I'd expect most people (dancers or not) would have heard it a few times, but that may be different in the US. Though in a sense that's not enormously relevant, because even without knowing the track, I'd know it was likely something was going to happen 2 seconds after they stopped from the phrasing of the music. It would be much more natural as a place to stop.
You're right. They stop mid-phrase in all the other songs, so as mentioned earlier, I think music was a lower priority.
My personal feeling is that swing tends to emphasis musicality "in the large". The focus is about structure and phrasing over many bars. With some tracks you might be discussing what happens 96 counts down the line. There's relatively little discussion about "feel", and what happens during an individual bar, let alone an individual beat. Ballroom seems rather opposite. At the highest level, in either dance, you need to deal with both, of course.
Good point.
[Obviously this may also be happening with Victor and Anna; on the other hand, they're (at least) a couple of orders of magnitude better dancers than I am, so I'm kind of assuming that's not an issue.]
I think it could happen, depending on how much they were focusing on technique or floorcraft vs. music at the time.
On the Reach track in particular:

I agree that the first accent (on "reach") is actually fairly small. It's interesting, because just listening to the build-up, I'd say it probably "ought to" be a bigger accent than it actually turns out to be. So if you didn't know the song, I'd actually expect you to overreact there, at least the first time.
Interesting point regarding the "foreshadowing".
The second accent, I would say is really a break. It's pretty large, and I think it would be pretty strange to dance normally through it in a swing dance context.
By break, do you mean you would use something more like a dip? I do feel a clear change from the preceding section, but I don't really feel a difference between the 1st and the following 3 measures. :)

[Terpsichorean Clod]

I can see it in a "darkest before the dawn" kind of sense, but it's still a strange choice to me.

For what it's worth, I'm actually very happy with the "conclusion" at this point, even though we are perhaps disagreeing. I think I understand what you're seeing here, and I can see it's valid, but I would personally have preferred a more direct approach to interpreting the music there.
I agree. I would have preferred something kind of like at 0:43 in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgdA8tB5Qbs&fmt=18).Perhaps unsurprisingly, I think a lot of the difference is about "subtle" v.s. "in your face". (For what it's worth, I have no problem with the idea that ballroom dancers are better at understanding subtle musicality than I am).
I think it might be relative. Some of the things you've been pointing out in the "Reach" song seem pretty subtle to me.
Which I think is actually all rather constructive, in terms of the discussion we've been having.:cheers:

[old dog]

After spending considerable time perusing this thread and almost deciding to stay clear of it, I've decided to share a few (almost random) thoughts related (I hope) to some parts the discussion.

Maybe our language is part of the problem here. We have been told, for instance, that what most of us are doing on the dance floor is not "dancing." Hummm... If not "dancing," then just what is it we are doing? Do we need a new word to refer to our coordinated rhythmical movement? Do we need new dictionary entries for "dance" and "dancing?"

If we are not talented enough or sufficiently trained and experienced to be able to move confidently and efficiently while also interpreting and reflecting all the nuances of melody and phrasing (and even lyrics) we hear, then perhaps we are "rhythming." Any other suggestions?

Some of us will never reach a level that reflects much more than rhythm and tempo. It is true we might move very well with only a rhythm track coming through the speakers or a metronome clicking in our ears. (Perhaps beginners could benefit from this if they find the melody, harmony, vocal etc. is hiding the rhythm.) However, (as I think someone has already pointed out) dancing without the whole compliment of what we usually call "music" would be a rather hollow and joyless activity. But we don't HAVE to be able to move to all the aspects of the music to have a full and enjoyable experience on the dance floor. (And for we social dancers, we have to ask "For whom are we dancing?")

We often speak of dancing and of music as if they were two different things; and this is convenient given the limitations of our language. But, let me suggest that when it comes right down to what is dance and what is music -- dance IS music! Or at the least, dancing is an organic expression and extension of music.

I heard someone say that in some African languages, the word for music and the word for dance is the same. (Can anyone verify this?) That makes sense to me. I see no way of separating one from the other as far as what really defines music and dance. The question "Which came first?" makes no more sense than the old "chicken or egg" question.

Music does not exist without rhythmic motion that stimulates our auditory (and other) receptors. Our bodies naturally respond by reflecting what we hear and feel, often with the addition of meaning. Our world is full of rhythms (like heartbeats and seasons); and we may say that it is all "music to my ears."

So, live life to the fullest and just "dance" to whatever "music" you hear.

[Terpsichorean Clod]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OukSJSpQN-g
Did Alessandra Bucciarelli and William Pino choreograph this themselves? :)

[Albanaich]

Old dog - Easily the most perceptive post so far. Exactly the point I was trying to make.

Musicians and musical people percieve dance in a completly different way to non-musicians, as they do with music. The point is to recognise it, and to recognise at all different sorts of level.

Musicians when starting find dance it very difficult and frustrating because right from the begining they are trying two things - acquire the physical technique and simultaneously learn to play a new musical instrument.

An average person learns steps, then learns to do them to a beat, then, if they are good after a year or so will start to interpret the music.

A musician from thier very first class is trying to all three, so please have a little patience and understand what is going on in their head.

They are not naturaly more clumsy - they just have so much more to do at the beginner stage.

There are 3 different levels of dancing, a beat dancer, a rhythm dancer and a musical dancer. Often technically accomplished dancers cannot get past the first level.

To often there is a focus on the dancers technical and physical progression while their musical development remains stunted.

The 'test' examples were choosen to illustrate that technical ability is often completely detached from musical ability.

We must remember that many dance forms have been deliberately 'dumbed down' to give the beginner the experience of dancing early. I am a great believer in getting dancers socially dancing quickly, so I don't knock the idea of simplified dance forms like ECS, Discofox and MJ, which quickly get the dancer moving to the beat.

However, we must remember that in simplifying the dance we sacrifice musicality. You cannot dance ECS in any musically interpretive way because it is 6 beat and most music is 8 beat, similar restrictions apply to MJ and Discofox.

They are beginners dances. . . . . .

International Ballroom developed because dancers in the 1940's and 1950's wanted to learn a lot of dances quickly while avoiding undertanding the musical framework in which they worked.

They are codified, arficial forms that bear little relationship the original dance and music. The rhythm of the orignal is there, (sometimes not even that) but little else.

They do teach rhythm though. A ballroom dancer will know the rhythms of the Samba, Foxtrot, Waltz, Cha-Cha and so on.

The musically 'interpretive' dances are Lindy and Argentine Tango, and the orignial latin dance forms of Samba Salsa etc, (not the ballroom versions) and to a lesser extent WCS. Logically there should be no division between WCS and Lindy - they are the same dance form, just different styles. The situation is similar to AT, in which Vals and Milonga and recongised members of the same form, but with different styling.

I very much deprecate the codification of WCS in the ballroom manner, it divides it from Lindy and pushes it towards into a rigid framework that makes interpretative much less fluid.

As beginner dancers we know nothing of this, we choose a dance form more or less at random, whats nearby, what our friends do, what we like on tv without any reference to our ability or talent.

What suits the individual might be very different from the dance they are trying to learn.

Last night I was a sort of 'class assistant' at a Lindy Hop class. We were doing 6 beat patterns with total beginners and they picked up the steps quickly - 1 - 2 - Triple Triple.

Of course we teach then set patterns and they think the set patterns and the steps are the dance - so the 4 experienced dancers then go round and dance with them, and we don't do triples and everything comes at them in all directions.

'If you feel like you are losing it count for six and wait on six' don't think about your feet, concentrate on the six beat rhythm and your feet will work it out for themselves"

In one half of the class we concentrate on the mechanics, the other on the rhythm and music.

[Peaches]

You raise an interesting point -- one that came up earlier. Does one have to have a certain level of technique before they can dance with musicality? You know, I don't know about this. The question came up in an AT thread a while ago--when do you start introducing musical interpretation, or when do you start encouraging it. In the AT world, the emphasis begins on or about Day One. Granted, I think the differing technical details of each dance contribute to the difference, but it is possible to start thinking about musicality without having the technique to back it up. Little things, like what ladies can do with their free foot while waiting for the guy to lead something (and also, matching appropriate foot motions to the music), or thinking about ways to hold your body to transmit emotion. Not that beginners will necessarily be able to do it right away, but they are encouraged to right from the start. It's not like it's a separate layer to be added after technique has been mastered, it's considered very integral.

[CANI]

You know, I don't know about this. The question came up in an AT thread a while ago--when do you start introducing musical interpretation, or when do you start encouraging it. In the AT world, the emphasis begins on or about Day One. Granted, I think the differing technical details of each dance contribute to the difference, but it is possible to start thinking about musicality without having the technique to back it up. Little things, like what ladies can do with their free foot while waiting for the guy to lead something (and also, matching appropriate foot motions to the music), or thinking about ways to hold your body to transmit emotion. Not that beginners will necessarily be able to do it right away, but they are encouraged to right from the start. It's not like it's a separate layer to be added after technique has been mastered, it's considered very integral.

Hi Peaches -- I think it is excellent that musical interpretation is added day one in AT. And I was just reading Albanaich's post, and thought it was terrific the way in the beginner's class they introduced musicality as an integral part -- using half of the class to cover it.

I definitely like this idea.

I'm reflecting on this for the international standard dances and wondering how that would work. I'm going to continue to ponder this as I don't have a well-formed thought yet.

Thanks -- this whole discussion is fascinating...

[DL]

Not that beginners will necessarily be able to do it right away, but they are encouraged to right from the start. It's not like it's a separate layer to be added after technique has been mastered, it's considered very integral.

I took a single private lesson in AT while on vacation a some time ago, and it included a few step patterns (more than they usually would show in a first lesson, but I had enough ballroom background to pick up that kind of thing), and a lot of emphasis that I should improvise and depart from the steps based on what the music was doing.

So, yup, musicality from day one. That was challenging and different from the way I've seen ballroom taught.

There was also a fair amount of emphasis on technique, similar to the way it's encountered in standard -- posture, frame^H^H^H^H^Hembrace, timing, a little bit about footwork (OK footwork was only because I asked questions about it). Of course certain good ballroom habits turned out to be good AT habits, but other good ballroom habits turned out to be awful AT habits, and keeping that straight was tricky. (Edit to add, there were some differences in how "outside partner" movements are accomplished and we spent some time on that -- alas not quite enough for me to entirely understand the AT way.)

Even more, there was emphasis on partnering, and being extremely aware of where my partner's weight was. This was -- surprisingly -- the biggest shift in thinking that I had to make. My tendency was to move decisively and provide the clearest lead I could, even exaggerate it if my partner didn't respond as expected. I was constantly "scolded" for moving my weight before becoming aware that my partner had moved hers. The difference is subtle but very significant.

I found a lot to appreciate there; musicality was part of it.

[Peaches]

I took a single private lesson in AT while on vacation a some time ago, and it included a few step patterns (more than they usually would show in a first lesson, but I had enough ballroom background to pick up that kind of thing), and a lot of emphasis that I should improvise and depart from the steps based on what the music was doing.

So, yup, musicality from day one. That was challenging and different from the way I've seen ballroom taught.

There was also a fair amount of emphasis on technique, similar to the way it's encountered in standard -- posture, frame^H^H^H^H^Hembrace, timing, a little bit about footwork (OK footwork was only because I asked questions about it). Of course certain good ballroom habits turned out to be good AT habits, but other good ballroom habits turned out to be awful AT habits, and keeping that straight was tricky.

Even more, there was emphasis on partnering, and being extremely aware of where my partner's weight was. This was -- surprisingly -- the biggest shift in thinking that I had to make. My tendency was to move decisively and provide the clearest lead I could, even exaggerate it if my partner didn't respond as expected. I was constantly "scolded" for moving my weight before becoming aware that my partner had moved hers. The difference is subtle but very significant.

I found a lot to appreciate there; musicality was part of it.Interesting. Perhaps this is a discussion for another thread, or perhaps pm...but if you're willing I've got questions about what you say about the emphasis on partnering.

And what do you mean by this?:frame^H^H^H^H^Hembrace

[DL]

And what do you mean by this?:

It seemed like a terminology difference between ballroom and AT for equivalent concepts (no?). Anyway, they kept making fun of me for puffing up my chest, spreading my elbows, and pushing my head up and left. It was a challenge for me to find and maintain the right position for AT.

[DL]

Interesting. Perhaps this is a discussion for another thread, or perhaps pm...but if you're willing I've got questions about what you say about the emphasis on partnering.

Sure but I'm out of time for now.

Really my point in all of that, for this thread, was: "...musicality was *part* of it." (Emphasis added.)

[Peaches]

It seemed like a terminology difference between ballroom and AT for equivalent concepts (no?). Anyway, they kept making fun of me for puffing up my chest, spreading my elbows, and pushing my head up and left. It was a challenge for me to find and maintain the right position for AT.
Right, I got that. I just don't understand the H's and ^'s. Is that some net speak convention of which I'm unaware?

Edit to add: I guess they're quasi-equivalent concepts. Equivalent in the sense that both refer to the way you hold yourself in order to transmit the lead to your partner; very different in that, as you found, it's done in essentially completely different ways. "Embrace" is the word used for a reason. (To encourage me into the embrace--instead of pulling away--he'd drop my right hand and reach around me with both arms like a hug, and then he'd kind of pet me (wrong word, but can't think of anything better) starting near my spine and petting outward to my shoulders. Very relaxing, I've got to say.)

[Peaches]

Sure but I'm out of time for now.

Really my point in all of that, for this thread, was: "...musicality was *part* of it." (Emphasis added.)
I don't have time right now either. But at some point I'd be interested in pursuing it a bit.

[DL]

Right, I got that. I just don't understand the H's and ^'s. Is that some net speak convention of which I'm unaware?


http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/386870.html

[Albanaich]

The same it true of Lindy, less so with West Coast Swing. (in my experience, in the UK) You can't dance it at all until you've picked up the rhythm, and you will be discouraged from learning complex patterns until you've got the rhythm.

Swing is a dance in which its easy to learn lots of complex patterns but if they are out of time or out of phase with the music, its a utterly pointless exercise.

AT is much the same, in which beginners want to rush ahead and do complex footwork without understanding the underlying musical themes.

What beginner dancers want to learn, and which they find easy is techique, often at the expense of musicality.

Good AT and Swing teachers insist the musicality is learned alongside the technique.

As I said, I was involved in a Lindy beginners class yesterday in which we taught steps and sequences, but then went on to demonstrate that while formalisation is a necessary part of the learning process, in the real world it doesn't happen that way at all.

[vcolfari]

International Ballroom developed because dancers in the 1940's and 1950's wanted to learn a lot of dances quickly while avoiding undertanding the musical framework in which they worked.


How do you know this?

[samina]

What beginner dancers want to learn, and which they find easy is techique,
my experience is decidedly different. surely i'm not the only dancer that finds the mastery of technique the greatest challenge?

musicality can finally flow freely through the dance when the technique is mastered, but poor technique just makes for sloppy musicality within the dance style.

and most beginners do NOT want to learn technique. they want to learn STEPS.

[DL]

There was also a fair amount of emphasis on technique, similar to the way it's encountered in standard -- posture, frame^H^H^H^H^Hembrace, timing, a little bit about footwork (OK footwork was only because I asked questions about it). Of course certain good ballroom habits turned out to be good AT habits, but other good ballroom habits turned out to be awful AT habits, and keeping that straight was tricky. (Edit to add, there were some differences in how "outside partner" movements are accomplished and we spent some time on that -- alas not quite enough for me to entirely understand the AT way.)



By "footwork" here I meant, "do I step forward with a... heel lead? toe? outside edge?" and the like.

[etp777]

Steps and rhythm are definitely the easy part for me sam, and technique is enough to make me want to shoot myself. :)

[DancingMommy]

How do you know this?

Enquiring minds certainly do want to know. I'm not entirely sure the hypothesis put forth is 100% correct.

[DancingMommy]

and most beginners do NOT want to learn technique. they want to learn STEPS.

A-to-the-men.

Perhaps this is different outside the 'States, but for the love of Foxtrot, I can promise you that 90% of all beginning ballroom students (and a decent number of swing dancers) just want to learn "moves". You try hitting them with anything more than step, step, step side together or whatever basic and their eyes glaze over. And then there are the super-speshul ones. You know the kind. The ones that CLEARLY haven't mastered a decent (and by no means perfect) basic step and then snap at you "Yeah, yeah, I got it already. Let's move on!" Or the ones that think they're ready to go flinging you - the teacher - through the air when they can't even dance on time. Those are what I call "a legend in their own mind".

I've been there, done that, got the injuries to prove it. SRSLY.

In my perfect dictatorship err... world... NO ONE would be allowed to progress until they could dance their steps on time, to the music AND both lead & follow. But that's just me.

[etp777]

Perhaps this is different outside the 'States, but for the love of Foxtrot, I can promise you that 90% of all beginning ballroom students (and a decent number of swing dancers) just want to learn "moves".

Add salsa dancers to that list too.

[Albanaich]

The Tango was the first dance to be codified by the ISTD in 1922, and the Foxtrot, Waltz, and Quickstep were encoded before WW2.

Latin American dance and Swing were not introduced into Europe until the 1950's when the ISTD codified them

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

The codified versions of latin and swing dance of course bear little relationship to the originals, one suspects the same is true of the Waltz et al, but that's lots in the mists of time.

The American system of codification can be dated from 1939 and largely came about through the influence of the Arthur Murray studios'

Samina - we have been here before.

Muscially driven dancers regard the acquistion of technique as necessary for musical expression. It is a means to an end. To them technique without musical experssion is as pointless as mountain climbing. Good excercise but nothing to with what they percieve as dance.

You are definately not alone in prefering technique over musical expression - in fact you are very much in the majority, around 90%.

If it was the musicality that was easy and the technique difficult it would be the other way round.

[CANI]

musicality can finally flow freely through the dance when the technique is mastered, but poor technique just makes for sloppy musicality within the dance style.


This is an interesting point. I'd be interested in others thoughts as well.

I think of each technique point in international ballroom as a skyscraper. In the first lesson, one may be introduced to the first brick or bricks on the ground floor. In some cases, the technique as it is described in the first lesson can be mastered with practice. Then, the description of the technique becomes more layered and detailed.

I wouldn't be, at all, surprised if you were to ask every winner of this year's Blackpool "So, how does it feel to have mastered technique?" for them to respond with "Well, I don't think it is accurate that I've mastered technique...I'm still working on xyz with my coach. I've reached a high level of dancing and am so happy to be identified as the best dancer today and to be sure progressed a lot in my technique -- but, master, no."

So I don't feel I've "mastered" technique on any point...but I do think I can say that I've mastered the technique as it was described to me in my first lesson...and my second lesson...through the practice I've done. As you master each building block, more is introduced.

So, I guess I can buy-in to what Albanaich and Peaches have said that, at least for their dance styles (and perhaps for others) musicality makes sense to introduce on day one. I don't think I agree that poor technique makes sloppy musicality, but I do think I agree that the better one's technique probably the easier it becomes to express musicality.

[vcolfari]

I'm still not clear on how the Wikipedia information supports this claim:

"International Ballroom developed because dancers in the 1940's and 1950's wanted to learn a lot of dances quickly while avoiding undertanding the musical framework in which they worked."

[DancingMommy]

Me either vcolfari. To my knowledge, the Waltz has been around for hundreds of years and been taught as long as it's been around. To quote Barry Fife, "If you can't dance a step, you can't teach it, and if you can't teach it we might all as well pack up and go home".

IMNSHO, the desire of aquisition of steps over technique is more a problem of "instant gratification" on the part of the student and not the teacher. Teachers teach what students want because if they don't (generally) the student leaves and the teacher doesn't get paid. And as much I'd gladly teach for free... Well... to quote Marilyn Monroe... "but it won't pay the rental on your humble flat or help you at the automat".

[Albanaich]

"International Ballroom developed because dancers in the 1940's and 1950's wanted to learn a lot of dances quickly while avoiding undertanding the musical framework in which they worked."

Cuban Cha Cha Cha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqbuExtbfVQ

Ballroom Cha Cha Cha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISmOGkAniZ4

Music v Technique. . . .. . .

Another grotesque interpretation of the Cha Cha Cha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkPjiAysh5I&feature=related

Tango?

A nice modern example. . . . . .notice how their dancing moves between following the beat, the rhythm and the melody as the emphasis in the music changes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj12nUQKrBE

Another grotesque parody

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDJM1gGW0zM

[etp777]

An example of each (and won't argue musicality or technique attributes of either) does nothing to support your claim as to why International was developed in the 40s and 50s.

[Steve Pastor]

I heard someone say that in some African languages, the word for music and the word for dance is the same. (Can anyone verify this?)

Sub Sahara African dances must be viewed in close connection with African Music (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Music), as many African languages have no word to define music
Steppin' on the Blues by Jacqui Malone. University of Illinois Press. 1996. page 10,11. ISBN 0-252-022114 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0252022114)

KiSwahili dictionary

http://kamusi.org/en/lookup/sw?Word=ngoma

[wooh]

Alb- have you thought that maybe your dance limitations aren't based on your musical background and are just well, dancing limitations? Because I have a musical background, and have had an entirely different set of problems learning to dance. Instead of finding excuses and ways to say, "Well this is hard, but I can do this one thing better than 90% of people that try so I'm only going to worry about that," perhaps just work on what's hard for you and keep at it.
You keep saying that it needs to be understood that certain things must be remembered for "musical people." Your sample of 1 (you) isn't really enough to base that off of. I'm "musical" and I have a feeling that we'd need very different teaching styles.

[Albanaich]

I wasn't making claim I was stating the historically accepted facts. . . . .

The codification of the ballroom dances started in the decade before WW2 in the USA and Europe. Post world war two people wanted to learn 'new dances' and people went out and 'collected them' for sale for to European and American public.

The were collected and codified without any reference to the musical environment from which they came.

That's why the orginal versions are so dramatically different from the ballroom versions.

[DancingMommy]

@wooh - No doubt! I'm in complete agreement with you. I'm a trained singer before I'm a dancer. And I've had my challenges as well. Having a musical background can give you a "leg up" as it were, but it's no means a magic wand that suddenly moves you to the head of the class. Dancers are born, not made. You've either got it or not. Those of us who don't got it have to work harder.

[SDsalsaguy]

Put simply: its a lot more complicated than that.

[Terpsichorean Clod]

What beginner dancers want to learn, and which they find easy is techique, often at the expense of musicality.
Hmmm, my experience is more along what DancingMommy said, re: steps. But if you kind of turned it around and said, "It is easier to teach technique than it is to teach musicality," I would agree. :)

[Steve Pastor]

I'm still not clear on how the Wikipedia information supports this claim:

"International Ballroom developed because dancers in the 1940's and 1950's wanted to learn a lot of dances quickly while avoiding undertanding the musical framework in which they worked."


Wikipedia articles should be evaluated partly on how well they are referenced, and where the references came from.

[Peaches]

So, I guess I can buy-in to what Albanaich and Peaches have said that, at least for their dance styles (and perhaps for others) musicality makes sense to introduce on day one. I don't think I agree that poor technique makes sloppy musicality, but I do think I agree that the better one's technique probably the easier it becomes to express musicality.I wonder how much the inherent technical difficulty of Standard (just for example, and because it's what's been discussed here...no clue about Latin) changes the game wrt when musicality can/should be introduced. I don't have an answer, I'm just pondering out loud. I think lack of technique can be just as much of a hindrance to musical expression in AT as in other genres--but that's just my (biased ;)) opinion. While I agree that mastery in Standard is what gives the best dancers the control they need to do what they want to express the music how they want, I don't see that as any less applicable in AT. Sloppy uncontrolled dancing is sloppy uncontrolled dancing. But I don't know that I'm completely at ease with the idea that musicality in Standard must come only after technical ability, by virtue of the difficulty of the technique. (But then, what do I know.)

[wooh]

I wonder if when musicality is taught in a dance is partly based on the self-selection of who dances certain things.
I go to tango class because I want to be passionate, thus I'll need to be taught musicality.
Standard dancers just LOVE dwelling on those tiny nuances of technique, so don't distract them from their love of detail yet!

[Albanaich]

Well what problems did you have?

Certainly as a beginner I've found my experience similar to that of other musicians - there a lenghty discussion thread somewhere on this board.

And teachers frequently post on this board that musicians are often the hardest to teach.

So I certainly don't think mine was a unique experience.

I don't think musicians are inherently difficult to teach, I think its more a case that you have to have teachers sensitive to the fact that they have to be taught in different way.

[Albanaich]

TC - well yes, I thought I convey the point that beginners are focused on steps and patterns, with techique a follow on from that.

Often they see it as a 'numbers game' I've learnt this pattern this week so I'm much better - when they are still off beat and off rhythm.

Musicality is usually the last thing to be taken on board

[Steve Pastor]

The codification of the ballroom dances started in the decade before WW2 in the USA and Europe. Post world war two people wanted to learn 'new dances' and people went out and 'collected them' for sale for to European and American public.

The were collected and codified without any reference to the musical environment from which they came.

That's why the orginal versions are so dramatically different from the ballroom versions.

I know for a fact the Laure' Haile, who was the National Director for Arthur Murray Studio circa 1950s was very aware of music, the use of phrasing, etc, and included this in the written materials she produced. She was very aware of Latin dance and music, as well as "street" swing, or Lindy or Jitterbug, or whatever you want to call it.

She was, however, very much from a "ballroom" environment, and the music she cites is all Big Bandish. On the other hand much of the music from that era was MADE by Big Bands, including the popular Latin musicians.

So, I guess I don't agree with what you've written.
And, it should be noted that people wrote books about "How to Dance" long before the late 1930s.

[CANI]

I wonder how much the inherent technical difficulty of Standard (just for example, and because it's what's been discussed here...no clue about Latin) changes the game wrt when musicality can/should be introduced. I don't have an answer, I'm just pondering out loud. I think lack of technique can be just as much of a hindrance to musical expression in AT as in other genres--but that's just my (biased ;)) opinion. While I agree that mastery in Standard is what gives the best dancers the control they need to do what they want to express the music how they want, I don't see that as any less applicable in AT. Sloppy uncontrolled dancing is sloppy uncontrolled dancing. But I don't know that I'm completely at ease with the idea that musicality in Standard must come only after technical ability, by virtue of the difficulty of the technique. (But then, what do I know.)

Interesting, thanks....I know less than nothing;) about AT, so haven't a clue about technique there. I agree that I also don't know that musicality in Standard must come only after technical ability, but can't quite picture what that would look like in a first lesson -- such as the descriptions you and Albanaich have provided of a first lesson in AT and Swing.

Edit to add: my example of the skyscaper of technique for standard wasn't to suggest that it was unique to standard. While I know nothing about AT or Lindy or WCS, I wouldn't at all be surprised if each of those styles, and others, also have skyscrapers of technique. I guess it was my way of thinking aloud in response to the thought of 'mastering' technique.

Another Edit to Add: In all lessons I've taken music is discussed, so maybe actually I'm just thinking that what is covered in the AT and Lindy lessons being described here is different. And maybe, the level of musicality discussed is also layered and more comes with more time and understanding. Just thinking aloud...

[Terpsichorean Clod]

TC - well yes, I thought I convey the point that beginners are focused on steps and patterns, with techique a follow on from that.

Often they see it as a 'numbers game' I've learnt this pattern this week so I'm much better - when they are still off beat and off rhythm.

Musicality is usually the last thing to be taken on board
You're right. I took it out of context of your other posts. :)

[Albanaich]

Steve, there are two systems of Ballroom dance, the International, largely created by the ISTD and the American, which is a product of Arthur Murray studio's and largely confined to the USA.

The collection and codification of latin American dances by the ISTD in the early 1950's is widely recognised and the ISTD has, historically always driven the codification of dance.

http://www.istd.org/about/history.html

Arthur Murray codified Swing into ECS while the ISDT, using the 'street version' known as Glasgow Jive, (which has extended breakaways) codified Swing into 'Ballroom Jive'

[Steve Pastor]

Please tell me where you found a Murray book which used the term "East Coast Swing" in the 40s, 50s or 60s, or even the 70s.

[Albanaich]

I didn't Steve - I was just assuming that ECS was codified by Arthur Murray's or someone in the US dance community.

ECS is different the International Ballroom Jive, the origins of which I'm more familiar with. . . .

The point I was making is that there are two systems for the codification of dance, the historically and numerically most important has been the ISTD, which (thankfully) has never taken much interest in Swing.

Every dance it touches it more or less destroys as a musically interpretative art form.

[samina]

Steps and rhythm are definitely the easy part for me sam, and technique is enough to make me want to shoot myself. :)

yes, yes, and double-yes. :)

[samina]

Samina - we have been here before.
i surely have not. perhaps you have done so with someone else.

You are definately not alone in prefering technique over musical expression - in fact you are very much in the majority, around 90%.
i in no way ever asserted i prefer technique over musical expression. it's the technique that makes the musical expression possible. i've repeated that many times.

that's why passionate dancers so ardently pursue the technique...because they will never be able to fully express themselves within the constraints of their dance without it.

[samina]

I wouldn't be, at all, surprised if you were to ask every winner of this year's Blackpool "So, how does it feel to have mastered technique?" for them to respond with "Well, I don't think it is accurate that I've mastered technique...I'm still working on xyz with my coach. I've reached a high level of dancing and am so happy to be identified as the best dancer today and to be sure progressed a lot in my technique -- but, master, no."
yes, of course...it's an evolution, it's layers, it's not black or white. but there are certainly levels of mastery along the way.

I don't think I agree that poor technique makes sloppy musicality, but I do think I agree that the better one's technique probably the easier it becomes to express musicality.
thing is, there's a difference between the musicality that one can feel and the musicality that one can demonstrate and express through one's body. musicality as part of one's sensation of dancing and moving the body should of course be part of learning dance, from the first step, IMO.

but that inner sense of musicality as it is able to be demonstrated is going to be sloppy without control, without mastery of something at some level. this is just completely normal, just as it's normal to increase in a capacity for nuance as one's mastery and control (and therefore ease...) increases.

i don't think it's really an arguable thing? it's just the way it works... we demonstrate what we're able to do with our bodies, it's very visible. the more mastery, the more ease, the more control, the more nuance, the more we can express the musicality that we've been cultivating from within.

[SDsalsaguy]

Every dance it touches it more or less destroys as a musically interpretative art form.
Only by your (very limited) definition of what constitutes "appropriate" musical interpretation. Its certainly true that ballroom versions of various dances do not maintain the same musical interpretation as the original dance... that, however, is a far different proposition than the blanket assertion that ballroom dances destroy musicality.

I think you have some valuable points to make here Albanaich, but blanket assertions aren't helping. Also, to the extent that you're prizing musical interpretation, doesn't that by definition mean that there are multiple (and equally viable) interpretations (i.e. not only your version thereof)?

[samina]

I wonder how much the inherent technical difficulty of Standard (just for example, and because it's what's been discussed here...no clue about Latin) changes the game wrt when musicality can/should be introduced. I don't have an answer, I'm just pondering out loud. I think lack of technique can be just as much of a hindrance to musical expression in AT as in other genres--but that's just my (biased ;)) opinion. While I agree that mastery in Standard is what gives the best dancers the control they need to do what they want to express the music how they want, I don't see that as any less applicable in AT. Sloppy uncontrolled dancing is sloppy uncontrolled dancing. But I don't know that I'm completely at ease with the idea that musicality in Standard must come only after technical ability, by virtue of the difficulty of the technique. (But then, what do I know.)
it again reminds me of learning classical piano. you learn musicality from the start, but in order to develop technique, you drill, you divorce yourself from the intention of musical expression for a time in order to develop certain controls. it's not *all* the time that one does this, but in the course of mastering a difficult technical passage, for example, there are phases of learning that require stripping the musicality out.

then, when you play the piece...at whatever level you are at... you play. just as with standard or latin (i find this applicable to both, personally), when one is drilling, training, developing the technical controls, the musicality may be set aside for a moment while working on that.

but then the dancer can bring the best of both elements together: one gives one's very best to dance at whatever level one is, and... one dances. sloppy or not, that's the best you can do with your level of technical mastery combined with your dancing. the two come together and that's a person's best experience of dancing possible for that moment.

the better the mastery of the technique, tho, the better the dancer is going to be able to "get out of herself" and make visible the musicality she may feel inside. it evolves...

[Albanaich]

No it is not technique that makes interpretation possible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqbuExtbfVQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw9JmWplL68

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj12nUQKrBE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95lUV-CGFIk

If you can't see what is absolutely and completely wrong here - I can't help you, which is where we orginally started out.

[jennyisdancing]

i surely have not. perhaps you have done so with someone else.


i in no way ever asserted i prefer technique over musical expression. it's the technique that makes the musical expression possible. i've repeated that many times.

that's why passionate dancers so ardently pursue the technique...because they will never be able to fully express themselves within the constraints of their dance without it.

In complete agreement with you there.

And to add:

-Can you be a musical dancer without having technique? Sure. That's what 'street' dancers do. Some people prefer street dance because it's natural and unstylized looking (even though some street dancers do, in fact, spend many, many hours practicing).

-Conversely, can you be a musical dancer within the confines of a highly stylized dance that requires much technical training? Again, of course you can. Along with top ballroom dancers, ballet dancers would be an excellent example.

Just saying, technical ability and musicality are not ever mutually exclusive in dancing. You can have both if you want. If it came down to a mutually exclusive choice, I'd choose musicality but that's a hypothetical which isn't worth wasting time arguing about. :rolleyes:

[samina]

No it is not technique that makes interpretation possible.
it's not technique that makes interpretation possible...it's technique that makes the demonstration of that interpretation possible.

you can interpret all you want and feel the scope of that beautiful world very richly and creatively. but that doesn't mean you can demonstrate it.

surely you've seen "sexy" audition for SYTYCD??? i'm sure he's interpreting wildly and deeply musically.

on the inside...:cool:

[Terpsichorean Clod]

Cha Cha Cha
I enjoyed watching the first video. Thanks for sharing! I'm not sure I agree with comparing all of these. I'm guessing the first is improvised, while the two ballroom examples are choreographed.
Tango?
Again, I enjoyed the first video. Love the contrast at 1:47! But I don't agree with the comparison. The first is titled an improvisation. The ballroom example is a technical demonstration of a set of figures. They had to make sure some 30 specific figures were in there.

I think for a more appropriate comparison, you would need to use choreographed examples on both sides. Or improvised examples. In which case, I would be very, very interested in what you turn up as I think improvised musicality in ballroom is less common than in other dance styles.

I think an important distinction is that in the improvised examples, the dancers have obviously chosen their patterns/movements. Whereas in the others, the dancers may be going through patterns/movements that have been chosen by a choreographer. I guess it's like the difference between composer and musician.
"International Ballroom developed because dancers in the 1940's and 1950's wanted to learn a lot of dances quickly while avoiding undertanding the musical framework in which they worked."
Codification is a fact that can proven/disproven. What you've said on that is consistent with what I've heard. Motivation ("wanted") might be harder to establish. It's hard to tell what people are thinking. :)

I may see your point about codification and technique. I think one could separate technique into two types: functional, and aesthetic. The first enables expression. The tangoimprovisation dancers are IMO grounded, balanced, connected, which enables them to execute the ganchos to musical highlights. The second is expression, that is generally accepted (or codified) for a particular dance. It's like the straight-leg thing for International Latin or the bent-leg for American Rhythm.

So I might look at a nonballroom couple using their whole bodies in expressing the music and think, "Oh, that's bad posture." In ballroom, we've codified that aesthetic technique, because even though it adds a constraint to musical expression, the net result looks better to us. :)

[Albanaich]

Ok folks - I'm posting here under the influence of painkiller and alcohol. I have an appointment with dentist as 9.00 am for an extraction (the dentist tried, but its a lost cause I fear)

So take that into account with my posts - I'll be here a long while. sleep is going to be difficult.

[Albanaich]

Good post TC. . . . .

I think the point here is that like most other skills dance intelligence and ability should be transferable.

For first year university students the 'random essay' is always a good test of natural intellectual abilty.

Set Physics students or Art History students an essay on 'Why did the USA win the battle of Midway' and you will instantly see which students are able to research and analyse information that is totally unfamiliar to them.

In dance the test is to try something different. If you do Swing, try Ballroom, if you do Ballroom, try AT.

It's only by having different dance experiences that you realise the barriers and constraints of the form you prefer

[vcolfari]

No it is not technique that makes interpretation possible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqbuExtbfVQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw9JmWplL68

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj12nUQKrBE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95lUV-CGFIk

If you can't see what is absolutely and completely wrong here - I can't help you, which is where we orginally started out.

You can't help us? Have you considered the possibility that one's knowledge of ballroom and Latin dancing acquired in one year may be insufficient for understanding the nature of the dance forms and how musicality might be expressed? Are you saying that the world's top ballroom and Latin dancers lack the musicality that only you and an extremely small proportion of dancers have? Do you truly believe that posting video clips to compare improvised social dancing to show dancing supports your argument about the lack of musicality in some dance forms?

I'm surprised this thread has gone on as long as it has.

[kayak]

No it is not technique that makes interpretation possible.....

If you can't see what is absolutely and completely wrong here - I can't help you, which is where we orginally started out.

Where did the couples in vids 2 and 4 miss their musicality? Looks like they expressed just about every change in music even if it isn't a body styling I would choose.