Dancing with the music

[randomaeiou]

Just had a thought/question i'd like to throw open to the floor...

Do you (and more importantly, *should* you), dance the same dance to different pieces of music?

What do i mean? Well, take for example, the foxtrot. How Little We Know by Ella Fitzgerald (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1m9vInkvy0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1m9vInkvy0)) vs The Way We Were (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGzciIAFhTU) vs As If We Never Said Goodbye by Barbra Streisand (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R941uxGMn1g) vs Somewhere in Time by Roger Williams (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h97GAECCcE). All foxtrots, all clearly subtly (or not so subtly) different in mood. Same dance? (Same steps/choreography does not equal same dance in this context!)

And yes, I understand that competitive dancers will always want to dance "their best", regardless of soundtrack, and there have been, and always will be, some godawful soundtracks played during rounds. But still..

Shouldn't technique be nothing more than the platform upon which we express ourselves, and if dance is the magic of the music's soul in motion, should the music not affect the dance?

[DancingMommy]

Okay... This post is a bit confusing. What are you precisely asking?

Foxtrot has a proscribed set of steps called the syllabus. A showdance of Foxtrot (what those examples were) will have some open choreo (not in closed hold) as well as movements derived from the syllabus. There are numerous "styles" of Foxtrot music that run the gamut from classical sounds (like Somewhere In Time) to Big Band/Jazz (like How Little We Know).

To me, it's obvious that there's not just one song for Foxtrot or Waltz or whathaveyou. If there were, it would be beyond boring to dance, let alone watch because there's a finite set of movements and a finite set of amalgamations. Each piece of music lends itself to a different feel/style of a particular dance discipline. Beyond that, over time dances will evolve as far as style and flavor.

[waltzguy]

We dance to the music, we implement the character of the music. In a lot of sense, the music leads the man (primarily) and the lady (secondarily), which in turn leads the couple. This is IMHO.

[tanya_the_dancer]

I'm not sure what you are suggesting - that the leads pick different set of steps depending on the music?

[waltzguy]

Yes, or different variations to the same steps, depending on music.

[wonderwoman]

If you can dance foxy to song A and song B but can't dance it to song C, song C is not a foxtrot. You should never have to sacrifice musicality to having proper technique or vice versa. If you can't dance with the music, and still make it look like a foxtrot, it's the wrong song.

I guess that's why medal tests include dancing 1 smooth and 1 rhythm and only finding out the specific dance and music once you get on the floor. You not only know the steps but can adapt them to any music.

[samina]

Shouldn't technique be nothing more than the platform upon which we express ourselves, and if dance is the magic of the music's soul in motion, should the music not affect the dance?
no, i think all dances for a single genre should look the same, regardless of the music being played. let's have none of that musicality bizness...:rolleyes:

[waltzguy]

I think there are two schools of thought on this:
- If you're practicing rounds for a competition (for example), then the music becomes a metronome and you dance your stuff regardless of the "feel" of the music.
- If you're at a social dance, and creativity is in full swing, then the music definitely has to move you to change your dancing.

Both are perfectly correct in their own right. The choice is between you and your partner.

[wonderwoman]

Comp judges never consider musicality? How then does a couple stand out?

[waltzguy]

Judges definitely judge heavily on musicality as in timing WRT to count. Example of this is, "Is that couple dancing on time?"

I do not think musicality in the sense of the "feel" and "character" of the music is highly scrutinized. In fact, IMHO, most competition music tends to be fairly non-dramatic for this reason.

Music that's metronomic and non-dramatic is much better for competitions.

Music with high dramatic development and character is much better for show-dances where there's full choreography and perhaps a "story".

[wonderwoman]

I'd much rather watch a dance that makes me feel something. I think it should be about creative expression, not purely technical.

Perhaps this is why I've lost interest in ballroom lately anyway.

[waltzguy]

I'd much rather watch a dance that makes me feel something. I think it should be about creative expression, not purely technical.

Perhaps this is why I've lost interest in ballroom lately anyway.

Wow that opens a can of worms.

[dlgodud]

Perhaps this is why I've lost interest in ballroom lately anyway.


Seriously?:(

[DancingMommy]

Man... That's sad. Perhaps exploring some other style for a while might be helpful. Or switching up mode of instruction.

[wonderwoman]

I just haven't been able to afford lessons. Once I get a job and settled in somewhere I'll find a pro.

[dlgodud]

Wish you the best! We don't want to lose you WW!:p

[latingal]

just my opinion, but the tone and character of music in a competition is very important to my competitive dancing. Especially in latin, there are so many different moods in a set of rumbas (sultry, sad, sensuous) or sambas (carnival, tribal) etc. and my dancing on the floor should reflect that. Using the music as a metronome out there is a big no-no for me.

[etp777]

Agreed lg, I definitely try to pay attention tot he feel of the music, whether at a party or in comp.

Of course, can't claim I'm always successful, esp hen nerves start acting up at comps. :)

[latingal]

Of course, can't claim I'm always successful, esp hen nerves start acting up at comps. :)

*grin* neither can I etp. but we do our best eh?

[jjs914]

I'll third lg and etp. I may not be able to show a full range of expression or varied emotion in my dancing...but that's still part of the goal. And I'm mostly a competitive dancer.

In fact, I've had teachers tell me that, even if the choreography is the same, I should theoretically never dance the same dance twice.

[randomaeiou]

erm, guess my first post was a bit cryptic/confusing, but everyone seems to have gotten the gist.

my point was that should different songs with different "feels", though technically the same dance, be danced the same? in contrast to my first post of different couples, the most extreme example would be between rounds at the same competition, where a single couple dances the exact same choreography (not really unusual), perhaps to various pieces of music which might all be considered the same dance but have different moods.

and by exact same choreography, i mean EVERYTHING, including timing. for example, there's one. two. three. there's ooooooone two three. and there's one twoooooo three. you get my drift? (I know some steps' technique lend themselves to different timings, but particularly in line figures, there's usually a fair amount of leeway to play with timing in such a way, or even throw in an extra bar or two to stretch the line out to fit the music...)

i can see arguments both ways - metronome vs "musicality", but i was wondering what the general opinion was?

[samina]

metronome might be helpful while learning some things, and sticking with fundamental timing while mastering technique seems wise, but i'm sure the view is pretty prevalent that it's only when a dancer gets into the capacity for fluid musicality that the dancing is really set apart and coming into its own.

[Gorme]

It should be danced with expression and feeling IF you can manage it. We're all in the process of refining our techniques. If you're comfortable enough with what you're doing, then you can devote more resources to the artistic side of the dance.

I have had instances where songs come up and I immediately recognize it as a song that I love. I can slow down or speed up or try to hit accents in my routine to better match up with the music. Then there are other times where I hate the song or just don't feel anything for it. It will be reflective in my dancing too.

[Terpsichorean Clod]

erm, guess my first post was a bit cryptic/confusing, but everyone seems to have gotten the gist.

my point was that should different songs with different "feels", though technically the same dance, be danced the same? in contrast to my first post of different couples, the most extreme example would be between rounds at the same competition, where a single couple dances the exact same choreography (not really unusual), perhaps to various pieces of music which might all be considered the same dance but have different moods.

and by exact same choreography, i mean EVERYTHING, including timing. for example, there's one. two. three. there's ooooooone two three. and there's one twoooooo three. you get my drift? (I know some steps' technique lend themselves to different timings, but particularly in line figures, there's usually a fair amount of leeway to play with timing in such a way, or even throw in an extra bar or two to stretch the line out to fit the music...)

i can see arguments both ways - metronome vs "musicality", but i was wondering what the general opinion was?
I think it's hard to say "should". There are things that might come into play, like the music, density of couples on the floor, various outside expectations from audience or judges.

But personally, I prefer to see not only different timing, but also different steps/choreography. :)

[DancingMommy]

by exact same choreography, i mean EVERYTHING, including timing. for example, there's one. two. three. there's ooooooone two three. and there's one twoooooo three. you get my drift? (I know some steps' technique lend themselves to different timings, but particularly in line figures, there's usually a fair amount of leeway to play with timing in such a way, or even throw in an extra bar or two to stretch the line out to fit the music...)

MUAHAHAHAHAH I think we just had a thread or two hundred about this recently. :)

Ideally, one WOULD use the music even if the choreo'd steps are the same. Sadly, not many do...

[Warren J. Dew]

i can see arguments both ways - metronome vs "musicality", but i was wondering what the general opinion was?

What's the argument for metronome, other than "I have no musicality"?

[randomaeiou]

What's the argument for metronome, other than "I have no musicality"?

to play devil's advocate, well...

when the music is absolutely crap (and don't tell me you haven't heard a few shockers in your time) and takes the life out of you, along with the will to dance. the classic is the waltz that has a really heavy beat that goes "bom chuck chuck" for the whole song. makes one feel like a cow/elephant walking across the floor in time to the beat.

and also, being "affected" or responding to the music automatically means that your performance varies from piece to piece, round to round. competition is about doing well *consistently*. granted, dancing involves a certain element of musicality, but how much of it is actually that, in the eyes of the judges? possibly not enough to sacrifice the consistency of using the music as nothing but a metronome?

[DancingMommy]

Reminds me of the 2002 Millenium 2K competition in Tampa. In one round of the Rhythm Scholarship or Pro division (can't remember which) the music was SO BAD that EVERY dancer on the floor was off time. They gave it the old college try, but the tempo was crap and it was impossible to dance to and stay on time. IIRC, they had to stop the heat and start it over it was so bad. But the people on the floor were so plucky trying to keep to their routines and dance through it all. My recollection is that the piece of music was more appropriate for Lindy Hop but really slow with lots and lots of breaks. I remember my husband and I looking at each other and saying "why don't they just dance Lindy instead? That has to be better than the trainwreck of music happening".

Side note: that't the same comp where Eddie Simon called our oldest kid (around 2 weeks old) "really cute".

[Albanaich]

Well ia piece with lots of breaks, changes of rhythm and phrasing is exactly what a Lindy Hop dancer would look for in a piece of music. . . . . a real challenge to dance to

[Terpsichorean Clod]

I do not think musicality in the sense of the "feel" and "character" of the music is highly scrutinized. In fact, IMHO, most competition music tends to be fairly non-dramatic for this reason.

Music that's metronomic and non-dramatic is much better for competitions.

Music with high dramatic development and character is much better for show-dances where there's full choreography and perhaps a "story".
I recently bought one of my favorite waltz tracks. I listened to it and thought, "Hmmm, that's odd." Then I realized that I was listening to the end of the song for the very first time. I'd heard the song many times at competitions but only the first two minutes!

To me, it seems somewhat anticlimactic, the DJ fading out the music, dancers rolling out for their bows. I'd prefer for DJs to play the last two minutes, allowing dancers to finish the song with a nice picture line. But maybe that's just me. If forced to choose while watching a movie, I'd rather see the second half than the first half. :)

[Albanaich]

Which is kinda odd in the sense that just about every other dance form wants dramatic music you actually 'dance to' and use to show of you skills rather than something flat with a simple beat and rhythm.

It's the complicated music that really makes you work.

Or am I missing something here?

Last night I was doing the Cha Cha Cha to a castrated ballroom version of Duffy's 'Mercy'. . . . .I managed to resist sliding across the floor on my knees (which I do in MJ) when it gets to that bit in the song :-)

Interestingly, you can make MJ look like Ballroom Rumba with a slow track

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClWpfufPs2o&feature=channel

In fact James Mclaughlan is throwing in everything into the MJ - Rumba, WCS, Ballroom Jive, the only thing that doesn't work is the Lindy - he's not confident enough on the ariels :-)

[tanya_the_dancer]

I recently bought one of my favorite waltz tracks. I listened to it and thought, "Hmmm, that's odd." Then I realized that I was listening to the end of the song for the very first time. I'd heard the song many times at competitions but only the first two minutes!

To me, it seems somewhat anticlimactic, the DJ fading out the music, dancers rolling out for their bows. I'd prefer for DJs to play the last two minutes, allowing dancers to finish the song with a nice picture line. But maybe that's just me. If forced to choose while watching a movie, I'd rather see the second half than the first half. :)

They won't be able to squeeze the competition in 3 days if they make the heats full 3 minutes instead of 1:30. or 1:15.

[wooh]

They won't be able to squeeze the competition in 3 days if they make the heats full 3 minutes instead of 1:30. or 1:15.

I don't think he was saying to play all 3 minutes, but to play the last half instead of the first half. :)

[Terpsichorean Clod]

Yes. Thanks, wooh!

[etp777]

I missed that one too. :)

[waltzguy]

I'd prefer for DJs to play the last two minutes, allowing dancers to finish the song with a nice picture line. But maybe that's just me.

I think this is an excellent idea!

Or, they should make music for competitions that last exactly 1:30, 2:00, whatever length.

[Terpsichorean Clod]

Or, they should make music for competitions that last exactly 1:30, 2:00, whatever length.
:grin: I'd actually been thinking that would make an interesting niche market.

It's time to write a true "Minute Waltz". ;)

[Br0nze]

One supposes that a different piece of music would make you feel differently, thereby changing (for a lack of a better word) the interpretation of the dance, and yet the character of the dance should remain the same... if that makes sense.

One could also raise the argument/question of 'Is dancing with music different from dancing to music, and is the resolution to that argument merely semantic or is there merit in trying to distinguish between the [supposed] difference/uniqueness?

[randomaeiou]

One supposes that a different piece of music would make you feel differently, thereby changing (for a lack of a better word) the interpretation of the dance, and yet the character of the dance should remain the same... if that makes sense.

One could also raise the argument/question of 'Is dancing with music different from dancing to music, and is the resolution to that argument merely semantic or is there merit in trying to distinguish between the [supposed] difference/uniqueness?

hmm... interesting points. for arguments sake - do people think that any single song can encompass the entire character of a dance? my opinion is that it cannot... there are slightly happier waltzes, and slightly sadder ones, and some in between. it is rare to find one that is happy and sad without being pathologically schizophrenic and thus unenjoyable, and rarer to find one that is truly bouncy and happy the first minute, and totally dark the next (still remain danceable).

and yes, i personally believe there is a difference between "with music" and "to music". "to music" implies the metronome effect as described earlier - you dance the same regardless of musical stimulus. "with music" implies that your dancing changes (subtly, or not so subtly) depending of the nuances of whatever particular track is on at the moment. this argument, is of course based upon the basis that there is variation (in mood and/or character) even within songs which are technically the same dance, which is very closely related to the paragraph i wrote above.

but, as has been pointed out earlier in the thread, before i know where to put left foot number 2 in relation to left foot number 1, such considerations might understandably take a back seat. however, that doesn't mean i can't get into philosophical arguments about it, based on an ideal situation where my body does what my mind wants it to :rolleyes:

[Br0nze]

I suppose that would depend upon two things: (1) what the dancer has been told the character of the dance is, and (2) the piece of music said dance is being danced to. Even the character of the dance is not etched in stone, or rather in one single descriptive word.

For example, take the International Rumba. In its character, it is earthy, sensual, enticing (see? That's three expressive words!) . Many dancers would equate it to (as Jenifer Lopez put it) a vertical expression of a horizontal wish and assign it romantic tendencies. Other dancers would assign to it the entire spectrum of human emotion. On top of these characterizations add personal interpretation, and the tune playing.

Dancing Rumba to 'Fields of Gold,' for example, gives it a different character (dare I say 'feel' here?) than dancing it to 'Hoy Es Adios' or 'Historia D'un Amor,' or even to 'Un Poco Loco.'

Then one could also raise the argument that there is no difference in the interpretations the dancers make and the character of the dance because without these interpretations there would be no character. Or one could argue the reverse, that it is the music that determines both character and interpretation because, after all, dancers take the music and assign to it physical movements and motion.

Going further with the latter argument, and validating your question, there are of course subtle nuances in the songs because of the way they are arranged, from the verses into the chorus and back to the verses, and the music reflects that and therefore so must the dancing.

All these philosophical issues aside, though, I think it all depends on the level of the dancer. These are questions that are not for the freshest of beginners, that is certainly for sure. Because when we talk about "Dancing WITH Music" we talk about "filling the music with one's movement," which suggests that as dancers we have reached *that* level of understanding and control over our bodies... and that requires... how much time, exactly? ;)

I think that as dancers we must be careful not to rely too much on what we are told the character of the dance is, or should be. I think that these characteristics are given as guide-lines for the interpretation of where to begin the movement, and what place in one's heart and mind to come from. At the end of the day, no matter who says what, my Cha-Cha is going to be different from yours, even if both of us are dancing it in a "cheeky" and "playful" matter because our understandings of those two words/states/w/e (not to mention are bodies and dance abilities) are, while similar in general overview, very very different...

[DL]

hmm... interesting points. for arguments sake - do people think that any single song can encompass the entire character of a dance?

Well, if it's Paso Doble...

[etp777]

hahaha, good point, DL. :)

[opendoor]

I think there are two schools of thought on this:
- If you're practicing rounds for a competition (for example), then the music becomes a metronome and you dance your stuff regardless of the "feel" of the music.
- If you're at a social dance, and creativity is in full swing, then the music definitely has to move you to change your dancing.

I use the term "dancing to/with the music" in the sense of waltzguy, too. Some call it dancing to the beat, instead of dancing with the music. The latter means, that you are going to interpret the melody or some instrumental phrasing with your steps.