Bronze and Silver Medals

[teotjunk]

Is it possible to learn both the Bronze and Silver Medals at the same time for both latin and ballroom dancing ?

[Flyingkamakiri]

Is it possible to learn both the Bronze and Silver Medals at the same time for both latin and ballroom dancing ?

First off, not quite sure what you mean by learning the Bronze and Silver Medals. Medals are something you EARN if you do well competing in Bronze and Silver Syllabus Events. However, if you meant if it was possible to learn both Bronze and Silver Syllabus for Latin and Ballroom, then it's not like you can't. It would just take some time and practice

[teotjunk]

First off, not quite sure what you mean by learning the Bronze and Silver Medals. Medals are something you EARN if you do well competing in Bronze and Silver Syllabus Events. However, if you meant if it was possible to learn both Bronze and Silver Syllabus for Latin and Ballroom, then it's not like you can't. It would just take some time and practice

Okay. Let me be more clear about what I meant. I meant the Bronze and Silver Syllabus. I have just finished a course on the Bronze Syllabus so I know the steps but I have yet to master the finer technical details like the swaying of the hips, heel lead etc so I am now thinking should I concentrate on just mastering the final details for the bronze syllabus or can I do both the bronze and sliver course simultaneously or would I be biting of more than I can chew?


teotjunk

[TinyDancer109]

I don't know how many people here have had the same experience, but i did not move on to silver until i completely mastered the level of technique you should be proficient in at the end of bronze. This took be about 2 year doing about 2-4 40 min lessons/week (with competitions thrown in).

Of course, i was studying rhythm and smooth, not latin and standard... not sure if that changes things... are you studying american or international style of dance?

anyway, not sure about standard style but... silver smooth is VERY different from bronze smooth and i would highly recommend completing bronze's technical goals before moving on. Rhythm won't make as much of a difference, but remember that the more difficult syllabus steps are designed for more technical dancers, which means that if you learn them too soon, they may not look so good so don't expect to look like fred astaire. :)

Hope that helps... has anybody who is dancing international had the same experience/opinions?

[suburbaknght]

I'd strongly recommend improving your bronze before going on to silver. Both patterns and technique of silver, in any style, are dependent on complete competency and comfort in bronze. I'm not saying bronze needs to be perfect, but you want to have it at least a 95% before moving on.

Now this doesn't mean you can't do any silver work for now. It's often been my experience that a more challenging advanced step helps me to learn a basic step that I've been having trouble with. You may want to consider doing a performance or showcase piece in one of your dances and ask your instructor to include some silver steps in there. This is a great way to lay the foundation for more advanced dancing and give you some fun with steps above your level while keeping them in a workable context.

[Chris Stratton]

Medals are distinct from competition. The idea is that you dance for a guest examiner.

Around here its extremely rare for anyone to do them. Its just not an idea that's proven very attractive compared to directly applying dance progress to social or competitive dancing, and to organizing improvement efforts around what will make those applications better.

If you want to pass an exam you have to learn the required material in required form (there may be options, but still mostly requirement). But to dance you need to know some suitable material and how to apply it flexibly with others on the floor. The later also ends up a lot cheaper, because a lot more dance progress can be made when there is less material to use up lesson time.

[Merrylegs]

First off, not quite sure what you mean by learning the Bronze and Silver Medals. Medals are something you EARN if you do well competing in Bronze and Silver Syllabus Events. However, if you meant if it was possible to learn both Bronze and Silver Syllabus for Latin and Ballroom, then it's not like you can't. It would just take some time and practice

Medal Exams for proficiency in a style/level of dance. They are completely unrelated to competitions.

I know of someone who went straight to the Silver exams and did just fine.

[Merrylegs]

Medals are distinct from competition. The idea is that you dance for a guest examiner.

Around here its extremely rare for anyone to do them. Its just not an idea that's proven very attractive compared to directly applying dance progress to social or competitive dancing, and to organizing improvement efforts around what will make those applications better.

If you want to pass an exam you have to learn the required material in required form (there may be options, but still mostly requirement). But to dance you need to know some suitable material and how to apply it flexibly with others on the floor. The later also ends up a lot cheaper, because a lot more dance progress can be made when there is less material to use up lesson time.


I thought they were a good idea if someone was planning to go the professional route. They are a good primer for all the exams you need to take as a pro, should you go that route.

[Josh]

Okay. Let me be more clear about what I meant. I meant the Bronze and Silver Syllabus. I have just finished a course on the Bronze Syllabus so I know the steps but I have yet to master the finer technical details like the swaying of the hips, heel lead etc so I am now thinking should I concentrate on just mastering the final details for the bronze syllabus or can I do both the bronze and sliver course simultaneously or would I be biting of more than I can chew?


teotjunk

While you should most certainly expand your horizons and not be limited in your ambitions, I would encourage you to continue working on your bronze syllabus material, even if you begin to experiment with silver material. You mentioned heel leads, for example, as being finer technical details--footwork, however, is better thought of as being fundamental and a basic requirement for proper execution. Not easy, but fundamental.

You will never "master" a level before moving on, because mastery is only achieved through a constant revisiting of basics while simultaneously growing your skills through exploration of the non-basics.

[suburbaknght]

You will never "master" a level before moving on, because mastery is only achieved through a constant revisiting of basics while simultaneously growing your skills through exploration of the non-basics.
I like this, Josh. I'm going to have to quote you.

[Chris Stratton]

I thought they were a good idea if someone was planning to go the professional route. They are a good primer for all the exams you need to take as a pro, should you go that route.

Realistically speaking, advancing as a competitor is a more common route to becoming a good pro, though developing understanding of the formal technique along the way would be good.

Consider for a minute who is going to spend more money picking up the things they don't tend to personaly use, a bronze dancer who needs to be taught it all, or a champ dancer who can read the description, recognize the familiar pieces it is made of, and go dance it?

Once someone can learn like that the professional exams can have some merit, especially if there are aspects of technique that were overlooked during dance development, for the clarity of delivery, and the need to know both parts.

But the problem with multi-year abstract student programs is that few stick with them to the finish. That's why I think its better to serve the dancing essentials first. And if someone is of a mind to really do the formal technique, why not prep directly for the lowest teacher exam?

[Chris Stratton]

Realize I'm maybe coming across as too negative on this. What I really mean us to be wary of expensive projects of unproven relevance to applied dancing. As with so many things in dancing, the existence (or lack) of happy graduates in your area can be a good guide.

[etp777]

Definitely don't stop working on your Bronze syllabus/technique, but no reason (at least, that we can tell from here, not having seen you dance), not to start working on silver too.

[TinyDancer109]

i really think this is something your coach should give you some advice in... he/she knows your dancing (current and potential) best

[teotjunk]

my plan is to take both the bronze and silver classes simultaneously

[madmaximus]

m2cw
As has been noted earlier,

It is easy to confuse Bronze/Silver Technique (or proficiency) with Bronze/Silver syllabus steps.

One can learn GOLD (or even Open) syllabi steps while still at a Bronze level technique.

But we later learn, as we later progress, that dance is not just about the step but rather everything else in-between.

While others may advise to learn as many steps as necessary to perfect technique--before moving to another, I took a different path; I learned as much technique with as few steps (initially).




m

[teotjunk]

m2cw
As has been noted earlier,

It is easy to confuse Bronze/Silver Technique (or proficiency) with Bronze/Silver syllabus steps.

One can learn GOLD (or even Open) syllabi steps while still at a Bronze level technique.

But we later learn, as we later progress, that dance is not just about the step but rather everything else in-between.

While others may advise to learn as many steps as necessary to perfect technique--before moving to another, I took a different path; I learned as much technique with as few steps (initially).




m

So which path do you think is better ?

[and123]

Well.... what often happens is you learn bare-minimum technique to get moving initially, then a bunch of steps. Later as your technique improves, you end up re-learning steps that were being danced badly or improperly. In hindsight, would rather do it right (or as right as possible) the first time. But most people want or need the variety to keep them stimulated and interested, at least initially.

[madmaximus]

So which path do you think is better ?

Fewest simple steps for the widest technique.

It made learning compound steps (later) considerably easier.

In the long run I know I avoided a lot of bad habits from forming (which are notoriously difficult to remove) because I made the conscious effort not to dance advanced steps/movement before I learned what the supporting technique was underlying most of them.

It's not for everybody--early on, it was often difficult at a social situations (for the ego, anyway), doing only a handful of steps per style--but it paid off.

It accelerated my understanding of dance considerably.






m

[teotjunk]

Well.... what often happens is you learn bare-minimum technique to get moving initially, then a bunch of steps. Later as your technique improves, you end up re-learning steps that were being danced badly or improperly. In hindsight, would rather do it right (or as right as possible) the first time. But most people want or need the variety to keep them stimulated and interested, at least initially.

But I plan to do the bronze and silver classes together so that would be okay ? As in I won't have to relearn steps that were danced badly and improperly because all this while I have been working on my basics ?

[DL]

Fewest simple steps for the widest technique.

It made learning compound steps (later) considerably easier.

In the long run I know I avoided a lot of bad habits from forming (which are notoriously difficult to remove) because I made the conscious effort not to dance advanced steps/movement before I learned what the supporting technique was underlying most of them.

It's not for everybody--early on, it was often difficult at a social situations (for the ego, anyway), doing only a handful of steps per style--but it paid off.

It accelerated my understanding of dance considerably.


OK, so here's a question:

That's exactly the view I take. But lately I've been starting to question it -- not because I think it's flawed, but simply because the other approach seems incredibly more popular. I don't like that approach but as a practical matter it's sometimes tough (and therefore counterproductive?) to swim against the current. I also take Josh's point that sometimes it's not clear what technique is possible/important in simple movements, without at least some exposure to more complicated ones.

Have you any insight on this?

Thanks

[TinyDancer109]

I agree with max, but i may be bias. I too learned very few Bronze steps and worked only on technique... and you know what?! i kicked butt at competitions even though i didn't have the fancy moves other competitors had... because i had the technique they didnt, which is what judges care more about.

as my bronze technique became closer to that of silver, i started learning more advanced bronze steps.... and they were easier to pick up than when i learned the beginner steps.

IMO and IME, technique trumps steps, so i really think its a bad idea to learn silver (steps or tech) until you've learned bronze technique. I agree that it will most likely ingrain bad habits into your dance, and you will have to relearn everything... which is a waste of money. One will ultimately take longer to become a proficient silver student, despite the fact that one would originally choose to do bronze and silver at the same to save time and cut corners.

And no, teot, i dont think that taking them both at the same time will resolve anything. Look at it this way - like school. In order to learn Calc 2, you need to know the material from Calc 1. The beginning of Calc 2 picks up where Calc 1 ended and builds on that. Taking both classes at the same time does not work because when you are beginning to learn Calc 2, you do not have the foundation from the end of Calc 1 to build on.

[TinyDancer109]

OK, so here's a question:

That's exactly the view I take. But lately I've been starting to question it -- not because I think it's flawed, but simply because the other approach seems incredibly more popular. I don't like that approach but as a practical matter it's sometimes tough (and therefore counterproductive?) to swim against the current. I also take Josh's point that sometimes it's not clear what technique is possible/important in simple movements, without at least some exposure to more complicated ones.

Have you any insight on this?

Thanks

DL, IMO I think that the reason this "counter-productive" method is used is very simple - to make more money.

If you start working on technique early and don't learn new steps, a lot of people who don't have the dancer/athlete mindset to begin with will get bored... you need to "reel them in" so to speak.

Additionally, learning steps through the syllabus first and then going back and THEN RELEARNING everything takes longer... and therefore means more lessons are bought = more $$ for studios.

Personally, i don't see the point in competing if you arent going to work on technique and only learn the steps... at that point, it becomes a "who has the best natural ability for dance?" contest.

[madmaximus]

OK, so here's a question:

That's exactly the view I take. But lately I've been starting to question it -- not because I think it's flawed, but simply because the other approach seems incredibly more popular. I don't like that approach but as a practical matter it's sometimes tough (and therefore counterproductive?) to swim against the current. I also take Josh's point that sometimes it's not clear what technique is possible/important in simple movements, without at least some exposure to more complicated ones.

Have you any insight on this?

Thanks

I agree with TinyDancer109--judges look for technical proficiency, not complication of steps.



I was lucky in that my very first mentors were world-class teachers (dancers, and competitors)--they had a wider view of dance.

Understanding depth of technique is simply based upon how granular you can (and want to) go into a movement.

It was also very advantageous that my mentor knew how to break down the different parts of simple bronze steps from modern and latin that were the basic building blocks of the larger syllabus.


It would be very valuable to realize/understand that figures are composed of steps, and that a single step is composed of several movements acting in concert, and that each movement has a standard way of being done, and different variations of that standard to suit particular expressions and needs.


For example there are several parts in a "simple" forward step (heel touches the floor, ankle articulates, ball of foot touches floor, knee flexes, weight is transferred, etc...).
Now, why is it that the knee doesn't flex (or flexes considerably less) when leading a heel turn?
Once you understand that, then you can understand the fundamental mechanism of a Double Reverse Spin (a bronze figure)--and can lead to the next compound movement: telemarks and reverse spin and pivot combinations.

When all is said and done, there are only less than 50 technique things one has to learn to be proficient.

Mastery, of course is a different matter altogether.




m

[DL]

Thanks, but...

I think I didn't put quite the right spin on my question. I'll try again tonight or over the weekend when I'm not at work and have more time.

I don't suspect the local dance industry of simply leeching $$ from local amateur couples; or at least I think that issue is separable from the heart of the issue I'm pondering.

[Josh]

DL, IMO I think that the reason this "counter-productive" method is used is very simple - to make more money.

If you start working on technique early and don't learn new steps, a lot of people who don't have the dancer/athlete mindset to begin with will get bored... you need to "reel them in" so to speak.

Additionally, learning steps through the syllabus first and then going back and THEN RELEARNING everything takes longer... and therefore means more lessons are bought = more $$ for studios.

Personally, i don't see the point in competing if you arent going to work on technique and only learn the steps... at that point, it becomes a "who has the best natural ability for dance?" contest.

There is more than meets the eye in this discussion. TD, I respectfully disagree with part of what you said, and will play the other side of that argument--it's just as logical that keeping a student in a certain level for a long time, perfecting technique, makes even more money for studios. IMO there are two possibilities for introducing more advanced figures earlier to students.

1) One possibility is that the teacher is simply inexperienced, and lacks the underlying technique himself or herself, or lacks the ability to present it to the student, thus the student is introduced to new steps. I believe that in this scenario you are correct--that the money drives the decision to introduce material the student is not ready for. It's either teach new steps, or lose the student.

2) The other scenario is that while a technical foundation is being built, new figures are introduced--not for the sake of just introducing new material, but rather so that the student can begin applying current technique they're learning to more advanced material.

This second scenario is the method I adopt in both my own dancing and my students' dancing. Good technique MUST be the priority, and it is best done while not focusing on too many different figures. But along the way, if new figures are not introduced then the technique present in the current figures will not be allowed to grow to their fullest potential.

Pick a bronze-level figure and fix that in your mind. When moving to the silver level, did that bronze figure itself not improve? How about when you learned new gold figures? How about open-level choreography? At each level of dancing, new principles are learned that are retroactively applied to previous levels, and thus the basics grow with the non-basics. If you say that a prominent bronze figure you still dance is not better after becoming better at silver, gold, and open figures, then I'd say you're lying or greatly confused.

So I'm not saying to learn a bunch of steps and then move to the next level without having a good technical foundation. I'm also not saying that a student should spend 3 years working on only bronze figures. Learn technique to support good dancing, and then gradually allow more advanced figures to reinforce that good technique.

[Terpsichorean Clod]

Well.... what often happens is you learn bare-minimum technique to get moving initially, then a bunch of steps. Later as your technique improves, you end up re-learning steps that were being danced badly or improperly. In hindsight, would rather do it right (or as right as possible) the first time. But most people want or need the variety to keep them stimulated and interested, at least initially.
Then maybe it would help for them to be shown the variety within a single figure - the myriad ways in which, say, the timing can be changed. Though at my current stage, I have only three different ways of dancing a feather: Terrible, Awful, and "Inconceivable!" :oops:

[TinyDancer109]

There is more than meets the eye in this discussion. TD, I respectfully disagree with part of what you said, and will play the other side of that argument--it's just as logical that keeping a student in a certain level for a long time, perfecting technique, makes even more money for studios. IMO there are two possibilities for introducing more advanced figures earlier to students.

1) One possibility is that the teacher is simply inexperienced, and lacks the underlying technique himself or herself, or lacks the ability to present it to the student, thus the student is introduced to new steps. I believe that in this scenario you are correct--that the money drives the decision to introduce material the student is not ready for. It's either teach new steps, or lose the student.

2) The other scenario is that while a technical foundation is being built, new figures are introduced--not for the sake of just introducing new material, but rather so that the student can begin applying current technique they're learning to more advanced material.

This second scenario is the method I adopt in both my own dancing and my students' dancing. Good technique MUST be the priority, and it is best done while not focusing on too many different figures. But along the way, if new figures are not introduced then the technique present in the current figures will not be allowed to grow to their fullest potential.

Pick a bronze-level figure and fix that in your mind. When moving to the silver level, did that bronze figure itself not improve? How about when you learned new gold figures? How about open-level choreography? At each level of dancing, new principles are learned that are retroactively applied to previous levels, and thus the basics grow with the non-basics. If you say that a prominent bronze figure you still dance is not better after becoming better at silver, gold, and open figures, then I'd say you're lying or greatly confused.

So I'm not saying to learn a bunch of steps and then move to the next level without having a good technical foundation. I'm also not saying that a student should spend 3 years working on only bronze figures. Learn technique to support good dancing, and then gradually allow more advanced figures to reinforce that good technique.

Oh yes, I completely agree, Josh!

I suppose I was not very clear in my explanation... My experience has been with scenario #2. As I was learning Bronze technique and gradually improving, I learned more advanced bronze steps (but technique was always the priority). My perspective is that the more advanced steps "shows off" more advanced technique.

My opinion of the "move students to silver to make more money" scenario was my persepective of the cause for not making technique the priority.

[etp777]

Though at my current stage, I have only three different ways of dancing a feather: Terrible, Awful, and "Inconceivable!" :oops:

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[j_alexandra]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Oooh, you beat me to it! I was gonna use that line...

Love that movie.

[Cheery]

I just danced for the Bronze medal today, and this was my experience, since I began dancing six months ago: I first went to this school (to learn International Latin Ballroom) because I was dissatisfied with the first school I went to and where I took an intro package of four lessons. At the new school, I was introduced to my teacher, who is from Europe originally with 13 years of dancing experience and competing, and teaching--don't know exactly for how long.

I had no idea what Bronze, Silver or Gold syllabi steps were, I just followed what he taught me. I was doing privates twice a week.

Along the way, he convinced me to dance for the Bronze medal which was then a few months away.

We continued to meet twice a week for privates, but I started getting bored sticking to just the Bronze steps. He then introduced some Silver steps because we had plenty of time to learn things before the test.

However he explained that I would only be dancing for the Bronze medal. When the date of the test drew closer he reverted to the Bronze steps only and we spent several weeks focusing on technique.

I complained to him telling him I was bored and no longer having fun. He said to trust him and continue because he was focusing on technique that would benefit me and improve all my other dances later.

Meanwhile, I started taking several salsa classes and also shopped around at various schools to see how different teachers conducted their classes. Frankly I was shocked at the level of dancing I saw specially since many of these focused on more social dancing styles or street Latin styles as opposed to International Ballroom. I found a sore lack of technique and plenty of fancy stuff going on, and I began to appreciate what I was learning with my pro.

I also noticed that I could very easily learn these social or street dances and even my salsa became quite easy to pick up due to the foundations my pro was building with me in our classes.

For the first time today, I saw how all the other students at our school, at all levels up to Gold, danced and was able to compare them with what i saw at the other schools. To my surprise, six months into my dancing at this school (as well as viewing dvds of Russian pros and various YOUTUBE clips of high level competitors), I found myself looking for more...first, technique in the dancers, and second, expressiveness and style. I also was able to discern when some teachers had fancy routines for their students who were not even yet capable of executing them well. This made me appreciate my teacher's decision to stick to the simplest bronze syllabus steps with me until the technique improved greatly (from the time I started).

I also saw Silver and Gold dancers today in the test doing complicated steps but of course each of them had their own level of skill and style...no matter how complicated...I would say there were good and bad dancers at all levels, so honestly, saying you are a Bronze, Silver or Gold level dancer does not really say anything, it is how you actually dance on the floor and when people see you that will show WHAT KIND OF DANCER and HOW GOOD you really are, no matter what level...

My personal goal is to dance with solid technique and strong expression of style, to look natural and graceful and to dance with a lot of soul. I don't want to compete and I don't want to look like an athlete, I want to look like a graceful dancer who wins the admiration of the audience due to my style, ease and natural movements.

I hope this story helps you to realize what the benefit of sticking to the simplest steps can be....

[dancingirldancing]

I don't understand why would anyone needs to learn a lot of steps unless it is for choreography.

I generally take about 2 mins to learn a step and 20 years to perfect it.

That is 1 mins and 59 secs too long for my teacher who thinks that I need to be able to pick up new steps and 2 mins worth of choreography in 1 sec.

He just does not have the patience of going over steps and choreo.

So I know all the syllabus steps it is a non issue for me and I can follow most things in a social except for unknown open routines of some jerks.

Now I don't have a partner to practice choreo with 50% of my latin lesson consists of walking. Yep walking back and forth perfecting my cha cha, samba, rumba, or whatever it is my teacher feels need the most improvement for the week.

The other half consists of dissecting things like new yorker, or voltas or whatever basic steps my teacher feels need dissecting for the week.

My standard lesson consists of my learning to move and balance. I have been having this basic routine for a year that I have been working on (mix of bronze, silver and gold) but still basically pretty easy. Next year if I am good I will get a harder routine apparently....

But WOW ! These basic steps does not look that basic anymore done well !

Even my walks start to look like something really fancy ... well after more than 500 hours year of lesson and practice ...

[DL]

Thanks, but...

I think I didn't put quite the right spin on my question. I'll try again tonight or over the weekend when I'm not at work and have more time.


Whoops, I didn't find time for quite a while, there.

As for my "swimming upstream" question:

I have never, for example, been in a group class at any level, where all the students requested, "let's work on the natural turn, please."

Likewise, as far as I can see, group classes tend to follow syllabus levels, and introduce new and more advanced figures/patterns as students progress through them.

At local college comps, most amateur couples seem to prefer adding higher-level syllabus steps to their dancing, as they move through syllabus levels. And why not? The comp rules seem to favor this, at least on the surface. Popular thinking does, too; my own partner for years flat out refused to believe me that we could compete in, say, gold, without necessarily dancing a routine that included gold steps.

AFAICT most of my peer group is not motivated by a strong desire to learn/drill fundamentals. In fact I don't think my peer group is all that unique. People learning anything like to have a sense that they're making progress, and in dancing one way (and perhaps the most intuitive/popular way) to gain such a sense is to learn more and more complicated patterns.

In turn, I think this phenomenon tends to shape the way teachers teach, as they try to provide the best possible path forward for people who seem intent upon taking certain popular routes through the learning process.

Even on DF, it's been quoted more than once that beginners want to work on intermediate steps, intermediates want to work on advanced steps, advanced dancers want to work on basic steps. People say this as if it points out the wisdom of working on basics. In fact it also points out *precisely* that most people don't work on basics in the beginning. Maybe most people are "doing it wrong" but as a practical matter is it truly more profitable to buck the trend?

So in a certain sense it's as if the best thing I could do is to hurry up and plow through all the basic material in a hurry, learn a bunch of open routines and dance them poorly for a while, then -- finally -- join the ranks of dance students who are "good enough" to work on the basic things. It seems like a waste of a year or two in some sense, but its not like there's nothing to be learned on that path and meanwhile it sometimes seems like an equivalent waste to be bucking "the way things are done".

I could isolate myself from the community to greater or lesser degree and take my own direction in mostly private lessons, but that has its own disadvantages (even putting aside the issue of cost).

It's ancillary to my main question, but relevant, that as I've progressed through syllabus and some open material I have experienced exactly what Josh pointed out, that one realizes the specific practical importance of certain basic techniques more fully, when one is exposed to the advanced figures in which they are applied.

[madmaximus]

DL
"Swimming Up Stream" is never an easy proposition--as you've probably found out.

Like you, I found that the route I took, putting technique as first and foremost, was a grossly UNpopular one among my peers (as you have found out with yours).
True, most teachers need to bow to the needs of economics and the demands of their market--but you know what, there are many who wish they could teach proficiency in technique and expression.
Like you, even my early partners didn't put any stock to the wisdom of learning the parts well.
Like many, their focus was more advanced steps.
Their rationale was simple--those were the steps they saw the "higher" level dancers were winning with.
And who wouldn't be tempted by that?


My dedication to learning the basics well, stemmed from two things.
First, I spoke to several judges (when I was a newb, not even in bronze), and asked what I should learn, what they valued on the competition dance floor, and WHAT WOULD GET ME UP THERE FASTER--unanimously, they said proficiency in technique and then expression.

Second, upon hearing what the judges had to say, I created a LONG-TERM strategy for getting better, based on the advise of my betters.


So...
Yes, everyone wants advanced steps (who wouldn't)
Yes, unless you find joy in it (which I still do), drills and fundamentals are boring--particularly when you don't understand why you're doing them. and
Yes, you can hurry up, learn the more complex moves, and correct them later...



But...despite my limited repertoire I:
Got asked more at socials (I became a better leader),
Won more competitions (the little I knew, I was better at), and
Had lesser bad habits than my peers (because I learned the figures correctly when it was time to learn them).

And while my peers learned advanced steps--and were ahead of me in the first two years--I went right past them thereafter, and never looked back.

Of course this confounded my peers, and it was much to their chagrin to know the reason I went faster.



You asked for insight DL, and all I can say at this point is this:

It is much harder to RELEARN how to do a step correctly than to learn it right the first time, when you are proficient with the supporting movement for a step (I know this to be true after observing my peers and students spend time unlearning bad habits).

When you have a long-term strategy that you have considered well, and stick with it despite what others are doing, you will understand that "setbacks" (i.e., peer envy, grass is better syndrome) are a programmed part of that strategic process.

Lastly, whether you go one or another way, I would advise you to do what you think is right for you--not because others say so, or because it is popular--but because you believe in what you're doing.






m

[DL]

max -- thanks

[TinyDancer109]

But...despite my limited repertoire I:
Got asked more at socials (I became a better leader),
Won more competitions (the little I knew, I was better at), and
Had lesser bad habits than my peers (because I learned the figures correctly when it was time to learn them).

And while my peers learned advanced steps--and were ahead of me in the first two years--I went right past them thereafter, and never looked back.
....
It is much harder to RELEARN how to do a step correctly than to learn it right the first time, when you are proficient with the supporting movement for a step (I know this to be true after observing my peers and students spend time unlearning bad habits).


Well said, max! *swoon* :ladiesma:

[Mengu]

...wise words...


This is always good to hear, but then the question is, when and how do we decide it's time to move on. I danced bronze for what now feels like an insanely long time. When I moved to silver, I was feeling it was well past time to do so. We danced silver for a couple years. And then one day a guest coach told us we looked bored (not boring, bored, he thought we should challenge ourselves more). We decided it's time to move onto gold. Our regular coach didn't disagree.

Off and on I ponder if that was a mistake, if we should have stuck with Silver, because I don't feel confident enough with our gold yet (even though we have a lot of silver and bronze in some routines), but I also know we have to push ourselves to get better.

Doesn't working on a gold routine also improve silver and bronze steps? Is it really the steps you do, that determine your level, or is it the quality with which you execute them? Right now, I feel like a silver dancer, dancing gold steps. But how would I become a gold dancer without doing what I'm doing now? Perhaps we could keep working on silver steps to the point where we are dancing them as well as a gold level dancer, but why not introduce gold steps into the process since that's the level we're trying to attain?

And the question remains, when do you decide it's time to move on? When you've won a dozen comps? What if you don't do that many comps? When your coach decides he's had enough of your bronze? When an outsider says you need to push yourself more? When you are utterly bored with your level? When you can do every step perfectly as your instructor told you to do? (good luck getting anywhere with that last one)

[dancingirldancing]

How do define perfectly ?

You may not even get past spin turn until you die !

I think there should be a BALANCE beteween learning new steps and going over basic for newbies.

[dancingirldancing]

When you can do every step perfectly as your instructor told you to do? (good luck getting anywhere with that last one)


This is time to change instructor as he has no more to give you ?

[Chris Stratton]

The material you use and the level you enter are only linked in the sense that you cannot use things that aren't allowed, but you are by no means required to use things that are...