DVIDA syllabus examined

Inspired by:

Angel HI said:

On another note, IMHO, and surely to be an unpopular one.......one should rarely use DVIDA and AT curriculum in the same sentence.

Click to expand...

I had a look at this a while back, and I made some comments, in an article here:

http://www.jivetango.co.uk/Teaching/ASyllabusExamined.html

I'd be very interested in other people's feedback on this syllabus - and yes, I know looking at a syllabus in isolation isn't the same as looking at the entire teaching structure, but I still think there's some value.

Has anyone had any experience being taught / teaching with this syllabus?

Any other comments on the syllabus?

(I might collate feedback and do a follow-up to this article, if there's enough response - it'd be good to get some wider comments.)

Close vs open embrace is not mentioned.

This is guide for elements.
I saw many people doing elements without proper technique.
So that program does not mean much without proper learning.

salon, vals, milonga are not mentioned at all.

and musicality is not mentioned at all.

Dave Bailey said:

Inspired by:

I had a look at this a while back, and I made some comments, in an article here:

http://www.jivetango.co.uk/Teaching/ASyllabusExamined.html

I'd be very interested in other people's feedback on this syllabus - and yes, I know looking at a syllabus in isolation isn't the same as looking at the entire teaching structure, but I still think there's some value.

Has anyone had any experience being taught / teaching with this syllabus?

Any other comments on the syllabus?

(I might collate feedback and do a follow-up to this article, if there's enough response - it'd be good to get some wider comments.)

Click to expand...

I was once on the receiving end of this syllabus. It was being used by my Ballroom instructors at the time at their ballroom studio. Since they were a ballroom outfit, and not specialists in AT, they would watch the video, memorize, turn around and teach it to us. We didn't know any better, and we thought it was copacetic.

After a while, we got to the point where we actually out-danced the instructors and the professionals, and it was obvious that they could not keep up. We also found out that this was also their modus operandi for the other ballroom dances (Waltz, FT, Cha-cha, Rumba, etc). Their instructors were only a few patterns ahead of their students. It was really fishy, it was a racket, and this was a very well known chain with "Champions" as owners of the franchise.

This is not an isolated model, this IS the operative model for some big ballroom chains. I know, because I almost became a franchisee at one time. It doesn't take talent. Just money. DVIDA, or whatever syllabus empowers this.

After concentrating on AT for the last few years, and knowing what I know now, I can tell you with impunity, I, and a whole lot of unknowing beginners were victimized and duped by the use of a syllabus for AT.

Never again! :twisted:

I know of nobody knowledgeable who teaches with the DVIDA AT syllabus. In fact, it is quite the reverse. In my area, the DVIDA AT syllabus has enabled the lazy dance "instructors" who want to cash in on the exciting new flavor. They simply buy the bronze level DVD and ape the movements. I doubt they even own the actual paper syllabus. You can imagine how terrible their dancing is. Sadly, the students end up with the short end.

The syllabus itself encourages students to memorize drawn-out walking patterns. Patterns, and more patterns.

As with any other syllabus, you are not taught how to dance. So, I won't demonize the AT syllabus exclusively for this shortcoming. The instructors who refuse to bring in coaching, who insist on relying on DVDs, make this DVIDA system so uniquely awful.

The best teaching approach, I found so far, is based on real dance floor situations and technical concepts.

The first lesson would be about the 3 main beginner problems: How to start the woman, how to stop the woman and how to entertain her in between (by walking). Or if you are a woman: how you let him start you, when will he stop and how to have fun in between.

Some lessons later the students will realize that their way is sometimes blocked by another couple - the solution: ochos. They enable them to wait on the spot. In this way the pivot technique is introduced. In a later lesson I’ll point out that sometimes there is huge gap in front of them because they slow the flow of dance themselves. So we look on caminadas ...

On higher levels the questions could be: How to dance the figure to different music or how to spice up that movement with another rhythm?

The DVIDA AT syllabus seems to put a loot of emphasis on what you dance. I prefer to emphasize the how and why.

Usually the students and other dancers on the floor have more fun that way.

Reserving comment... for now.

Mladenac said:

Close vs open embrace is not mentioned.

Click to expand...

Yes - funny that, you'd think it's quite important. Well, it is quite important. From the list of steps, I'd guess that the classes are probably all in open?

Mladenac said:

salon, vals, milonga are not mentioned at all.

Click to expand...

To be fair, that's reasonable - this is a tango syllabus not a Vals syllabus. Similarly, I wouldn't expect detailed discussions of different tango styles.

Mladenac said:

and musicality is not mentioned at all.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... I suspect that should be called "timing" rather than "musicality", but yes, it should be included.

For fun, at a practice last night, we whizzed through the syllabus. Took about 10 minutes once we'd deciphered the descriptions.

So I am now officially a Gold Member

Great. Have a Milky Bar - on me....

why timing instead of musicality?

Tango music is quite complex, if concentrate only of timing you get quite mechanical dance.
Interpretation of music is quite important in tango, how structure of tango music.

Using elements and musicality is quite important.

Using dynamics of song while dancing makes a sensation of dance, not mechanical walking figures on beats.

No vals, and milonga ??
Go to some milonga and you have vals, and milonga rhythm.

close vs open embrace and how to combine them and when.

dancing on ronda and on small space is not mentioned also.

Great gold member

Mladenac said:

why timing instead of musicality?

Click to expand...

Because it's a more precise concept - you could define it easier.

But I think we're pretty much in agreement that some element along those lines would be needed.

Mladenac said:

No vals, and milonga ??
Go to some milonga and you have vals, and milonga rhythm.

Click to expand...

Presumably, Vals and Milonga would be covered in separate syllabuses (syllabi?) - as they're different dances, well more or less.

Mladenac said:

Great gold member

Click to expand...

I know. I'm very proud

Captain Jep said:

Great. Have a Milky Bar - on me....

Click to expand...

Argh, that blasted tune's in my head now.

good article about tango musicality
http://www.virtuar.com/tango/articles/2005/musicality.htm

knowing all that figures does not guarantee being a good dancer.

adjusting those figures to followers (in close and open embrace, and going in and out of each one, and various heights) with proper interpretation of music yes.

by interpretation of music, I mean by interpretation of music to dynamics of performing learned figures (and combinations of them)

Mladenac said:

good article about tango musicality
http://www.virtuar.com/tango/articles/2005/musicality.htm knowing all that figures does not guarantee being a good dancer. adjusting those figures to followers (in close and open embrace, and going in and out of each one, and various heights) with proper interpretation of music yes. by interpretation of music, I mean by interpretation of music to dynamics of performing learned figures (and combinations of them)

Click to expand...

This has been threaded to death, but, again, a class in musicality is complete BS. One can not teach musicality. Musicality is interpretation of one's feelings to the music. Since what one feels is inate and unique to the individual, it can not be taught.

What you feel at a given point in the music might be different from what another feels, thus the musical interpretation [musicality] of that particular moment is going to be different. Which is correct? Both. One can teach what to listen to... for, and provide suggestion as to what one 'might' do, but that's about it. OK... beathen to death; resurrected; hopefully, buried again.

Best post in the thread.....

Lui said:

The DVIDA AT syllabus seems to put a loot of emphasis on what you dance. I prefer to emphasize the how and why.

Click to expand...

(my bold)

Angel HI said:

This has been threaded to death, but, again, a class in musicality is complete BS. One can not teach musicality. Musicality is interpretation of one's feelings to the music. Since what one feels is inate and unique to the individual, it can not be taught.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. You can help guide a student (though, it's not easy, so better you know your student, better you can guide them), but can't teach musicality.

But, this is true of any syllabus or pro/studnet combination. A syllabus is only a rough guide. Can't define what a teacher can teach their student. That's mostly an effect of the relationship those two have. Whether you're teaching AT, salsa, or two step.

Angel HI said:

This has been threaded to death, but, again, a class in musicality is complete BS. One can not teach musicality. Musicality is interpretation of one's feelings to the music. Since what one feels is inate and unique to the individual, it can not be taught.

Click to expand...

Erm. Sorry if it's been threaded to death, but is it that you disagree with the definition of musicality? Do you mean "musicality" is the natural talent of someone to apply motion to music? If so, would it be less offensive if the classes were called "music appreciation" or perhaps "aural kinesthetics"?

Subliminal said:

Erm. Sorry if it's been threaded to death, but is it that you disagree with the definition of musicality? Do you mean "musicality" is the natural talent of someone to apply motion to music? If so, would it be less offensive if the classes were called "music appreciation" or perhaps "aural kinesthetics"?

Click to expand...

No. I understand what persons intend. They simply mean to teach how to move to certain aspets of the music; stress that high, hit that downbeat, swell w/ that crescendo, etc. Yet, as posted, these things are interpretive, thus correct only to the individual. Perhaps, the course should be called Music Interpretation (as I have taught many times) .