American Smooth Thread

[neveragain]

Not up for debate. I saw this YT video again and it reminded me why I fell in love with smooth. Everyone has preferences and I respect that. Just want to share mine. I'm not a big fan of over the top contemporary like tricks that I see sometimes on smooth. I like this clean and elegant type of smooth dancing.
(This belongs to another thread once I find it: my other love is American rhythm bc samba and paso music are not my jam)

Smooth vs Standard

 

[opendoor]

Not up for debate... Smooth vs Standard

As an outsider, can you point me to the differences anyway, as I actually don't see big ones?

-the smooth couple closes their frame at navel height, while the standard-couple is connected 10 cm lower.
-the smooth follower more frequently places her weight on the entire foot, while the other one tends to stay more on her balls.

 

[fiesta0618]

As an outsider, can you point me to the differences anyway, as I actually don't see big ones?

-the smooth couple closes their frame at navel height, while the standard-couple is connected 10 cm lower.
-the smooth follower more frequently places her weight on the entire foot, while the other one tends to stay more on her balls.

You didn't notice the choreography variation? The Smooth couple breaks out of closed hold, the Standard couple does not.

 

[j_alexandra]

Had not seen that video before; thank you for it!

A while ago, @Arun Garg posted, in this thread,

As a former Smooth champ told me during a coaching: if you can’t dance the standard equivalent, don’t put it in your material. So my goal is to find the “standard equivalent” as much as possible in my smooth material and ensure that I dance the same base mechanics whether it be in frame or not. Beyond that is a matter of taste in shaping, timing, interpretation, but always the mechanics (foot positions, body positions, foot pressure, footwork, etc) remain relatively the same and true to the standard predecessor, regardless of the partnership position (closed Vs. single hand hold vs. shadow vs. apart etc.)

This video is the perfect visual aid to that concept. Interesting for me to see the side-by-side figures, so similar but different.

 

[singndance]

Had not seen that video before; thank you for it!

A while ago, @Arun Garg posted, in this thread,


This video is the perfect visual aid to that concept. Interesting for me to see the side-by-side figures, so similar but different.

I wish to high heaven I had started with standard before I fell in love with smooth. Pro is always drawing me back to the standard moves on which he bases our smooth choreography, and I have huge holes I. My knowledge base that he has found it imperative to fill (yes, at great cost to me )!

 

[opendoor]

...The Smooth couple breaks out of closed hold, the Standard couple does not.

Of course I saw that, but style isn't defined by vocabulary (at least not for me). Are you defining the differences by syllabus restrictions?

 

[j_alexandra]

Coming out of closed hold into various open positions is what characterizes Smooth. That's not syllabus restrictions.

The way dancers use their bodies in open/side by side/shadow position etc while still partnering, how the arms are used, the shaping etc. are more than syllabus restrictions. They are indeed vocabulary, the scaffold for the style.

You ignore them and focus on the location of points of contact when contact is not always present, or the placement of foot pressure when that is likely the dancer's choice rather than characteristic of the style.

Perhaps you are accustomed to a dance style that never breaks out of closed hold, so you don't even see the differences? I have a tiny bit of sympathy for that, b/c when I first started out, I literally could not see the difference, either. But you've been observing and analyzing dance for many years; I find it surprising that you'd miss this fundamental element, or dismiss it as a syllabus restriction.

 

[fiesta0618]

Of course I saw that, but style isn't defined by vocabulary (at least not for me). Are you defining the differences by syllabus restrictions?

In theory, Standard and Smooth use exactly the same technique (whenever the Smooth dancers are in closed position). If you're looking for systematic variations there, you will not find them; any differences you see will be characteristics of the dancer, not characteristics of the style.

Spoiler: Stylistic discussion hidden because this is the 1000th repetition of it

Be careful not to confuse syllabus with boundaries of the form. The syllabus is a detailed, complex learning tool, while the boundaries of a form are both broader and simpler.

For example, one of the boundaries of Argentine Tango is that it is danced in some kind of embrace. If you do not (principally) use an embrace, whatever dance you are doing isn't really AT. Inspired by AT perhaps, or fusion with AT, but not something squarely within the boundaries of the form.

Standard has a similar boundary, with traditional hold & contact/close proximity required. Violate that restriction, and whatever you are doing immediately becomes Standard-adjacent, pushing the boundaries of the form. Smooth's boundaries are less clearly defined; I would say that they include a lead-follow requirement principally based on touch, and basically nothing else. "Lack of restriction" is one of its main characteristics, in fact!

************
But to the heart of your question: the boundaries of a form ABSOLUTELY DO inform its style, because they place outer limits on what movements are available. And those limits affect artistic choices.

For example, there is no conceivable way for a couple to do a bodyroll within the limits of Standard. In Smooth, they can. Ergo, a Standard couple wishing to evoke the aesthetics and emotions for which bodyrolls are well-suited need to find a different tool for the job. They can still accomplish that, if they are skilled enough, but they are forced to do so differently.

Combine thousands of such boundary-informed vocabulary & palette differences, and the result is "different styles." Vocabulary itself is not the style, but both vocabulary AND style are informed by the limits of the form. So they will correlate, even though they have little to no causal relationship.

I would also say that one very cool thing these couples are doing, and which may confound your analysis, is they are working very hard to coordinate their actions so that the Standard and Smooth couples have similar color & texture. The Standard couple is being a touch gaudy & overstated, while the Smoothies are staying more contained & conservative than they might otherwise be. They meet in the middle beautifully, I think! Decisions that might not work so well alone are the exactly the right touch for this moment and message.

 

[Warren J. Dew]

Of course I saw that, but style isn't defined by vocabulary (at least not for me). Are you defining the differences by syllabus restrictions?

Pretty much yes. Standard requires couples to stay in closed hold, so if they don’t do that, it’s not Standard.

 

[opendoor]

..Standard and Smooth use exactly the same technique.. in closed position...

Thank you for your clear explanation; that answers my question. I was confused because I remember you explaining American style quite differently years ago. Now you seem to see it as division, but no longer as a style.

..Be careful not to confuse syllabus with boundaries of the form...

You're giving an evasive answer here by shifting the focus to a different technical term. My key terms are vocabulary (and its restrictions) and style. And clearly, syllabus is way more than what I wrote above. But I think you've understood my main point: style is independent of vocabulary.

..the boundaries of Argentine Tango is that it is danced in some kind of embrace. If you do not (principally) use an embrace.. it isn't really AT..

Here too, you're avoiding the style concept. The AT vocabulary is much larger than, for example, that of International Silver Standard Tango. I could dance the entire Standard Tango vocabulary in the Argentine style, and you would still label it AT. Conversely, there are former BR dancers who have mastered the AT vocabulary without having completely erased their stylistic origins.

.. to the heart of your question: the boundaries of a form ABSOLUTELY DO inform its style, because they place outer limits on what movements are available. And those limits affect artistic choices.

It took you a lot of words to admit that your understanding of style has changed!

 

[Warren J. Dew]

Smooth's boundaries are less clearly defined; I would say that they include a lead-follow requirement principally based on touch

I would disagree. Visual follow is perfectly acceptable in Smooth.

In fact my principle criticism of the video’s smooth couple is that they never use an apart position, maintaining some kind of contact throughout.

 

[fiesta0618]

I was confused because I remember you explaining American style quite differently years ago. Now you seem to see it as division, but no longer as a style.

...

It took you a lot of words to admit that your understanding of style has changed!

My understanding of style has not changed. Your mental model of my understanding may have.

You talk about "division" vs "style" as though it is a critical categorical distinction. To me, it isn't. Are Spanish and Portuguese different languages, or closely-related divisions of the Romance family of languages? Both characterizations are true, and one or the other will be more salient in any given context.

Smooth and Standard are different dance languages, but both branch from the same sociocultural roots and continue to borrow from one another (as well as from other styles outside of the Ballroom umbrella). In the best case, there is also good mutual intelligibility--just as with Spanish & Portuguese.

In the style conversation you are referencing, you were essentially making a claim that Smooth had no cultural identity. I focused hard on its distinctions from Standard as a way of illustrating the point that it does (analogously, that Spanish and Portuguese are distinct languages). Acknowledging the commonalities here is not me "changing my definition," it merely indicates that you over-corrected yours.

You're giving an evasive answer here by shifting the focus to a different technical term. My key terms are vocabulary (and its restrictions) and style.

...

Here too, you're avoiding the style concept.

If you want me to respond clearly & cogently to your questions about style, you will need to be much clearer yourself about how you are using the term. You seem to be using style with at least two different meanings--a categorical identifier (what it is), vs. a descriptor of manner (how one does it).

 

[opendoor]

..my principle criticism of the video’s smooth couple is that they never use an apart position, maintaining some kind of contact..

And my criticism of the video is that the smooth couple doesn't use the same vocabulary and posture as the standard couple. I'm looking for differences beyond open and closed.

 

[opendoor]

..Your mental model of my understanding may have..

We can never rule that out, after all, I also grow from your explanations.

You talk about "division" vs "style" as though it is a critical categorical distinction. To me, it isn't..

Division is an organizational, practical classification within an association. Style is an established identity independent of professional organizations. It is defined socially.

Are Spanish and Portuguese different languages, or closely-related divisions of the Romance family of languages?

You're trying to dodge the question again! Why are you so unreasonable? In the dance world, the languages Spanish and Portuguese correspond to different dances. "Style" always refers to one and the same dance carried out in a slightly different way. So there's mainland Portuguese and Galician in Spain. Both are different dialects of the same language and correspond to different styles of one and the same dance.

..Smooth and Standard are different dance languages..

Again you avoid the term style.

..just as with Spanish & Portuguese.

Not at all! Why are you squirming like this? Therefore, I must assume that you have left behind your take of of the American style as an own cultural identity.

...here is not me "changing my definition," it merely indicates that you over-corrected yours.

You're obstinate, but so am I ! But I still remember that your stance was quite differently before. Now you are acting like an official of an association, a teacher trainer and you start spreading views that once made me leave ballroom. Don't you remember that we've once stylistically analyzed historical French, English, American, and Argentinian tango styles. I've already stylistically defined LA-style and NY-style salsa in the relevant forum. Similarly, one can stylistically distinguish between Ländler and Viennese waltz. We also dance swing in different styles. So, why do you reject the concept of style?

 

[Warren J. Dew]

And my criticism of the video is that the smooth couple doesn't use the same vocabulary and posture as the standard couple. I'm looking for differences beyond open and closed.

Why in the world would a Smooth couple restrict themselves to Standard vocabulary? Then they would just be dancing Standard.

To my mind, the demonstration is misguided; Smooth isn’t a variation of Standard. If anything, Standard is a restriction of Smooth, as Smooth came first.