Counting the patterns and the "&"

[at1839]

Hello, I’m new to the Forum so I will introduce myself. I’m from Italy, please forgive my English, my name is Paolo and I’m 59 and I dance for 4 years now.​

​

I hope I’ll find here an answer (if any) to a question I was unable to sort out elsewhere. Is, I suppose, a general issue but for the sake of simplicity we will talk about waltz.​

​

Past week my teacher was explaining a new pattern in waltz; is not a syllabus pattern and I can’t really name it, but say it’s something like foxtrot quick natural weave.​

​

Teacher: Paolo you must dance this 1-&2-3 4-5-6​

Paolo: you mean 1-2&-3 …​

T: I told you 1-&2-3​

P: this is the first time I learn about such a syntax in describing a pattern; syllabus’s patterns are always described as n&, where the & pertains to the preceding beat. Chasse from PP, Back Lock, Turning Lock …​

T: this one is better danced 1-&2; what is the problem?​

​

Now, really, what is the problem? I do have two.​

​

About syntax, I’m not sure 1&2 is a ‘legal’ string to describe the pattern. I’d split beat one, not beat two as needed, don’t you? ​

But is just about the syntax? Is there maybe a subtle difference between that 1-&2 and the usual 1-2&? ​

I do agree not all slows are the same nor all quicks are the same, but if there is a difference now I need a complete answer, I want to know the full story :snake:​

​

Thanks for any advice. Paolo. ​

​

 

[fascination]

I am not a technical expert, but I dance many patterns that have 1 and 2, 3 timing...welcome to df

 

[fascination]

gotcha...now, is there some issue with that?...I have never known it to be anything but a matter of choice

 

[latingal]

Welcome to DF Paolo (at1839)!

 

[at1839]

I think what he is saying is that even though the teacher said 1&2 ... her intonation implied a long 1 and then grouped the &2 closely together.

@fascination; yes this is an issue, a language issue

Whereas proper counting says the & belongs to the number preceding, yet the teacher implied it belonged to the latter.

In this case... what I THINK the teacher REALLY meant was 1a2.

Brilliant. I think this is the key. Must verify if it's compatible with the actual patter, 1a23, right forward, left side, right back, left back CBMP etc.

Which would still gives as much time to beat one as possible, create a quick action on the a, and then still allow the 2 to be danced normally without being shortened.


1&2
half, half, whole

12&
whole, half, half

1a2
3/4, 1/4, whole

Paolo.

 

[opendoor]

Hi Paolo, welcome to DF!

Teacher: Paolo you must dance this 1-&2-3 ..
Paolo: you mean 1-2&-3 …
T: I told you 1-&2-3..

..but if there is a difference now I need a complete answer..

Don´t know if I got it right! But for me (3/4 or 4/4 signature presumed)..

"1-&2-3..." would mean QQSS (4 steps, 3 counts)
"1-2&-3.." would mean SQQS (4 steps, 3 counts)

Within the first example the doubling is on the first off-beat (second eighth) and in the second example it is on the second off-beat (fourth eighth) of the measure. But I am a street dancer, by no means a standard, latin or BR dancer. So perhaps we use different dialects in verbalizing musical theory.

Try to google the following concepts that all got to do with this problem and you will find as much different explanations: doubling, quicks, traspié, contra-tiempo, syncopation.....

And this is what wiki tells us about it

...The word "syncopation" is often used by dance teachers to mean improvised or rehearsed execution of step patterns that have more rhythmical nuances than "standard" step patterns...Many dance teachers criticize the use of the term "syncopation" and abandon it in favour of the term "double-time".

 

[govnu]

Yes, there are great difference!

But is just about the syntax? Is there maybe a subtle difference between that 1-&2 and the usual 1-2&?

To illustrate the difference by a few syllabus figures.

As you mentioned, the Turning lock is 1&23, you cannot change it to 12&3 for syllabus examination.

But some figures , there are alternatives such as Double Reverse turn, 123& or 12&3, actually if you technical ability reaches certain level, you can dance in any combinations 1&23, 12&3, 123&, 1&2& in advanced level

One more example is Fallaway reverse with slip pivot, 123&, 12&3 are allowed for syllabus exam, beyond gold level, you can set any combinations as you like depending on your ability and the amalgamation.

 

[Angel HI]

Il benvenuto, Paulo, al DF. Un complesso una prima domanda, questo è. Having learned/danced this in Fance first, I understand the Euro concept. I agree with Larinda's post above. http://www.dance-forums.com/showpost.php?p=958246&postcount=3 Though, I also understand the freedom of choice in altering the rhythm/timing to one's personal feel.

 

[at1839]

I was asked to summarize and thereby close the thread; we’ve two trends, in fact, and I want to thank everybody for comments.

About the syntax. Will be regarded as odd to think waltz in term of slow and quick but let me try this once. Comments agreed that if you demonstrate a pattern dancing SQQS you must really count that 12&3. Counting 1&23 will mean QQSS, thanks Larinda and also thanks for pointing on the difference between 1& (1/2 + 1/2) and 1a (3/4 + 1/4).

About the pattern. Thanks Govnu for your comment on syllabus examination and free interpretation. I was requested to dance something like a Slow Foxtrot quick natural weave, right forward, left side, right back, left back CBMP etc. Here the actual pattern, imho, cannot be danced reasonably else than SQQS. But sometime we’ve a bad attitude on ‘counting’, especially when what you need is a ‘legato’ action. Here the Italian language could easily be the origin of the syntax mistake because in Italian ‘uno e due tre’ sounds really much more a ‘legato’ feel while ‘uno due e tre’ sounds like ‘staccato’, trust me as an Italian native

In the end as come to me what Marcus Hilton says describing chasse from PP: “The figure is made of four steps but still I’d like you dancing one bar of music, so simply a word to give you, waltz”.

Cu. Paolo.