DVIDA syllabus examined

[tangotime]

Perhaps, the course should be called Music Interpretation (as I have taught many times) .

A distinction with a difference.. all to often, some people lump them both together...

 

[Mladenac]

I find this definition very well

musicality - an ability to put current dancing pattern on top of the current musical phrase

some dance tango as aerobics, some dance listening the music and feel the music.
but everything has structure, so learning song interpretation is welcome.
And later you dance what you feel like.

The more I dance the more I hear in songs.

Good article and demo:
http://tangostudent.blogspot.com/2008/12/selective-hearing.html

 

[Dave Bailey]

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.

Yes, that's why I preferred "timing" on the syllabus.

You can teach - or at least demonstrate - timing.

 

[dchester]

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.....

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

(my bold)

While it's possible this is about semantics, I certainly don't agree that a class in musicality is complete BS (although some might be). I can explain parts (but not all) of what I do and why. However, I agree that some aspects might not be able to be taught. Yes, feeling are inate and sometimes unique, but that doesn't mean that teaching about it is complete BS, just that you might not duplicate what I do, but it might help you to better express your own feelings.

To the point Lui made, I am mostly in agreement, but IMO, you have to understand the what, before you can really focus on the how and why.

 

[Mladenac]

i would first introduce body motion awareness relating to the learning figure, than that awareness transferred to leading and following certain parts of a figure, and in the end making full figure.

when you introduce dynamics, than it is easy to apply it since dancer has body awareness.

musicality is expressing dynamics of a song to the dance.
if you learn figures (what) that you cannot apply it properly to the song, if you don't learn complete technique of each element.

 

[Angel HI]

While it's possible this is about semantics, I certainly don't agree that a class in musicality is complete BS (although some might be). I can explain parts (but not all) of what I do and why. However, I agree that some aspects might not be able to be taught. Yes, feeling are inate and sometimes unique, but that doesn't mean that teaching about it is complete BS, just that you might not duplicate what I do, but it might help you to better express your own feelings.

We are in 'complete' agrement on this.

BS, in my orig post, referred to the incessant usage...misuage of the term.

From Tangotime.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel HI
Perhaps, the course should be called Music Interpretation (as I have taught many times) :smile: .

A distinction with a difference.. all to often, some people lump them both together...