Has anyone ever achieved gold status on most of the 10 styles in 1 year?

[IngaSv]

There are also things like musicality which cannot be executed solely through muscle memory and physical ability. It's about the dance being an expression of the music, and also your dancing being the embodiment of the character of the dance itself. For instance, what is the essence of the character of Quickstep, or Samba? How can you best communicate this through your dance to the audience while at the same time fully expressing the particular music you are dancing to? People many not realise but actually in any dance exactly the same figures and choreography can take on a different "feel"when danced to a different piece of music. Even with a natural sense of musicality and perfecting the physical execution of the figures this aspect is difficult to develop and perfect. It's possible that one can be in great physical shape, perform the movements technically well, and still not look like they're actually dancing.

Agreeing with all the observations regarding DWTS/SCD. The whole premise of the shows is to fake someone having a magical transformation into a dancer. Here it's actually killed off some of the general interest in the dance scene, because a lot of new people come in expecting to be "proficient" in a very short period of time, pressure and blame the teacher when they don't progress as fast as they think they should, and then end up giving up. One does not become a great painter or musician in a year, so why would dancing be any different? (Not saying this is what the OP is expecting).

 

[MaggieMoves]

Having dinner with one of the DWTS pros a few years back and all she said under her breath was "smoke and mirrors dude, smoke and mirrors".

Heard the exact same from a former pro herself. It's TV - no surprise there.

 

[twnkltoz]

The choreography is very carefully chosen to look flashy without requiring the star to actually dance well.

 

[Mr 4 styles]

I too have spoken to the pros on dwts many times. And I've seen the show live. The pros drag a lot of their partners around the floor. Even some of the best celebs and winners

 

[Mengu]

To get back to the OP's question, there is one famous Hollywood example I can think of that might apply here, with caveats... The late Debbie Reynolds with zero dance experience went into a role dancing beside two of the best in the biz. She had 3 months to learn all her routines and dance as well as her co-stars. She had some 15 hour practice days at the end of which her feet were literally bleeding. Her body and spirit were almost broken, but she had a contract, and she had to do it. Some of the cast didn't believe in her, but she got encouragement from others that kept her going, and she luckily listened to her doctor to take some rest (instead of her manager who was pushing her schedule and would have just doped her). She got through it all, and in the end, according to the critics, she presented an "acceptable" performance. "Acceptable" from movie critics of the time, is high praise for someone who started with zero experience. For what it's worth, today's critics call her performance, effortless and legendary.

When she later did other dancing roles, they weren't much easier. She didn't really have a foundation like Cyd or Ginger, so choreographers had to either use elements she already knew, or put her to work, learning and practicing again. But she had more time to develop her dancing. (ps. most this information is coming from my recollection of what I've heard on TCM interviews)

Today's ballroom dancing is certainly more demanding. You could start learning open choreography straight away, that you are going to use a year from now. And through bleeding feet and determination, you could get that performance to a level to sway some judges and make a few callbacks. But you would miss out on building foundations. You could become a good performer, but not necessarily a good ballroom dancer.

It simply takes time to build foundation skills. And in the case of a leader, a bit longer.

Regardless, I'm not a professional, and no great advance was made with conventional wisdom, so I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors, and would love to hear about your progress.

 

[IngaSv]

I still think there's a big difference between being a movie star that dances and a professional dancer competing at a top level; likewise movie critics are not ballroom dance judges. What is considered to be a good movie (or television for that matter) performance is distinct from the requirements of competitive ballroom dancing. What people like Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly, Cyd, Ginger, etc performed was not ballroom dancing either. It was more of a popularised, less technically regimented version of a blend of tap, ballet and contemporary (not saying it's worse or better than ballroom dancing, just different).

It would be very cool and inspirational if someone actually did achieve the top level in all 10 styles in a year! OP, we're rooting for you!

 

[Mengu]

I still think there's a big difference between being a movie star that dances and a professional dancer competing at a top level

Gene Kelly started dancing when he was 8, he was an athlete as a teenager, and was teaching dance when he was 20. His level of experience in the 50's is comparable to competitive professionals of today. Debbie had to somehow catch up, or in her words, get good enough to fake it. Dancing is dancing. Style doesn't change the story. No one else was offering stories of dancers who rose to the top of their class in a short time, so I did, and it is still more of a cautionary tale, than a glowing example.

Also I think you underestimate how good the dancers needed to be, and how demanding the industry was, for film making in the 40's and 50's. Producers hated second takes, it was expensive, and time consuming, so the dancers had to nail each number in one take, which took many hours of practice on tight schedules. Only a handful of male actors could pull this off, and producers and choreographers didn't even like giving anyone new a chance. It wasn't like today's movies where you can get a dozen do overs. Also, good female dancers were a dime a dozen, and they would all kill to dance with Fred or Gene. I dare say, the requirements were more akin to today's competitions. Auditions were like the first rounds of a championship, and if you happen to make it to the final, you only have one take to do 5 numbers to convince judges you are the champion.

 

[danceronice]

It's also a good example of HOW MUCH WORK it takes to look that good that quickly. Not four hours a day with a pro who's going to pull you through the routine enough to fool viewers (remember the SCD/DWTS judges are in on the trick and not judging they way they would in a real competition) but to actually hold your own and not just look good next to a Gene Kelly or a Fred Astaire, but do it well enough for directors and even them. Reputedly Astaire and Kelly were both very demanding to work with. They held themselves to very high standards and expected the same out of their co-stars. Reynolds basically worked a miracle, with a LOT of pain, and the results were deemed "adequate enough she didn't embarrass herself."

 

[Loki]

A male am I know was once told by a judge that "it was obvious your (female) pro was doing all the dancing".

 

[twnkltoz]

A male am I know was once told by a judge that "it was obvious your (female) pro was doing all the dancing".

Ouch. But yeah... I've seen a lot of that.

 

[Mr 4 styles]

And my females pros were told the exact opposite by judges and top competitors at the last comps. That's what 13 years of hard work can get ya !!

 

[tangotime]

Gene Kelly started dancing when he was 8,

and was teaching dance when he was 20.

I started at age 4 ( as many English kids do/did ). And "teacher" trained at 19.. Looking back, I now realise how much I did not know !!..( and still don't )

 

[s2k]

The pros drag a lot of their partners around the floor. Even some of the best celebs and winners

When my non-ballroom friends ask me if I watch that show (ugh... that question) I tell them I call that show "Dragging the Stars Around the Floor."

 

[twnkltoz]

When my non-ballroom friends ask me if I watch that show (ugh... that question) I tell them I call that show "Dragging the Stars Around the Floor."

I always say, "no, I watch enough beginners at work."

 

[IndyLady]

There are also things like musicality which cannot be executed solely through muscle memory and physical ability. It's about the dance being an expression of the music, and also your dancing being the embodiment of the character of the dance itself. For instance, what is the essence of the character of Quickstep, or Samba? How can you best communicate this through your dance to the audience while at the same time fully expressing the particular music you are dancing to? People many not realise but actually in any dance exactly the same figures and choreography can take on a different "feel"when danced to a different piece of music. Even with a natural sense of musicality and perfecting the physical execution of the figures this aspect is difficult to develop and perfect. It's possible that one can be in great physical shape, perform the movements technically well, and still not look like they're actually dancing.

^^^This.

OP, one other thing for your "to-do" list... if you do not already, it's time to start listening to all sorts of music in your spare time, both mainstream and obscure. You should be able to identify which dance the song is without being told (e.g. is it a foxtrot, waltz, samba, cha cha, etc), and get a sense for what kind of expression it calls for - elegant, sassy, flirty, sad, etc. And let it move you.