Milonga Syncopation

[LKSO]

I'm often not intellectually aware that there is syncopation going on in the music but my feet respond to it by tapping. This was never taught, I just do it, and I only became aware of it when I noticed people looking at my feet as I did it.

I step on the downbeat then tap with the other foot on the stressed upbeat. It feels wrong not to do it if the music begins a syncopated section.

 

[opendoor]

..It brings up the idea of a dancer's rhythm versus a musician's rhythm. How can you explain syncopation to a dancer who may have no clue what a time signature is?

Exactly, this is the reason why I once (at the beginning of this thread or the preceding one) mentioned that syncopa is a musical term only and that the dancer´s equivalent is traspie - stumbling.

 

[UKDancer]

How can you explain syncopation to a dancer who may have no clue what a time signature is?

I would say that it isn't an academic construct that requires training to understand, but that the time signature reflects the basic musical stress pattern that anyone can hear. The two major groupings of tango music have the basic stress pattern in two: strong, weak, or four: strongest, weak, less strong, weak. It doesn't matter how the basic pulse or heartbeat of the music is notated (it does to the performers, but they are trained to play virtually anything) it could be 2/4 or 4/4 (the /4 denoting quarter notes in both cases) or (more commonly for tango) 2/4 or 4/8 (ie 4 eighth notes). The thing that marks the difference is that the primary stress comes around every four beats of the music's heart, not every two. Which unit you notate the score in just doesn't matter, (and the preferred basic unit of beat has changed, a lot, throughout musical history). It's what you hear, and how the composer/arranger has organised the music that determines the time signature, and not the other way around.

So, simply put, syncopation just means that the stress falls on some beats (by no means all) where you wouldn't expect stress. There's no magic involved, and your ears can tell you everything you need to know. Unless its Belgica, of course.

PS Your ears don't deceive you in Beligica, actually, it's just that it's too late.

 

[AndaBien]

...but that the time signature reflects the basic musical stress pattern that anyone can hear...

I think you're right, but do they hear it, and do they understand it? Be careful - you're getting suspiciously close to teaching rhythm to dancers.

 

[dchester]

The whole idea of syncopation seems so inclusive that it is pretty hard to pin down, at least for me, and apparently for most of us. Here is the link to that broader definition of syncopation that I posted pages ago.

http://www.kennedy-center.org/nso/classicalmusiccompanion/syncopation.html


This is about where I am in my understanding, but without the maybe.


Except that, upbeats can be backbeats.
Sorry for the rock n roll example, but, although Tamlyn (in his PhD dissertation) writes that Blue Suede Shoes is in 2/2 cut time, when you buy the sheet music, the time signature is 4/4. And Tamlyn identifies an "emphatic snare beat" in the song.

I'm thinking the time signature itself is not that reliable?

A simple example: In 4/4 time (4 beats per measure, where a single 1/4 note is a beat), we "normally" emphasize the 1st and 3rd beats of a measure (1 & 3 are the strong beats, 2 & 4 are the weak beats)

Normal (Not syncopated) - Beats 1 & 3 Emphasized
| 1 2 3 4 | 1 2 3 4 |
| S w S w | S w S w |

Syncopated - Beats 2 & 4 Emphasized
| 1 2 3 4 | 1 2 3 4 |
| w S w S | w S w S |

S = Strong beat
w = weak beat

Now there are many other (more complicated) examples of syncopation. This is just one scenario.

 

[UKDancer]

I think you're right, but do they hear it, and do they understand it? Be careful - you're getting suspiciously close to teaching rhythm to dancers.

Actually, I don't think that anyone can get very far with tango - and certainly not as an improvised dance, if they don't feel the rhythms of the music. Understanding can come at many levels, of course, and anyone's capacity to decode the music will change, over time, and to some extent reflect the community in which they dance (if only, because of the available pool of partners). A teacher's job is to introduce ideas, concepts and techniques. The students job is to be open to ideas - and by no means just the teacher's - and to experiment and internalise. We each make out own tango, from a variety of influences and sources. If we know nothing of the music of tango, then a teacher with musical sensitivity (and some show little sign of it, sadly) can help a student to progress, or to unlock doors that seemed barred, but the real work is always done by the students. The exception, of course, is the teacher whose goal is to produce dancing clones of themselves: look at me - this is tango - dance like me. No thanks.

 

[Zoopsia59]

The old school of thought, that people learn differently, is outdated. This would be the multiple learning modalities that have been used for a couple of decades based on flawed psychological research.

"Think You're An Auditory Or Visual Learner? Scientists Say It's Unlikely"
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/201...or-visual-learner-scientists-say-its-unlikely

I interpret this article much differently than you (or the person who wrote the headline)

"When he reviewed studies of learning styles, he found no scientific evidence backing up the idea. "We have not found evidence from a randomized control trial supporting any of these," he says, "and until such evidence exists, we don't recommend that they be used.""

Lack of evidence of one thing is not the same as evidence of another thing. The article relates that one person studying the issue found no evidence that different learning styles exist. It does not claim that evidence was found that different learning styles do NOT exist.

It goes on to say that some researchers and educators think energy should be spent determining what makes us alike, rather than what makes us different.

So as far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out, and the theory that people might be auditory, visual or kinesthetic might still have validity.

As someone who has Central Auditory Processing Disorder, it DEFINITELY applies to ME. I CANNOT learn from auditory information. It MUST be presented visually to me. There is clearly a difference in how the brain processes and retains the two kinds of information, and it has nothing to do with previous experience or training. Someone can talk to me about something I am trained for, and I will still get lost listening to what they are saying.

I may be extreme, but it demonstrates that the processes are different and are handled quite separately in the brain. Therefore, it's logical to assume that people may have an innate predisposition, although it may not be as pronounced as it is in me.

It will take more than one rather generic "scientists are exploring this" article to convince me otherwise. Discovering how I best receive information has improved my learning curve substantially. I wish I had known (or that educators had recognized) that auditory info wasn't working for me when I was school aged. It might have made life much easier and I might have done far better in school.

 

[LKSO]

I interpret this article much differently than you (or the person who wrote the headline)

Your interpretation of the article is in fact correct. I only included one link but I've read thousands of articles on related research that support the same conclusion that we are far more similar intellectually than we are different.

As someone who has Central Auditory Processing Disorder, it DEFINITELY applies to ME. I CANNOT learn from auditory information. It MUST be presented visually to me. There is clearly a difference in how the brain processes and retains the two kinds of information, and it has nothing to do with previous experience or training. Someone can talk to me about something I am trained for, and I will still get lost listening to what they are saying.

I made the claim that we are more similar than different based on the average person, which excludes those with disabilities. I'm well aware that there are people who do have cognitive deficits in certain areas which the statement would not apply to. I used to work in Special Education and know this first hand.

It will take more than one rather generic "scientists are exploring this" article to convince me otherwise. Discovering how I best receive information has improved my learning curve substantially. I wish I had known (or that educators had recognized) that auditory info wasn't working for me when I was school aged. It might have made life much easier and I might have done far better in school.

There will always be exceptions to general statements, hence the reason they are general statements and not dogma.

The reason why I mentioned that we are more similar than different is because of a pervasive belief that we are more different than similar. Most teachers still believe in the auditory, visual, kinesthetic modalities of learning and will attempt to teach something using all of these modalities or some form thereof, or will justify their teaching methods using this theory. Unfortunately, the evidence that it even exists is very weak and attempts to teach in such to such styles does not work.

I don't know if you want to know the history of how this came to be but there is often a rather long delay before psychological research penetrates educational pedagogy. And when it finally reaches pedagogy, some things will have been overturned, but the pedagogists think it's new when it's really 10 years old.

 

[Steve Pastor]

I don't know if you want to know the history of how this came to be

I'm not really caught up on my current reading, but if you can post a link or...

 

[LKSO]

I'm not really caught up on my current reading, but if you can post a link or...

This will take some time. I won't be able to summarize it with just one link to an article, however, if you give me something very specific, I might be able to find something that answers it more concisely

 

[Steve Pastor]

I don't know if you want to know the history of how this came to be but there is often a rather long delay before psychological research penetrates educational pedagogy. And when it finally reaches pedagogy, some things will have been overturned, but the pedagogists think it's new when it's really 10 years old.

This is true for just about any field, I would think. Thought you had something more specific in mind.

 

[LKSO]

My point was that by the time psychological research gets into the hands of educators, the information may have become outdated and overturned. Sometimes, only one side of the research gets there, even though there are competing theories, as is the case of multiple intelligences. This results in bias of the literature which is then taught to a generation of students who then believe a small slice of a broad spectrum. Since educators are not necessarily scientists, they do not keep up with the literature and are therefore unable to update their knowledge or teaching practices.

 

[Zoopsia59]

I made the claim that we are more similar than different based on the average person, which excludes those with disabilities.

Well, if you work from the premise that cognitive abilities are black and white rather than running along a spectrum, it makes sense. However, since most things operate along a spectrum, it's not as clear cut as you want to make it. You are even trying to settle the argument "are we more the same or are we different?" with an either/or answer. However, that too, runs a spectrum.

The 3 methods of learning that I mention are clearly using different parts of the brain for processing. One of the abilities does not have to be significantly disordered for another to simply function better while both fall within the "normal" distribution. Two people whose blood sugar falls within the "normal" range can still have very different blood sugar levels. The point at which it is considered disease is not when it varies at all, but when it varies enough to create a significant problem (with significant usually being defined by someone other than the person with the problem). If the patient feels that their energy is hampered by fluctuations, they may benefit from doing something about it even when their glucose levels fall into what doctors insist is the "normal" range.

"Normal" (ie: non-disabled) humans might all use visual, auditory and kinesthetic learning abilities which make us similar. Any one individual may fair better using a specific one, which makes us different. Someone does not have to be incapable of using the other two to fair better with one, just as one does not have to fall into the "diseased" category to benefit from monitoring glycemic intake. If a dance teacher talks a lot giving descriptions to someone who would catch on better by seeing the move, then the student doesn't pick it up as fast as they might. If there is any subject where the differences in the 3 learning styles can be readily observed, it's in teaching dance!

The bottom line is that we can be both similar AND different. Trying to decide which is more significant is pointless because if only one was studied, we would miss out on half of the potential knowledge to be gained.

Yes, things change and new information often revises previous modalities. But often the new theory gets revised again and you end up back where you started. The idea that visual, auditory and kinesthetic are completely interchangeable with no affect is not proven beyond doubt either.

Studying what makes us the same is important. So is studying what makes us different. We are both of those things. Focusing on one will never give all the answers.

Duality is a pain in the knat sometimes, but an unavoidable fact of life.

 

[Zoopsia59]

If a student wants to know what the numbers are, I tell him/her. If my student is getting confused by the numbers, I try a different approach. If someone just wants to know where to put their foot, that's what I tell them.

Yeah. If my student wants me to demonstrate a move, I show it to them. If they want me to place their body so they can feel it, I do that. If they want me to talk about what they are supposed to do, I explain it more thoroughly. I start from the premise that I need to do all 3 to some extent, and see how it sinks in.

Of course, there are some students who just don't ever seem to input anything no matter how you present it. Then we are definitely into psychology and not neurology.

 

[LKSO]

An example just came to mind, though I don't know how relevant it is.

Whole language approach
The whole language approach was based on the observation that good readers see the entire word and understand it
while poor readers must read individual letters. This led to the pedagogical approach of teaching words, not letters. Results: students couldn't read but they loved reading. (I had a teacher who taught this way, though luckily, I had already learned to read by then thus sparing me from illiteracy.)

The reasoning here was that research indicated that good readers automatically read the whole word and if the poor readers were taught this way, they'd also become good readers. However, research revealed that good readers become good readers through letter-sound awareness. It's only after sufficient practice can they perceive the entire word as a whole. Oops. The whole language vs. phonics debate, which was quite rife in the 90s, ended with this discovery. Phonics won (the way I was taught how to read in preschool.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_language