My previous pro told me I needed to work on being "recklessly precise". Because apparently I was/am capable of both, but not simultaneously in the optimal blend. I started my dance journey reckless, then the pendulum swung to trying to be too precise, so I'm trying to bring back some of what brung me to the dance.
post competition disorder
- Thread starter fascination
- Start date
Misspendragon
Forum Master
The final goal is the have both: precision and passion. I prioritize precision during practice usually, but when it comes to performance, passion means more to me than precision, both as a spectator and as a dancer. Even if at this stage of my development, yes, opting to be a madwoman definitely means some loss of precision. (AS IF I had that precision in the first place
).
ProgressNotPerfection
Forum Master
oooooo this sounds familiar....although in my case, delete the word "subconsciously"
YES! THIS! Next step for me is learning how to handle my lack of precision (during lessons & practice) without getting stuck in circular thinking about how my lack of precision makes me a "failure."* During performances and comps, I can't worry too much about technique, because whatever my body has learned at that point is the best it can possibly do that day - so my focus has to be on connection and performance.
Warren J. Dew
Forum Master
Does "passion" imply "like a madwoman"?
13 year old was indoctrinated into the idea that movement results from technique. One time he had a lesson from a local studio owner where he complained he was constantly told to "move", but was not told how to do it - what the associated technique was. This resulted in a very WDSF look - lots of movement resulting from lots of visible effort, which may or may not be what Fiesta means by "like a madwoman".
Upon hearing this complaint, I went over improvements he could make to the technique and action to support and result in greater movement. This resulted in closer to the traditional English look - lots of movement while with minimal apparent effort and even the impression of stillness.
His coach was fine with either at the time, but it's clear there was an exclusive choice between the two.
Edit: this was in Standard; I don't know if there's a cognate for Latin. I think it can be applied to Smooth, but we haven't emphasized it yet.
Misspendragon
Forum Master
I was joking with the madwoman comment, of course one should always look in control at least to the extent that you seem stable and IN control of your own movements. But without solid technique and lots of experience, that's just not always possible when you really go for a movement. So, it is a choice: do I risk getting out control for the sake of 100 percent commitment, or shall I focus on staying in control and be precise but perhaps a tad less "going for it?"
I used to give my 100 percent to every round and movement. This resulted in (1) me being exhausted by the end of the first round, heck by the end of the first cha cha, because really, one can go about 5 seconds with truly full commitment (literally. A sprinter can sprint at her absolute fastest speed for about 5 seconds) and (2), a world champion walking up to me with a comment, "I admire your commitment, but I got exhausted just from watching you," which was not meant as a compliment.
Now, my new strategy is to give only 87 percent in the first events or rounds and give my 97 percent to the last one, while also working on stamina. The remaining 3 percent I retain so that I can occasionally smile, get to the the end of a full round, and avoid the "she is fighting for survival" look.
Passion can be either controlled or uncontrolled. Both are effective. But I do think passionate dancing is fully committed dancing, one way or a other, which is not to say one must be always fully committed and/or passionate to be entertaining. IF you have the talent and skill set of a B Watson, you can just have fun on the floor and still look great and highly entertaining. Me, I cannot afford that.
Last edited:
Warren J. Dew
Forum Master
Thanks. That's useful. Does 100% commitment imply 100% energy output level, though? For example, if one is doing say rumba basics, or even time steps, can one commit 100% to full leg straightening, hip action, and other technique, without being at 100% energy output?
In this context, it does.
The risk of prioritizing correctness is that the movement can look constrained or careful or held instead of free. And when reading the language of movement from the outside, careful and passionate really are mutually exclusive. Therefore, "dance like a madwoman" means do not allow your passion to be visibly smothered by restraint.
At higher levels, greater skill means we don't need to make such a stark choice. At least, not to the same degree.
I don't care for that particular indoctrination. I think it's too simplistic.
Movement results from spending energy. Technique merely allows you to spend less energy to move. So the idea that "movement results from technique"" is only true if energy input is held constant. Why demand that constraint, when one of the points of training is to increase athleticism so that you can harness more energy? And on the other hand, the best technique in the world will not result in compelling movement if you apply zero input energy. For truly outstanding movement, you need to attend to *both* factors in the equation, not just technique.
In this respect, dance like a madwoman is an idea that grants explicit permission to overpower the "input energy" side of the equation, at the probable cost of technique. Not because that is strictly a better way of doing things, but because my partner and I over-weight the technique factor of movement. And in order to find a better balance, we need to *feel* like we are exaggerating the energy side. Just like @IndyLady was talking about.
Last edited:
singndance
Forum Master
This is a very interesting discussion, as I am all about passion and emotion, and love to lay it all out there.
When I started with my new pro a year ago, he admired my passion and enthusiasm, and he didn’t want to dampen it. But he was clear with me I would never improve unless I changed my approach completely.
His approach is maximizing bio mechanical movement to make the dancing seem effortless. Less is more. He presents the most economical way to move to produce the desired outcome. He preaches quiet and stillness is key, as Warren noted. He was thrilled the other day when we danced three waltzes back to back and I wasn’t breathing heavy.
Honestly sometimes it feels like I am not exerting myself at all, but that’s when he is happiest with my movement. I have a long long way to go. But I really like this approach. I’m going to be able to dance later in life because of it.
When I started with my new pro a year ago, he admired my passion and enthusiasm, and he didn’t want to dampen it. But he was clear with me I would never improve unless I changed my approach completely.
His approach is maximizing bio mechanical movement to make the dancing seem effortless. Less is more. He presents the most economical way to move to produce the desired outcome. He preaches quiet and stillness is key, as Warren noted. He was thrilled the other day when we danced three waltzes back to back and I wasn’t breathing heavy.
Honestly sometimes it feels like I am not exerting myself at all, but that’s when he is happiest with my movement. I have a long long way to go. But I really like this approach. I’m going to be able to dance later in life because of it.
Misspendragon
Forum Master
THIS. Which answers you other question as well, Warren, about 100 percent energy output.
Misspendragon
Forum Master
Some of what you describe has to do with experience and expertise as well. You are becoming better with technique and you are more familiar with the movements you are performing, therefore you need less energy to produce the same result. If you pick up a racket and never played tennis, you will get exhausted just from whipping the racket around. A knowledgeable and experienced player can play for hours and get tired but not exhausted, simply because he isn't using any superfluous movements at all and intuitively knows how much energy to apply to any given movement, as opposed to allocating all energy supplies to every movement.
Finally, there is the important matter of ANS training. I will never forget when Austin Joson passed me at a dance comp right after coming off the floor. He was breathing like he was about to drop dead. Yet, a minute later he went back to the floor and danced again without any issues. He can do that because his ANS is used to this level of exertion and doesn't activate a flight or fight mode for Austin, which would render him exhausted very fast (that's partly why I get exhausted at comps after a dance or two. I am a trained sprinter therefore know how to apply truly 100 percent effort - untrained people do not know how to do that, they feel as if they gave 100 percent but in reality their nervous system isn't primed for it, so that kind of energy output is simply not a available for them - but I do not have yet enough experience specifically with dancing ad dance comps for my ANS to handle the demands calmly, so it freaks out, thinking I'm about to die. Add to this that like the rookie tennis player, I use all my energy with every movement, no wonder I'm dying by the end of Cha Cha). It's vital that during practice, one fairly regularly does a full out round, so that your ANS gets used to it.
Warren J. Dew
Forum Master
Regarding the concept that movement results from technique:
I think this reflects a misapprehension of the concept.
Spending energy does not automatically result in movement, in this Standard sense of movement across the floor. You can do jumping jacks in place, expend plenty of energy, and get no movement.
Nor is technique necessarily about the energy spent. Rather, technique is about what muscles are used to rotate which joints so that the skeleton and body move in a way that, among other things, generates movement across the floor.
Execution of technique does require some muscular strength and energy expenditure. That doesn't mean that more energy input or use of muscular strength implies more movement without technique changes, though.
I think this reflects a misapprehension of the concept.
Spending energy does not automatically result in movement, in this Standard sense of movement across the floor. You can do jumping jacks in place, expend plenty of energy, and get no movement.
Nor is technique necessarily about the energy spent. Rather, technique is about what muscles are used to rotate which joints so that the skeleton and body move in a way that, among other things, generates movement across the floor.
Execution of technique does require some muscular strength and energy expenditure. That doesn't mean that more energy input or use of muscular strength implies more movement without technique changes, though.
Warren J. Dew
Forum Master
My question was about commitment, not energy output.
Misspendragon
Forum Master
Jumping jacks do create movement. What do you mean?
And technique allows you to use energy with more economy, while producing the same movement. That's why it's important.
You can spin in Latin using only your muscles, but you will get exhausted just from turning (and you will be slow, on top of that). Or, you can use technique to spin (ribcage rotation etc ) and spend much less energy, and you will not only produce the same level of movement, you will actually produce better (in this case smoother and faster) movement.
Misspendragon
Forum Master
Y
Your question was, does 100 commitment imply 100 percent energy output. I think Fiesta answers that question.
Warren J. Dew
Forum Master
I do not understand him to have answered it. Can I take your answer as "yes"?