Standard dancer adding smooth?

[jjLA]

SP said you tend to see a lot more natural turns in standard, so we started today with my LF moving back first. So almost every time we got in frame, I started with my weight on my LF before remembering to switch).

May I offer some advice as a leader with knowing what foot to be on since I am also always working on how to clearly communicate that.

Instead of thinking about which foot you should be on, instead learn to feel which foot you should mirror from the lead (ignoring same foot lunge position for now, but it does apply here as well.). You are connected at the ribs, hips, and possibly the thighs depending on school of thought (some teach a weaker connection there). If the pro puts his spine over his left foot, you know through your rib connection where his spine is located relative to his hips and thigh and ultimately his foot (note also I'm assuming vertical spine with limited or no sway . . . at higher levels, my spine description becomes the lead's center relative to your center). Thus, there is no remembering what foot you need to be on, but rather feeling it to the point it happens automatically through muscle memory. (PS: notice that I didn't say anything about arms / hands since they are not really needed, but do think about how things might apply to smooth and how one would use that connection to feel location of weight!)

As a guy, I've had to learn to be clear for the foot I'm on. My partner(s) and I have done drills where we have our feet together (risen or lowered / vertical and swayed) with the goal of communicating location of weight which comes from moving the center only inches. This is important on a comp floor where floor craft or other issues means some sort of modification with the partners needing to be in-sync to make it look clean. Note also there are many variations of this drill with being able to monitor one's weight between feet.

Standard is just so cool and amazing with two people moving as one. I'm always amazed watching the leg action of pros doing foxtrot (usually continuous reverse wave) where both are wearing pants . . . especially all black. The silhouette is glorious as legs and weight move as one while the bodies breathe in unison.

 

[LateToTheDance]

The small ballroom wasn’t available, so we had to use the main ballroom which is always too loud. I asked SP why they’re not allowed to turn down the volume in there. He explained it’s a holdover from back when they were a Fred Astaire franchise studio...their business model is that loud music implies or creates energy, so they’re required to keep it loud.

That's very interesting. I really struggle with this at our franchise, as it's always too loud, and now I know why. Thanks for making this point as I could never understand why it was so loud. It seems so inconsiderate.

 

[lucia_l]

(Passive-aggressive much?!?)

He replied in less than 15 minutes with an alternative time slot for that same day, which I gratefully accepted.

Good for you. Honestly, I think under the circumstance, making your objection to having lessons in the loud, main ballroom, and emphasizing the reason why is important. Lessons are expensive, and you take them to get a benefit. I think often owners think it might be the teacher's preference overiding yours. After all, in this case, the owners policy is to have it be loud. Even if it's a Fred Aistaire hold over, he probably likes loud and tends to not quite believe other people don't. (I bet he's set aside the Fred Aistaire policies he hates. . )

It sounds like you are a very lucrative client, and making sure the owner hears you don't like this will at least make him lay off on insinuations you somehow 'belong' in the dreaded, loud, main room. If enough people start indicating they don't like the main room, maybe the "loud" policy will go away.

 

[opendoor]

..main pitfall is that there are similarities and differences between the styles..

Sorry, I'm a non-ballroomer (but danced standard in my youth), this ahead.

So, why exactly did you want to change or add smooth?

-Is it the extra dances in smooth or rhythm,
-is it the slightly different style,
-is it those additionally allowed figures,
-has it got to do with organizations or associations,
-is the field clearly smaller in competitions,
-or is there a difference in the community, atmosphere or attitude?

As a social dancer, I think any mandatory style is secondary. As on the dance floor only once own personal style, expertise and mastery counts.

 

[fiesta0618]

So, why exactly did you want to change or add smooth?

I'm afraid my answer will not be all that interesting. The truth is, I didn't want to do Smooth. I had never had any interest.

I took up ballroom dancing with my wife, and she is the only dance partner I've ever wanted (I can social dance, and I do sometimes, but I prefer not to touch strangers if I don't have to). However, a few years ago she took some time off dancing to focus on her PhD. I didn't want to quit, so my coach paired me with an unpartnered follower in the studio as an interim solution.

Luckily and unluckily, that partnership worked so well that I wasn't willing to give it up when my wife finished her degree and returned to dancing. Additionally, my wife had quit when we were journeyman Bronze dancers, and I was advancing to Gold by the time she returned; and my wife is not the kind of person who relishes struggling away in the bottom ranks of competition.

The compromise was for us to take up Smooth, which is a style we both had no experience with and thus could learn on a more even footing.

***********

I said above that I didn't wanted to do Smooth, and had no interest. That was before. Now, I'm quite glad we started it, and my wife is, too. Why? Here's where I can say something potentially interesting about your query

-Is it the extra dances in smooth or rhythm,
-is it the slightly different style,
-is it those additionally allowed figures,
-has it got to do with organizations or associations,
-is the field clearly smaller in competitions,
-or is there a difference in the community, atmosphere or attitude?

Community attitudes, field size, and the organizations I associate with are all the same in both styles--at least for me.

The thing that interests me most about Smooth is that it is a style where performance and emotiveness matter much more at a low level. The open figures also provide more / bigger / easier opportunities to add interpretation, compared to Standard.

Also, American Viennese is a fascinating beast. Very little resemblance to International Vw stylistically or musically, and it renders danceable a large segment of otherwise "impossible" music.

 

[opendoor]

..much more at a low level..

So at the end "attitude" and musicality?

 

[fiesta0618]

So at the end "attitude" and musicality?

Yes, that's a fair summation.

In my mind, Standard is a style that allows me to focus on perfection in movement. The constrained scope of the syllabus makes that sort of mastery feasible, at least in my imagination.

Smooth is a style that makes it easy to express my love of music. "Perfect movement" takes second place to musicality.

 

[blackswan]

Had first lesson yesterday with SP in Int’l Standard, immediately following my lesson with regular Pro. He started me with waltz. My first impression is that it’s similar enough to American smooth waltz to be confusing, because it’s also different enough that you have to pay attention all the time (like driving your car on the opposite side of the road from whatever you’re accustomed to).

• There are much more interesting things going on with (required of) my feet.

LOL, yes, Standard requires such close attention, and I think the attention to the footwork is what made me fall in love with it. My footwork has become so much more precise and therefore enjoyable. And it has also made the weight transfer more clear and fluid and maintenance of the frame more consistent. Glad to hear that you had a good first experience.

 

[ProgressNotPerfection]

(I originally posted this in the “how are your lessons going thread,” but felt it belongs here more.)

Had second standard lesson with SP. Very frustrating. Worked on three of the steps he introduced me to the previous week, but I haven’t gotten any better. Two lessons already and I haven’t learned everything????

But seriously, I DO wonder if his is the right approach for me. At my first lesson, I thought I appreciated the level of detail/technique he included. Now I’m overwhelmed by it.

Teaching Style A (what I’m used to bcs this is what my regular pro does): introduce some steps. Gradually improve familiarity with and execution of those steps. Introduce some technical detail. Gradually increase level of technical detail. Eventually student is comfortable doing those steps with a basic level of proficiency in technique. Continue to slowly add more technical detail

Teaching Style B (this is SP’s approach so far): introduce some steps, and from the very first lesson, simultaneously include technical details like amount of body turn, how far to turn head, where eyes should be looking, CBM of upper & lower body, sway, partner connection, hand and wrist and elbow position, angle of torso on forward steps vs side steps, whether every step is T v H v TH v HT, backwards extension of legs, don’t “break” neck or collapse side.....

I suspect he’s trying to scare me off. Probably he doesn’t want to teach Standard any more than the other teachers in my studio do.

 

[rels77]

(I originally posted this in the “how are your lessons going thread,” but felt it belongs here more.)

Had second standard lesson with SP. Very frustrating. Worked on three of the steps he introduced me to the previous week, but I haven’t gotten any better. Two lessons already and I haven’t learned everything????

But seriously, I DO wonder if his is the right approach for me. At my first lesson, I thought I appreciated the level of detail/technique he included. Now I’m overwhelmed by it.

Teaching Style A (what I’m used to bcs this is what my regular pro does): introduce some steps. Gradually improve familiarity with and execution of those steps. Introduce some technical detail. Gradually increase level of technical detail. Eventually student is comfortable doing those steps with a basic level of proficiency in technique. Continue to slowly add more technical detail

I suspect he’s trying to scare me off. Probably he doesn’t want to teach Standard any more than the other teachers in my studio do.

nope- I think you’re discovering the difference in teaching styles that are often in difference between international and American style. Remember, American style was created from a social dance perspective- where people often wanted the FREEDOM from the highly technical. I dance 3 styles- my latin teacher is Eastern European and my latin lessons are so much more technical. And what you’re describing is part of why I don’t do standard.
My American style teacher (and ive had a few) is also very technical, but it’s just ... different.

it’s also possible that he’s giving you this level of detail because he’s assuming you’re craving it- hence why you wanted to do standard with a someone who loves standard. What you’re describing is part of the reason they love it.

I would just suggest you let them know it’s a little overwhelming and to take it down a notch to get comfortable.

I would also second the person who told you to stop “thinking” and learn to “feel”. When I started smooth, my pro would often just lead me around the room in hold - doing what I eventually learned were bronze and silver standard steps- he never taught me the steps- he was teaching me to feel naturally what was happening and react. I did my first smooth comp not really knowing the routines- and did better than my next couple becauseby then I was thinking about it too much.

 

[ProgressNotPerfection]

it’s also possible that he’s giving you this level of detail because he’s assuming you’re craving it- hence why you wanted to do standard with a someone who loves standard.

Yes...this is squarely in the category of “be careful what you wish for”!

 

[fiesta0618]

@ProgressNotPerfection If your list of topics was not hyperbole, then SP is overdoing it. Studying only three steps in an hour is normal, but I'd expect to limit initial exposure to foot alignment, footwork, rise-and-fall, and partner position.

As you gain experience, you can add more topics at once, because you gain an intuition for certain shapes. But what you describe would be way too much for me in one go, and I'm a reasonably experienced amateur.

 

[ProgressNotPerfection]

@ProgressNotPerfection If your list of topics was not hyperbole, then SP is overdoing it. Studying only three steps in an hour is normal, but I'd expect to limit initial exposure to foot alignment, footwork, rise-and-fall, and partner position.

He didn’t actually tell me where my eyes should be looking. He did, however, touch on everything else I listed. And the lesson is only 40 minutes...not even an hour.

I would just suggest you let them know it’s a little overwhelming and to take it down a notch to get comfortable.

Agreed. I plan to ask him for this at our next lesson.

 

[Cal]

I find that, for me, learning the alignment/foot position components as a Leader makes much more sense with the way my brain works and is much easier for me to learn first. After I know that, it helps me figure out as a Follow why/how I need to get to where I'm supposed to be.

Just something to think about. YMMV.

 

[lucia_l]

• While partner connection is constant, its location is fluid...ranging at different times from the knees, outside of thighs, hips, top of the thighs, and always (?) ribcage. The constant connection makes it easier to feel the lead.

My pro is just now introducing location of connection being fluid in smooth also. So I think that may be common to both. I also suspect it's more important to learn it sooner in standard since you are in frame all the time.

Also, I think teachers always need to defer teaching somethings until you've mastered or fixed other things. So some of the differences in teaching style you are seeing probably are due to your being further along in your dance development. I know there was no point in my teacher teaching me the connection point moved until I had developed a decent amount of connection and my posture was no longer "old lady with dowager's hump". (Now that I watch videos, I've seen some older women who are worse than I was. But that was definitely my posture!)

Something Bad:
The small ballroom wasn’t available, so we had to use the main ballroom which is always too loud. I asked SP why they’re not allowed to turn down the volume in there. He explained it’s a holdover from back when they were a Fred Astaire franchise studio...their business model is that loud music implies or creates energy, so they’re required to keep it loud.

A long time ago I was hunting for a gym. One gym was super loud. I found it painful. So I asked about that. The sales rep at the gym had the same "energy" theory and also claimed their visitors preferred the music that loud. (I pointed to a few who were clearly wearing what looked like ear protectors.... still evidently, visitors wearing ear muffs was not counter evidence to the visitors liking it that way. Apparently, the gyms theory was those were exercisers who were concentrating and not wanting to be disturbed by other exercisers.)

They also claimed I could ask it to be turned down when I was there. I was very dubious about the notion they'd turn it down and override the preference of the other students merely because one single student asked it to be turned down. That some people were wearing ear protectors also made me think that was precisely what I would have to do. I didn't sign up and directly told them it was because of the loudness.

I'm also dubious that loudness actually creates energy in a dance studio or gym. I do think it's associated with energy-- as in crowds cheer loudly during exciting parts of a football game. Kid raise their voices and laugh when playing. But suggesting the sound volume creates the energy strikes me as confusing cause and effect.