Standard dancer adding smooth?
- Thread starter ColorfulRibbons
- Start date
It looks right up my alley
Josh
Active Member
Bear in mind I'm only talking about closed syllabus american smooth, as IMO open smooth is just so completely different that it's hardly the same dance. I'm not experienced at open smooth dancing, but this is my observation.
Regarding waltz, there are two main differences that stand out to me. First is the relative absence of natural swinging movements preceded by a down swing in both bronze and silver. For example, the chasse from promenade in standard blends the down swing from the chasse into the upswing of natural, while in american the chasse is most always followed by closing back up with yet another foot closure and closing to closed position. In silver, there really aren't any real natural swinging movements, as the twinkle from closed to promenade replaces all closed natural figures (in other words, the lady never gets to swing into a natural by going back on her left foot, and vice versa for the man). Contrast that to the naturals in standard that follow the outside change, weave, weave from PP, chasse from PP, outside spin, and maybe others I'm forgetting at the moment. This development of natural swing from a preceding downswing is IMO very important, and you just don't get it in american style waltz. The only thing that precedes a natural turn in bronze american waltz that comes to mind is a closed change. So you never get to blend the continuation from a down swing into a natural.
The other distinction to me is the flexibility in the way the figures are danced and tied together, made possible by the wide array of ways to use the feet other than simply bringing them together (as in american bronze) or passing them (as in american silver). In standard there is the typical foot closure, foot passing on 3 (spin turn, outside change, etc.), whisking actions (regular, back, fallaway, left), heel pulls (man in hesitation), heel turns (impetus for man, corte for man sort of, double reverse and telemarks for ladys), locks (left, right, straight), chasses in closed position, toe spins (man in double reverse), and so on. The majority of the way the feet are used is such that it provides continuity of movement--yet in a way that still maintains the character of what is waltz. Contrast that with american silver, which really has very little to distinguish itself from its american foxtrot cousin in its fundamental basic movement (left and right turns), and little to really call its own.
Tango--syllabus American tango has two main features which IMO distinguish it from standard in its construction, and these are the tango close, and the way that american is usually phrased perfectly, which IMO restricts the expression of the dance, where the highlights and accents can be used at places other than phrase boundaries. The tango close, while a nice figure in itself, is used a lot to phrase out a figure which would otherwise not fit the phrasing. It's nice but it's used in almost every figure, and it tends to make the dance look a bit disconnected, as each figure often looks compartmentalized and distinguishable from one to the next, instead of blending them in more interesting ways. And while they're just two figures, the progressive link and closed promenade really stand out to me as a fundamentally simple and characteristic way to enter promenade position, and close up from promenade position, as compared to how promenade is achieved and closed in american tango. So in a nutshell for tango, it's the timing that is a big differentiation.
On a similar note for tango, I think that slows and quicks tend to be fundamentally misunderstood by many, and especially in american style I see a lot of "stop, stop, go, go, stop" in the basic step. People seem to want to make the dance staccato by stopping, and I would guess it's taught that way 90% of the time, but it is absolutely counterproductive and does the opposite of what it's supposed to achieve. Perhaps in American style the compartmentalized nature of the figures makes this more of an issue, whereas in standard two walks flow right into something else, and thus to me has more continuity (though I would say it's an issue across the board).
clumsy fellow
Active Member
Can you expound on your struggles? Make your body do what exactly?
Dance styles are often used like clubs in golf . . . 'Maybe if I had this club, I would be a better golfer' . . . Nope, it's not the club nor is it the style. You can't run or hide from the basics.
I don't know if I can post links or not but if you google - Luca Baricchi Waltz - the audience appears more rigid.
dancerdol
Member
Josh - thank you! Very informative. Now I understand why I am enjoying dancing Standard tango with one of my coaches. I can "feel" the timing variations he is playing with through his subtle body leads and shifts.
I hope that your detailed description also helps ColorfulRibbons and AStarDanced .....because at the higher levels - Standard is just as expressive as Open Smooth. I am always wary as a Smooth dancer of saying that we're more "expressive" when in some instances expressive is another word for sloppy.
I hope that your detailed description also helps ColorfulRibbons and AStarDanced .....because at the higher levels - Standard is just as expressive as Open Smooth. I am always wary as a Smooth dancer of saying that we're more "expressive" when in some instances expressive is another word for sloppy.
fascination
Site Moderator
I think one can be sloppy in both styles and expressive in both styles, but I still feel that standard, by its nature, feels more limiting to me in terms of how I'd like to express myself...but I would love to get good enough at standard to discover that I am wrong...as long as it doesn't interfere with my work on open smooth 
danceronice
Forum Master
I feel much the same as fasc. To be honest all good Standard looks alike to me, which appears to be partially the point, while really good Smooth has an individual quality to it. Different philosophy behind the styles. (Really my only complaint is no Quickstep in Smooth...no, Peabody doesn't count. No, it never will.)
Josh
Active Member
I think one can be sloppy in both styles and expressive in both styles, but I still feel that standard, by its nature, feels more limiting to me in terms of how I'd like to express myself...but I would love to get good enough at standard to discover that I am wrong...as long as it doesn't interfere with my work on open smooth
Well if you're linking expression to variety of positions the various parts of your body can be in and have freedom to move in, then smooth will always be more expressive. Plus, as long as I've know you, you've had a propensity towards smooth, so it's probably just "in your blood."
danceronice
Forum Master
For me 'expression' inherently implies an ability to be...varied. Standard, everyone really DOES come out looking the same except in show dances (where they're allowed to break the rules, proving them.) Conformity is the antithesis of expression. Smooth can take it too far the other direction (with everyone flinging themselves around in an effort to be the most flexible and gymnastic, to the point you could shut the music off and maybe you could tell tango from the rest but not the otherss.) But if you want to make a personal expression of response to the music, there's nothing about Standard that encourages it, while Smooth (and Rhythm and Latin, for that matter) does. Good technique is important in all four, but in Standard doing something that looks significantly out of the box only gets you into trouble, while it CAN pay off in the other three.
mini hijack: don't knock it 'til you've tried it. I realize it's hard to find a Smooth pro who does Peabody well, and teaches it well, and enjoys it, but f'cryinoutloud, it's a blast.
clumsy fellow
Active Member
This. Smooth is becoming more about the "finished" lines and less about the quality of movement to achieve lines - Quality of movement from one foot to the other is being lost, it's following the path of rhythm. Not saying that it's a bad thing, just not my thing.
This is my disconnect, varied within a practiced routine? I don't have any knowledge of ballroom history, was there ever a time of true lead and follow or has practiced routines been the norm?
There's a group on FB that explores this info; you might want to take a look. Lots of good thinking about ballroom dance, from people all over the globe and of all levels of experience, from utter newbies to the remaining "old greats". pm me for a link; I don't know the DF policy on making that kind of referral, and am too lazy to look it up.
I understand why you'd say this, but the best standard I've ever seen is meltingly beautiful, exciting, expressive, musical... and rare. Out of the box, yes; out of the box WITH GOOD TASTE, yes. And therein lies the rub, as the saying goes.
DOI has mentioned over and over again that Standard all "looks the same" to her, and she admittedly doesn't even like dancing Standard, so perhaps there is a pre-existing bias. Personally I would be more entranced watching the Best of the Best dancing beautiful syllabus bronze Standard steps than fledgling gold or open level dancers who haven't grasped the essence of the individual dances enough to express them clearly. These things take time and training. I have on multiple occasions heard dancers of other styles say "Oh, I wanna do Standard so I can dance Quickstep", generally after they have witnessed gold/open QS. Um, well, to get to that point, you really need to progress through all of the building blocks (syllabus), and if you aren't ready to deal with the prospect of spending months perfecting a natural spin turn, IMO you don't have the heart and soul of a Standard dancer. No, you don't have to love them all equally, but Standard = WTVFQ, not just Q.
Back more on topic... I get the appeal of Smooth. I learned Smooth before I started Standard. The "apart" work and room for "expression", however one wishes to define that, occurs sooner in the syllabus versus Standard due to the nature of the steps allowed. It also leaves a dangerous amount of room for sloppiness and lack of lead/follow skills. Yes, the top-level Smooth couples can likely lead/follow in a one-hand hold with the slightest alteration in wrist position, but often it appears that couples fling themselves around in a pre-planned manner, and their closed-hold work and connection is sub-par. In that respect, I think a previously trained Standard dancer would be more likely not to want to sacrifice the feeling of connection one has (or should have) in a Standard partnership. Heck, having experience with lead/follow in Latin or Rhythm should also help in maintaining connection while dancing Smooth. Now, I do not want to veer off into arguments about lead/follow vs. routines and Am/Am vs. Pro/Am, but in these instances I am referring my observations of and experience with amateur partnerships. I have danced Pro/Am Smooth before, but sadly it often required backleading on my part when he forgot the steps...
Took me a long time with new instructors to break a lot of bad habits :neutral:.
Back more on topic... I get the appeal of Smooth. I learned Smooth before I started Standard. The "apart" work and room for "expression", however one wishes to define that, occurs sooner in the syllabus versus Standard due to the nature of the steps allowed. It also leaves a dangerous amount of room for sloppiness and lack of lead/follow skills. Yes, the top-level Smooth couples can likely lead/follow in a one-hand hold with the slightest alteration in wrist position, but often it appears that couples fling themselves around in a pre-planned manner, and their closed-hold work and connection is sub-par. In that respect, I think a previously trained Standard dancer would be more likely not to want to sacrifice the feeling of connection one has (or should have) in a Standard partnership. Heck, having experience with lead/follow in Latin or Rhythm should also help in maintaining connection while dancing Smooth. Now, I do not want to veer off into arguments about lead/follow vs. routines and Am/Am vs. Pro/Am, but in these instances I am referring my observations of and experience with amateur partnerships. I have danced Pro/Am Smooth before, but sadly it often required backleading on my part when he forgot the steps...
Took me a long time with new instructors to break a lot of bad habits :neutral:.
danceronice
Forum Master
To me, the object of top-level Standard is to come as close as possible to achieving comformity with the textbook ideal. It's like doing dressage. It's really not about spectating or about creating something unusual to stand out. The best are the closest to the standard. So at the top they SHOULD all be more or less indistinguishable. It SHOULD take an expert to spot the difference. Not exciting to watch unless you are a true junkie, where almost anyone can watch Latin and find at least one couple who's entertaining (though it may require sorting through more that you find UNappealing, as the more variety there is, the more potential there is for DISliking some of it.)
I appreciate Standard in the sense it's a useful foundation, just like I appreciate low-level ("little d", ie reflecting that the word just means training) dressage for teaching a horse to be supple and work back to front. I can't really see doing it as some sort of end any more than showing dressage (and even they added the Musical Freestyle because they were bleeding audience members) rather than taking the skills and applying it to something more exciting.
Also all the tempos in Smooth are, by and large, faster. Though any kind of slow/smooth waltz risks putting me to sleep listening. Doing is one thing, having to sit through hearing it is quite another.
I will take up Peabody when I see it done in a way that's half as exciting as bronze Quickstep. So far, no dice. Quickstep floats. Peabody shuffles and I've only ever seen it done with a weird, cakewalky quality that gives it a very dated feel. (I've only ever seen it in single heats at competitions or on youtube, fwiw.)
I appreciate Standard in the sense it's a useful foundation, just like I appreciate low-level ("little d", ie reflecting that the word just means training) dressage for teaching a horse to be supple and work back to front. I can't really see doing it as some sort of end any more than showing dressage (and even they added the Musical Freestyle because they were bleeding audience members) rather than taking the skills and applying it to something more exciting.
Also all the tempos in Smooth are, by and large, faster. Though any kind of slow/smooth waltz risks putting me to sleep listening. Doing is one thing, having to sit through hearing it is quite another.
I will take up Peabody when I see it done in a way that's half as exciting as bronze Quickstep. So far, no dice. Quickstep floats. Peabody shuffles and I've only ever seen it done with a weird, cakewalky quality that gives it a very dated feel. (I've only ever seen it in single heats at competitions or on youtube, fwiw.)
tanya_the_dancer
Well-Known Member
That is not correct. Tempos for slower dances (W, F) are faster and tempos faster dances (T, VW) are slower in smooth. Quickstep is faster than peabody, too (if we look at peabody as american quickstep)