Why technique is the way it

[Partner Dancer]

Here's a few (and these are just mine, and some of this may end up being semantics):

Ballet is UP UP UP. Rhythm is down down down. HA - rhythm is actually upper block UP and lower block down.
In ballet, turns are done in a block - every part at the same time, with the exception of the head. In rhythm/latin, one part of the body turns first and the other part follows. The body should not move as one block. I've been dancing rhythm since 2009 and I'm pretty sure I still haven't gotten this unprogrammed. (LOL "ballet Stockholm syndrome")
In ballet, we turn on a releve, and in rhythm/latin, heels are allowed to "scrape the ground," or at least that's how I've thought about it. I've gotten yelled at because I'm "popping" up onto my demi pointe in my turns. So I have had to train myself to "turn lower."

I'm curious if Ballroom/partner dancers actually understand "why" the dances are the way they are? Having done this stuff for decades, I'm quite clear that a big issue is blindly doing technique that is oftentimes propagated without critical analysis (or with bad/sham analysis). I'm certain that if partner dancers were taught "why" they have to dance in certain ways, their "bad" habits would change pretty quickly. There are very basic functional reasons why partner dancing work in certain ways, and there are many contrived (suboptimal) technique people teach because of blind regurgitation or poor understanding of the nature of partner dancing.

As specifically for prior Ballet/Jazz/Tap/etc. experience, in many cases the problem is that instructors don't understand what it takes to "convert" a dancer with prior/related/relevant experience to a Ballroom/partner dancer, but only know the canned method of teaching non-dancers. The ability for classically trained dancers to hold "up" their bodies and get on their alignment axis (and turn/spin without dizziness) gives them a huge advantage over non-dancers. I did a few years of adult Ballet/Jazz/Tap/etc. when starting Ballroom and it was several years before I understood many of the classical techniques that apply to partner dancing.

Anyone want to take a stab on "why" some of the dance technique quoted above are the way they are (more or less)? I have plenty of opinions on this issue, but will defer expressing them for the time being.

 

[raindance]

That's probably better off in a separate thread.

 

[opendoor]

...there are many contrived (suboptimal) technique people teach because of blind regurgitation or poor understanding of the nature of partner dancing...

So true, Partner Dancer, but how will you change this fact? Of course technique is an issue for teachers' associations. But who actually is training the teachers-2-be, in the end? My two cents on this: There is a totally different understanding concerning "technique" when it comes to compare the educational programms of either traditional ballroom teacher associations or of their free living counterparts. Programs of constituted organisations tend to be mediocre. Teacher trainings out in the wilderness simply are good or bad, and in the end bad teachers will dy out (hope so, anyway). In the traditional ballroom world, technique, is rather seen as a style question, wheras outside it is regarded another word for body technique, body work, compensation, strengthening, posture, balance excercises. Many of those free living teachers got an additional qualification or certificate, either in Alexander, Pilates, or Franklin. My own teachers all had a background in ballett, and as Pilates once was invented for ballett schools, so in the end I found my way into Pilates, too.

 

[IndyLady]

I'm curious if Ballroom/partner dancers actually understand "why" the dances are the way they are? Having done this stuff for decades, I'm quite clear that a big issue is blindly doing technique that is oftentimes propagated without critical analysis (or with bad/sham analysis). I'm certain that if partner dancers were taught "why" they have to dance in certain ways, their "bad" habits would change pretty quickly. There are very basic functional reasons why partner dancing work in certain ways, and there are many contrived (suboptimal) technique people teach because of blind regurgitation or poor understanding of the nature of partner dancing.

Apparently I have been very lucky, because in spite of being a franchise studio student, my instructors have always explained the "why" of the technique they are teaching. However, just because I understand "why", doesn't automatically mean I will pick it up faster. I like to joke with my teachers that if this were "Jeopardy!", I'd be an undefeated champion, it's the physical execution that I struggle with. Ballroom is hard. It takes years to master this stuff. And sometimes it takes a while for things to sink in - I've had concepts introduced (and explained, in case that's not implicitly understood by now) that didn't click until months later. So, while I absolutely concur that the "why's" need to be covered, it's not an instant panacea that will magically accelerate a student's progress, and I don't think it's necessarily the reason that students don't progress faster.

As specifically for prior Ballet/Jazz/Tap/etc. experience, in many cases the problem is that instructors don't understand what it takes to "convert" a dancer with prior/related/relevant experience to a Ballroom/partner dancer, but only know the canned method of teaching non-dancers.

I have to be blunt, I don't think it is the responsibility of a ballroom (or any other style) teacher to understand other styles and how to convert them. A ballroom teacher's job is to teach ballroom, period, and my job as a student is to learn it. In fact, I hate it when teachers do that to me, i.e. try to make an analogy to something else they know I do and think they understand. Just teach me what I need to do inside the ballroom context and leave it at that. I know I've told this story before, but when I took adult ballet, the teacher kept trying to relate things back to ballroom (particularly waltz, which was pointless since at the time I was primarily a rhythm dancer). It was not helpful.

 

[RiseNFall]

Apparently I have been very lucky, because in spite of being a franchise studio student, my instructors have always explained the "why" of the technique they are teaching. However, just because I understand "why", doesn't automatically mean I will pick it up faster. I like to joke with my teachers that if this were "Jeopardy!", I'd be an undefeated champion, it's the physical execution that I struggle with.

Five likes for the "in spite of being a franchise studio student" part and another for the "Jeopardy" joke. That is also me. Teacher has taken to saying, "could you please demo that with your body?"

 

[tangotime]

Of course technique is an issue for teachers' associations. But who actually is training the teachers-2-be, in the end?


Programs of constituted organisations tend to be mediocre. Teacher trainings out in the wilderness simply are good or bad, and in the end bad teachers will dy out (hope so, anyway). In the traditional ballroom world, technique, is rather seen as a style question, wheras outside it is regarded another word for body technique, body work, compensation, strengthening, posture, balance exercise .

1st Para ; I'm not clear on what you mean by "an issue" ?

I belong to 3 recognised Soc. whose formats ,and techniques are virtually identical . And, I am aware that there are "teachers " who may have trained in other disciplines ,and believe that knowledge is transferable .

2nd para ; Bad teachers will always exist. And, I do not know of any Prof. , who confuses/believes, style with "techn " and or substitutes one for the other.

 

[opendoor]

..not clear on what you mean by "an issue" ?..

Sorry, better "is task for"

 

[Partner Dancer]

just because I understand "why", doesn't automatically mean I will pick it up faster.

Different people certainly have different ways and speeds of learning.

Perhaps we can get into some details about why, to get past discussions by hand-waving.

1) Why is it that in Latin/Rhythm, the feet are supposed to face (roughly) 11 and 1 o'clock? Under what conditions, and in what dances is this not the case, and why?

2) Why is rising up on the feet, as in Ballet, not good in partner dancing. Are there any circumstances when this is appropriate? OTOH, how far from the floor should the feet be in partner dancing? Why?

3) In partner dancing, should the body dance turns/spins (or anything else) with lower body "down" and upper body "up?" Under what circumstances? Why?

4) What are some of the Ballet techniques that apply to partner dancing? And which ones do not? Why?

It takes years to master this stuff.

It takes years and decades because we often have to take big detours, significantly because of mediocre understanding, often caused by bad instruction.

That's not to say the detours are not interesting, as oftentimes they make us better people/dancers.

And sometimes it takes a while for things to sink in - I've had concepts introduced (and explained, in case that's not implicitly understood by now) that didn't click until months later.

In my experience, many of the "concepts" instructors teach/espouse constitute pseudo-science. IOW, they try to make dance seem like some PHD program, when in a lot of cases, the concepts are just some random concoctions that sound so astute.

That's not to say that all concepts are bad, as some of them are quite brilliant. The problem is sorting it all out.

For me, many things I "learned" don't click until a decade+ later.

So, while I absolutely concur that the "why's" need to be covered, it's not an instant panacea that will magically accelerate a student's progress, and I don't think it's necessarily the reason that students don't progress faster.

The problem is sorting it all out.

I have to be blunt, I don't think it is the responsibility of a ballroom (or any other style) teacher to understand other styles and how to convert them. A ballroom teacher's job is to teach ballroom, period, and my job as a student is to learn it.

Well, why is it that in education in general, people believe that teachers/classes should meet the particular needs of students. For instance, students with special needs or students who are gifted are set up with different teachers/classes than the "common" student.

Teachers who have deeper understanding of particular students' abilities/background can aid greatly in the education of those students.

I know I've told this story before, but when I took adult ballet, the teacher kept trying to relate things back to ballroom (particularly waltz, which was pointless since at the time I was primarily a rhythm dancer). It was not helpful.

I bet the Ballet teacher who tried to bring Waltz into your Ballet training had very minimal exposure to Waltz/Ballroom, and was just trying to apply pseudo-science.

I've encountered plenty of situations dealing with instructors/coaches who use dance (style) analogies to claim authority of understanding of dance/movements, when they themselves have so little exposure in the "other" dances of which they claim knowledge (mostly from 2nd hand).

Of particular note was in WCS/Salsa classes where instructors claim Ballroom technique is the foundation of good partner dancing (which is mostly true), and proceed to demonstrate Ballroom techniques (poorly). Of course, the group classes students are mesmerized by the "deep understanding" these instructors/coaches had, when it was mostly pseudo-science.

 

[tangotime]

.
















Of particular note was in WCS/Salsa classes where instructors claim Ballroom technique is the foundation of good partner dancing (which is mostly true),

and proceed to demonstrate Ballroom techniques (poorly).

I have answers to all of your questions ,and will address them in due course. First, to the above statement ;

Salsa; There is little that BR may claim, from a technical standpoint, that it laid foundation for partnership in the latin genre.
The most common mistake made by many BR teachers, is that the techniques of one are transferable to the other .

The prime differences are, very simply this; Hold, Frame, CBM, and Footwork, by and large, are completely different .
There may be a commonality in the steps used, and the origins in many, are a moot point .

If "we " accept that, latin partnership was in evidence long before BR entered the arena, but, it's simplicity was the order of the day.BR did add another dimension, a paradigm shift if you will, but that's on the latin side of dance.

The BR comparisons with other genres are many, and are well documented. That is not to say that, the founders of BR did not create new dances, but did "borrow" from other sources .

Danzon, is given credit for the existence of todays BR Cha cha and Rumba,and is easily traced back to their roots.

BR dance, as we now it, has gone thru many transitions ( and I've lived thru many of those ! ),and music has played a significant role in those changes ( for one ex. going from 2/4 to 4/4 timing ) .

So.. Is BR responsible for P/ship dance ?, I suppose if we go back to Contradanze , then yes, BUT, the advances that exist today, are far removed from those roots.

I will address some of your other issues later..

PS.. by the way, you have raised some very good questions .

 

[tangotime]

I forgot to add in "techn. " differences.. CM, a totally different approach..

 

[tangotime]

Here ;are some answers to your bullet points...;

1...The foot turn out in latin. was chosen to accommodate the figure 8 hip action used in CM, The Standard, has no comparable style, and , the general direction of travel is not suited to that foot position.

2... The foot rise in ballet ,is unique, and not being an expert on the genre, I will assume that its fit for purpose. As to the BR usage of " toes ", they do come into prominence ( as you know ), on numerous occasions, but, unlike ballet , that position is not sustained quite as long. ( Scrivener was a proponent of less is more on that subject ) .

3..."Spins"...It depends upon the the "wheres and whens " .. heres what Irvine said about the " body" ( paraphrased )" I feel like something is pulling me upwards and yet, there seems to be a counterpart pulling me down ".

My take on spins is simply this ; the lower the centre of gravity, the more control one should have .

4.. Ballet techn and its usage in BR...
Having taught some ex ballet types over the years, I find that generally speaking, the way they "use " their body, in some cases, is diametrically the opposite to what BR teaches.

For ex. the frame is taught, the feet spread way outwards, and the way they "Walk" in Forward steps " in travelling actions, is ingrained , and breaking that "style" is endless ( or so it seems ! ).

The latin side is probably somewhat more adaptable , with some slight modifications .

As you may or may not know, the BR technique, was established in the 1920s, and it took several years to refine.
The likes of Josephine Bradley, Eve Tynegate Smith and Henry Jacques to name but a few, who contributed to the technical standardisation, of which was/is revised as deemed necessary .

I don't know if this will satisfy your questions, and there are I'm sure , other opinions ,on how some "techn." may differ.

 

[opendoor]

..Why is it that in Latin/Rhythm, the feet are supposed to face (roughly) 11 and 1 o'clock?

The foot turn out in latin. was chosen to accommodate the figure 8 hip action used in CM, The Standard, has no comparable..

So you finally agree with me that technique is a style question, tt

..In the ballroom world, technique, is rather seen as a style question

I do not know of any Prof. , who confuses/believes, style with "techn " and or substitutes one for the other..

 

[tangotime]

So you finally agree with me that technique is a style question, tt

I believe you misread /understand my position, as I do not agree that style is techn. Techn. may accompany style, but, they are 2 different concepts. One is the application of efficiency, and the other, is HOW we portray a specific figure/move. Some techn. is not visible, whereas style always is.

Here's an ex where the 2 concepts need to work together to achieve a result ; Contracheck with changing sway line .
The visual impact is strong ,whereas the techn.is hidden.

The foot position in Latin, as I stated, is a technical aspect and the "style" of that is not common to BR,

 

[vit]

In the traditional ballroom world, technique, is rather seen as a style question, wheras outside it is regarded another word for body technique, body work, compensation, strengthening, posture, balance excercises. Many of those free living teachers got an additional qualification or certificate, either in Alexander, Pilates, or Franklin. My own teachers all had a background in ballett, and as Pilates once was invented for ballett schools, so in the end I found my way into Pilates, too.

I think that I agree with the whole context as described, although of course, single sentence is leaving room for various explanations/agreements/disagreements

In each genre/subgenre/style/area where it is being danced, there is some commonly accepted way how to do something "correct", although whole thing usually isn't visible (which would be "style"). This way is frequently totally different than used by members of some other genre/subgenre/style/area ... so discussions what is right and what is wrong are quite common in dance world

However, general body condition/balance/posture isn't that connected with it ... one may perfectly understand what should be done, but can't do it well because his/her body isn't working good enough for that ... and dance teachers are usually more or less able to explain the first, but most of them can't help much about the second or even understand why technique doesn't work on particular person ...

 

[opendoor]

..should the body dance turns/spins (or anything else) with lower body "down" and upper body "up?" Under what circumstances? Why?

Hi Partner Dancer , do you mean travelling or pivoting turns. It would make a difference.