With whom would you learn to dance? A friend, a boyfriend/girlfriend, or maybe alone?

[lucia_l]

FWIW: For what it's worth. I'll try to drop these.

This conception is part of the problem. If someone needs pressure to grow, he/she should quit dancing.

I disagree with this. I think it's fine for people to dance even if they don't aspire to grow. Dance be an art form. But it can also just be a refreshing social activity.

And who after all is FWIW? (Could you make a list for us non-english speaking members?)

Also, competitive training usually trains down all fundamentals. How, at all, can you argue for the contrary, lucia? Every choreography, every competitive performance actualky sacrifices the basics to the aimed goal.

I can certainly argue the contrary. I do not think every competitive performance sacrifices basics or fundamental to achieve a goal. I think the basics and fundamentals are maintained. These include good frame, poise, connection, grounding etc. Perhaps you don't like the idea of "choreography". Maybe lack of choreography is somehow a higher challenge. But I don't see choreography that as avoiding fundamentals because I don't think "winging it" is a fundamental. If winging it is somehow a "fundamental", then ballet performance lack the fundamentals of dance, Opera doesn't exihibit the fundamentals of singing and so on. I don't think those performers lack fundamentals.

But honestly, even if one sees choreography meaning the have trained down fundamentals, many social dance leads develop habits that amount to choreography and competitors deviate from choreography during competition because they need to avoid others on the floor. I've watched (and danced with) many social leads who stick to the same step patterns and routines and don't vary one iota for different follows. I think that's just fine.

 

[fiesta0618]

@opendoor, I would gladly argue the contrary.

Every choreography, every competitive performance actualky sacrifices the basics to the aimed goal.

This is a common perception, and a mistaken one. In competition, clean execution defeats flashiness almost every time. Not only is this my personal experience and that of my colleagues, it is also the stated preference of every judge I've ever spoken to about it.

Stated another way: the aimed goal of competition is to have the best fundamentals. Fancy choreo is merely a potential vehicle for demonstrating greater mastery--but it is equally an opportunity to expose weakness. Use at own risk!

Dancing is an art form, but not a sort of sadomasochist compensation of some shortcomings.

Dancing is whatever the individual wants it to be.

It is an art. It is a sport. It is meditation. It is a form of exercise. It is a social activity. It can be all of these things at once, and more. Dance-as-a-competitive-skill is merely one facet, no more or less important than the others.

This conception is part of the problem. If someone needs pressure to grow, he/she should quit dancing.

I question this assertion. It seems to me a statement of your own values, rather than something having to do with the essence of dance or about human psychology in general.

Extrinsic motivators, like competition, are primarily a way to set growth goals that are somehow quantifiable. Many people do not trust their judgment of their own skill, so they borrow the expertise of others. Competition is a vehicle to do that.

In addition, extrinsic motivators can help people feel an illusion of responsibility and accountability, which can be difficult to maintain when the only person affected by your choices yourself. When you have a goal that is difficult to attain and slow to reach, that illusion can be very helpful, because innate motivation inevitably waxes and wanes.

 

[IndyLady]

This is a common perception, and a mistaken one. In competition, clean execution defeats flashiness almost every time. Not only is this my personal experience and that of my colleagues, it is also the stated preference of every judge I've ever spoken to about it.

Stated another way: the aimed goal of competition is to have the best fundamentals. Fancy choreo is merely a potential vehicle for demonstrating greater mastery--but it is equally an opportunity to expose weakness. Use at own risk!

....

Dance-as-a-competitive-skill is merely one facet, no more or less important than the others.

....

Many people do not trust their judgment of their own skill, so they borrow the expertise of others. Competition is a vehicle to do that.

1. Thank you for that reminder about clean and simple vs. "flash and trash" (as one of my coaches once called it). I think it was helpful for me personally at this moment to hear (read) someone else affirm that.

2. Agreed. This cuts to the heart of the social vs. competitive feud that we can never seem to extinguish.

3. Sort of... I find that whether people go the social or comp route tends to depend on what studio they started at and what that studio emphasizes. Certainly there are people who walk in knowing in advance what they want to do, and many change or explore other paths, but the majority are "sold" on what their goals will be.

 

[opendoor]

..opendoor..would gladly argue the contrary..

My actual concern was not at all to talk about fundamentals and extrinsic motivation with competitors. It just upset me that some dismissed social dancing as a meander in a trivial sideshow. I dance socially with the same high standards as I once took part in tournaments in my youth. And that also applies to the dancers from my personal environment. I don't think we need to go into that any further, now.

 

[fiesta0618]

My actual concern was not at all to talk about fundamentals and extrinsic motivation with competitors. It just upset me that some dismissed social dancing as a meander in a trivial sideshow.

100% agree with you. Those people are also wrong!

I'm sorry I sounded overly contrary.

 

[lucia_l]

My actual concern was not at all to talk about fundamentals and extrinsic motivation with competitors. It just upset me that some dismissed social dancing as a meander in a trivial sideshow. I dance socially with the same high standards as I once took part in tournaments in my youth. And that also applies to the dancers from my personal environment. I don't think we need to go into that any further, now.

Open Door, based on you having quoted me, I think you responded to me specifically. I absolutely did not dismiss social dancing as a meander into a trivial side show. I discussed the benefits of social dancing at length. I certainly agree there are social dancers who dance to the same high standards as competitive dancer. There are also lots of social dancers who don't -- which I think is fine. I'm happy to interact with all of them in a social venue. That's part of what makes it social.

As far as I can see no one on this thread slammed social dancing. I suspect the reason no one slammed it in the way you suggest is no one thinks social dance should be dismissed.

Beyond that, you specifically slammed competitive performance as training down fundamentals. This is simply factually incorrect. In fact, competitive dancing forces you to attend to them. Social dancing does not force this attention. That does not mean no social dancers attend to them. But I think it's pretty clear many don't likely because they also have other things in their lives and it's perfectly find to dance for purely social reasons.

 

[opendoor]

..think you responded to me..

No, perhaps I confused the threads. Please excuse the excitement i have caused!

 

[WhiskeyPapa]

I did it this way. I saw so many problems (technical as human) when dancers started with their girlfriend, husband or a long-term dance partner.

I would warn against trying to learn to dance with a life partner. It’s better to take separate parallel paths, rather than torture each other as beginners. Once you both have achieved some level of proficiency (2-3 years), then lessons together can be productive and fun.

I would say the optimum scenario would be 2-3 partners with whom you are not romantically involved for practice. Obviously, you need someone to practice with, but a husband or wife is likely to be far less patient with you than someone off the street!

 

[lucia_l]

WhiskeyPapa,
Long ago when we started, my husband and I took dance lessons in P.E. (physical education). We were required to rotate, which I think is good both from a romantic/personal view and a learning point of view. We did practice together sometimes. We went to dance parties every weekend and danced with multiple partners there.

If I hadn't danced with other beginner men, I would not have known my husband was one of the better beginners. If I hadn't danced with intermediate men, my progress would have been slower. And, yes, there is more friction dancing with your life partner and having different opinions about what the step is supposed to be.

Life partners who start dance lessons should definitely be advised to dance separately more than they dance together. Once you are better, it's generally less important to not dance constantly together. Later on, you shouldn't dance only together, but it's ok to dance together a lot. (That's what a social couple may want to do. It's nice for togetherness.)

 

[fiesta0618]

I take a different view from @lucia_l and @WhiskeyPapa. I think the advisability of dancing together with a romantic partner depends entirely on the individuals, the relationship, and the goals of the couple.

Which is not so say those warnings are wrong. I think that any activity which forces collaboration--such as dance--will expose and emphasize weaknesses in a relationship. My coach would agree; she often choreographs wedding dances, and she has said that sometimes she thinks that a couple shouldn't get married based on their inability to work together.

But if you approach dance with humility, and an understanding that working together requires communication and compromise, the sport actually is a decent way to grow together. I have two such anecdotes that immediately come to mind. Problem is, I think most couples who take up dance fall back on familiar patterns of thought and behavior, and expect the collaboration to "just happen." And it doesn't.

 

[WhiskeyPapa]

To be clear, after over 3 years, my wife and often take lessons together. They work out well now, but at the beginning they most definitely did not.

Everyone’s experience is unique, but I have a difficult time imagining what two beginners can give each other from a technical standpoint (ignoring the social dimension, which is equally important). When it’s a husband/wife theses issues will often be compounded, no matter how good the relationship is outside of tango.

Most beginning followers have a difficult time imagining just how difficult it is to lead from day 1. After all, in the arms of an experienced lead, a beginner follower can enjoy a dance after a few lessons, something impossible for a lead until he has a lot more scuffs on his dancing shoes.... (more experienced followers are well aware of this, and often step in with encouragement for floundering beginning men—but that’s not the job of a beginner wife or girlfriend. She’s just not up to it!)

Two beginners will just get in each other’s way. Both will be frustrated, and if there’s a husband involved it will likely be his fault....

Note: my experience is in AT. Other dances may be less brutal in the learning curve for leads.

 

[Brummbaer]

I think the advisability of dancing together with a romantic partner depends entirely on the individuals, the relationship, and the goals of the couple.

Absolutely. Every relationship is unique.

See, for example, the documentary on Nieves and Copes in Un tango más. I can think of at least one other relationship in a similar situation.

Being an exception to the stereotype of man dancing, or husband/wife learning together doesn't make every pairing ideal. It does depend on the couple. I think the main thing is that, if there is a non-dancing partner, then they're involved somehow. Probably almost similarly for golf, tennis, etc. - although partner dance has a unique problem.

Note: my experience is in AT. Other dances may be less brutal in the learning curve for leads.

Certainly so. Thinking back we did more 'choreographed' moves than in social AT. 'Leading' came later. It was possible to go back to earlier dance experience to realise what did work for AT.

 

[opendoor]

I take a different view from @lucia_l and @WhiskeyPapa...

But didn't you agree in the end, too?

 

[opendoor]

..Every relationship is unique.. See, for example, the documentary on Nieves and Copes in Un tango más..

I think a mixed private-professional relationship is another kind of animal. The commitment is much greater, simply for material reasons. Dancing out of enthusiasm and as a hobby requires a lot more consideration, adaptation and understanding. I have great respect for the couples who endured this tension and did not give up.

 

[fiesta0618]

But didn't you agree in the end, too?

I don't think so, but I admit my thoughts on the subject aren't particularly well-formed or clearly articulated.

For example, both of them said (paraphrased) that couples should be discouraged from learning to dance together, for several good reasons. By contrast, I sometimes actively encourage couples to learn to dance together. That's a big difference!

But there are always a few extra considerations when I make such a recommendation.

• I do not recommend dance to couples who have a rocky relationship. Dance is not couples therapy, and can feel like exactly the opposite.
• I only recommend styles that have a low technical floor. I never recommend AT or International Standard to non-dancers, for example.
• Relatedly, I only recommend styles where it can work to have the couple dancing parallel but not together. Salsa and Swing, for example, don't require close partner integration to be fun.

Everyone’s experience is unique, but I have a difficult time imagining what two beginners can give each other from a technical standpoint (ignoring the social dimension, which is equally important).

This is a really interesting topic. It made me think: what do any two people offer one another, from a technical standpoint?

Ultimately, I think that when both halves of a partnership are roughly the same level, the answer will always be nothing. A weaker partner can hinder you and a stronger one can help, but someone about the same does neither. I don't think that's unique to beginners, either.

Psychologically, every partner can offer a different perspective; that, too, is true at every level. But that's not exactly technical.

Most beginning followers have a difficult time imagining just how difficult it is to lead from day 1. After all, in the arms of an experienced lead, a beginner follower can enjoy a dance after a few lessons, something impossible for a lead until he has a lot more scuffs on his dancing shoes.... (more experienced followers are well aware of this, and often step in with encouragement for floundering beginning men—but that’s not the job of a beginner wife or girlfriend. She’s just not up to it!)

Two beginners will just get in each other’s way. Both will be frustrated, and if there’s a husband involved it will likely be his fault....

Note: my experience is in AT. Other dances may be less brutal in the learning curve for leads.

This is all true. Leader hell is real. Reading your post on this helped me understand my own thoughts better, as I mention above in response to opendoor. Restated briefly, I think some styles are well-suited to couples learning together, and some are very much not. AT is unquestionably the latter.