Why not Ballroom?

[Sparkles]

After a few conversations with MJers (mostly about SDF) I'm getting the impression that several (it may be many, but I'm not sure) people really don't like the idea of ballroom dancing (including both modern and latin disciplines).

I was just wondering why this is...
Is it because of the footwork?
Or the routine element - ie that it's not so easy to freestyle?
Or is it because it's harder (IMO) for individuals to put their personal stamp on the dances with musical interpretation?
Or is it some other off-putting element (I know the music is certainly not to everyones' tastes :whistle: )?

As someone who spent a long time doing ballroom dancing and greatly enjoying it (for the most part), and someone who feels that those years of learning ballroom have enhanced rather than detracted from my MJ experience I'm baffled by people who dance MJ (and obviously enjoy it) but are not interested in ballroom.

Maybe it's just horses for courses, but I'd be interested in feedback on this.
Thanks :flower:
S. x

[ChrisA]

I was just wondering why this is...
Is it because of the footwork?
Or the routine element - ie that it's not so easy to freestyle?
Or is it because it's harder (IMO) for individuals to put their personal stamp on the dances with musical interpretation?
Or is it some other off-putting element (I know the music is certainly not to everyones' tastes :whistle: )?

As someone who spent a long time doing ballroom dancing and greatly enjoying it (for the most part), and someone who feels that those years of learning ballroom have enhanced rather than detracted from my MJ experience I'm baffled by people who dance MJ (and obviously enjoy it) but are not interested in ballroom.

Well, I spent quite a few years doing ballroom and latin, more years ago than I like to think about... and I certainly agree that the experience adds, rather than detracts, and on the occasions that I get to do a bit of Waltz or Quickstep, and less so Foxtrot, I find I can remember a reasonable amount (tho not the others, nor enough Latin to make a reasonably interesting freestyle dance), and I enjoy it a lot.

But it is a lot harder. There are ten dances to learn and progress in, not, er, one... and life is busy.

It's not the difficulty that puts me off, once I believe that I'm capable of achieving something - and indeed in recent times the thought has crossed my mind to give up MJ completely (or at least other than the odd social thing) and switch to Tango...

But I'm not sure I could stand an exclusive diet of Tango music, and the same applies to ballroom.

And I'm not at all sure I could devote the amount of time to either, to get good enough to be happy with my rate of progress, in any kind of sensible timescale.

I might dip my toe in the SNS water at some point, but that would mean missing Cat's WC classes, and that's another hard dance to get good at.

Invent the 14 day week, somebody, please :tears:

[ChrisA]

But I'm not sure I could stand an exclusive diet of Tango music, and the same applies to ballroom.

Though what about the track the tango couple picked for last Saturday's SDF?

I thought it was pretty much the most innovative choice of music for a showcase that I've ever seen.

:worthy:

[David Franklin]

Though what about the track the tango couple picked for last Saturday's SDF?

I thought it was pretty much the most innovative choice of music for a showcase that I've ever seen.How can you call it innovative? Leroc2000 used it for a MJ heat two years ago! :devil: (Hey, it's not much over 180bpm...)

[ChrisA]

How can you call it innovative? Leroc2000 used it for a MJ heat two years ago! :devil: (Hey, it's not much over 180bpm...)
I assume they used it for dancing MJ to it, though. It was using it (what's the track btw??) for a tango that I thought was fantastic.

If the ballroom world could figure out a way of using more modern music for the ballroom dances, I think ballroom would be far easier to resurrect.

Haven't been following the ballroom music thread, maybe I should... :blush:

Hey, there's lots of music in 3/4 time in the C&W world :devil: :devil: :devil:

[Divissima]

I assume they used it for dancing MJ to it, though. It was using it (what's the track btw??) Objection (Tango) from Shakira's Laundry Service album. All tracks from SDF are up on the Amante Ballo website, btw.

At the Leroc comp they used it for MJ, as you might expect. I have vivid memories of watching Trampy and Debster dance to it - it was the hottest day of the year so far and the aircon had been out for much of the afternoon due to a power failure. I thought Debster was going to spontaneously combust :really:

(With apologies for the split infinitive.)

[TheTramp]

I have vivid memories of watching Trampy and Debster dance to it - it was the hottest day of the year so far and the aircon had been out for much of the afternoon due to a power failure. I thought Debster was going to spontaneously combust :really:
What about Trampy?!? I think I nearly died. Twice.

[Lynn]

After a few conversations with MJers (mostly about SDF) I'm getting the impression that several (it may be many, but I'm not sure) people really don't like the idea of ballroom dancing (including both modern and latin disciplines).

I was just wondering why this is...
Is it because of the footwork?
Or the routine element - ie that it's not so easy to freestyle?
Or is it because it's harder (IMO) for individuals to put their personal stamp on the dances with musical interpretation?
Or is it some other off-putting element (I know the music is certainly not to everyones' tastes :whistle: )? Two things that would put me off doing ballroom locally would be - a) the age range - either very young or very old but more importantly b) you need a regular partner to go along to classes with!

[Katie]

After a few conversations with MJers (mostly about SDF) I'm getting the impression that several (it may be many, but I'm not sure) people really don't like the idea of ballroom dancing (including both modern and latin disciplines).

I think it is a case for some that, once you've found MJ, you don't feel the need to do Ballroom (plus the fact it takes a lot more work and patience to become good).

I agree with you that I'm glad I did Ballroom first as it was a good foundation - however, deep down I knew that I was looking for something else - at the time I didn't know what it was or where to find it and then by default, I discovered MJ and after my first lesson I knew that this was going to be the start of something special....

[Little Monkey]

I'd love to do ballroom!

In particular interested in learning the latin dances..... Remember a teensy wee bit from doing ballroom as a kid, enough to do the basics of a cha-cha...

My problems are: No partner, not enough money, and not enough time! I think I'll just stick to ceroc and Argentine Tango for now...... :rolleyes:

Monkey

[DavidY]

I did Ballroom & Latin at Uni. After leaving I still took lessons (and still do it even now) but spend much less time on it and as a consequence I'm a lot worse at it than I used to be.

I agree with much of what has been said already - as ChrisA says there are 10 different (Latin + Ballroom) dances to remember and keep up. If I spend time getting the waltz up to scratch, I've forgotten how to quickstep. :tears:

I'm also not good at leading :blush: as I tend to have lessons with a fixed partner doing fixed routines.

Sometimes in a ballroom lesson when doing the Jive/Cha Cha comes on, I do miss the flexibility to break away from the routine and interpret music (or at least to attempt to).

[David Bailey]

I too have been seduced from ballroom. Mainly because MJ is more fun. Obvious really... The points about ballroom having a steeper learning curve, more limited music, and different age range are all pertinent, but the main attraction for me is that you can play around in MJ so much more than in almost any other dance.

For example, I was dancing a cha-cha to one track last night, and my partner suddenly decided she wanted to revert to ceroc. So we did. Could never have done that anywhere else.

Also, of course, people are nicer in MJ compared to any other dance scene. :cheers:

[Clive Long]

I have been to all of six "ballroom" lessons at Ashtons - so (as always) this is an (uninformed) opinion - but may reflect how people new to ballroom react to it.



I did Ballroom & Latin at Uni. After leaving I still took lessons (and still do it even now) but spend much less time on it and as a consequence I'm a lot worse at it than I used to be.

I agree with much of what has been said already - as ChrisA says there are 10 different (Latin + Ballroom) dances to remember and keep up. If I spend time getting the waltz up to scratch, I've forgotten how to quickstep. :tears:
<< snip >>

I have read from those who have learned ballroom that there are 10 disciplines (a most appropriate word methinks). But why do you have to learn all of them? Cha-cha (cha-cha-cha ?) seems fussy and absurd to me - so I won't learn it and won't dance it. I'm a social dancer - I don't have to dance every track in an evening. I know if you want to compete then THE RULES say you have to learn all the styles. Fine. Great. Work hard. Become better. I can watch, appreciate and admire your dancing. I won't join you on the competition floor.


Sometimes in a ballroom lesson when doing the Jive/Cha Cha comes on, I do miss the flexibility to break away from the routine and interpret music (or at least to attempt to).
So the need to be correct in ballroom stifles your desire to enjoy the dance. In this case ballroom is just an exercise in body control I think. Remind me again why we dance?


Two things that would put me off doing ballroom locally would be - a) the age range - either very young or very old

Off-putting yes if one is looking for a social dimension beyond the dancing. However, I generally find the ladies of a certain age much better company than those of an later vintage.


but more importantly b) you need a regular partner to go along to classes with!

Not so (or it ain't necessarily so). Again looking from a social dancer's perspective and what I remember of my Mum and Dad dancing whilst I sat glumly and passively on the side, they danced with many different people through an evening. I accept, to compete then you need a regular partner.

So why doesn't ballroom appeal to many? I think all you need to do is look at the performance of Ice-Man Alex and his partner on SDF. As a dancer you may marvel at the technical brilliance of it all - but I think the perspective should be from a non(neo)-dancer who is interested in trying out a dance style. You don't appreciate what relentless hard work is involved in producing what the IceMan can do. It looks soulless and robotic to you. You look at MJ - it seems slightly chaotic and a whole lot of fun. Go figure which one you would choose.

Having appeared so negative about ballroom I am enjoying SNS on Tuesday. Why? Maybe I like the contrast and have reached a level of "dance maturity" where I can now appreciate ballroom.

Clive

[ChrisA]

So the need to be correct in ballroom stifles your desire to enjoy the dance. In this case ballroom is just an exercise in body control I think.
I don't agree with this. Without frame, without rise and fall, without the footwork that makes it possible, a waltz, quickstep or foxtrot is just a random shuffle round the floor... but with them, the feeling of connection and moving as one is lovely.

Being correct in ballroom makes it much more enjoyable, and, dare I say it, fun too :flower:

[Ballroom queen]

I started dancing ballroom about 10 years ago, by chance really - my flat mate dragged me along. And I loved it. after a year or two I discovered ceroc, struggled with no footwork, but loved the whole social scene. However over the years wanted more - I loved Mike and Linda's Strictly ballroom, tried Tango, Salsa, Lindy, then hipsters started - all with a little bit more of a challenge than ceroc. However, for a while now I have been wanting to get back to ballroom. we are very lucky to now have nosequins - a ballroom night with ceroc style teaching and numbers, no need to have a partner, and be an OAP!!! There are 10 dances, but I doubt they will ever get to a paso doble or quick waltz, in fact if we want the samba and tango we need to pester Mike (so Hannes told me tonight) - the SNS web site suggests that they will only do 5-6 dances. As for the complexity of dances - the fact that most people at SNS come from a dance background it must be easier, some have done footwork etc at the many weekenders, and I have to say I think the standard in the freestyle is pretty impressive considering its only been going for a couple of months. As for the music - yes, its hard finding decent waltzes, but the variety is fab compared to a Tango or Salsa night. I reckon if SNS continues and Mike Ellard can find more venues we may see a revival of ballroom dancing. I suggest anyone in north / west london who hasn't tried SNS gives it a go, you may be pleasently surprised.

[frodo]

...I'm getting the impression that several (it may be many, but I'm not sure) people really don't like the idea of ballroom dancing (including both modern and latin disciplines)...
Don't like the idea of ballroom dancing competitions. Based on what I've seen in the past on TV, I would have given it a very wide berth. It's not an image I would want to have anything to do with.

In particular seeing young children so dressed up and doing competitions seems quite sad.


Two things that would put me off doing ballroom locally would be - a) the age range - either very young or very old but more importantly b) you need a regular partner to go along to classes with!Both of those would put me off. They are unlikely to apply at University classes. Elsewhere they don't apply everywhere but it seems very patchy ( unlike MJ which you can generally count on consistently ).



I have been to ...
...
... appreciate ballroom
:yeah: (pretty much entire post)



I don't agree with this. Without frame, without rise and fall, without the footwork that makes it possible, a waltz, quickstep or foxtrot is just a random shuffle round the floor... but with them, the feeling of connection and moving as one is lovely.

Being correct in ballroom makes it much more enjoyable, and, dare I say it, fun too
Certainly being correct makes it much more enjoyable, but that doesn't mean it can't be enjoyable if you're not, or not yet doing it entirely 'correctly'.

[ChrisA]

Certainly being correct makes it much more enjoyable, but that doesn't mean it can't be enjoyable if you're not, or not yet doing it entirely 'correctly'.
Never suggested you couldn't enjoy it without being correct. Just picking up what I thought was the suggestion that all that correctness destroys the enjoyment.

It doesn't, it enhances it.

[Gadget]

What puts me off:
- limited music.
- strict "right" and "wrong" ways of doing things
- fixed partner
- routines and fixed x count moves
- time and finances

Why I would still like to:
- improved posture.
- better understanding (and practical application of) body movement and control.
- better discipline over my feet.

[ChrisA]

- fixed partner
- routines

Apart from comps, I don't recall any routines or fixed partner dancing from my ballroom days.


strict "right" and "wrong" ways of doing things

There are plenty of right and wrong ways to do bits of MJ. "Right" and "Wrong" boils down to "feels/looks nice" and "doesn't", at the end of the day.

Doing it right makes it feel nice. There is no downside to doing it right, except the effort it takes to be able to.

Agreed, the music, and its interpretation, are more accessible in MJ, but they are still there in ballroom and latin. I was never good enough to be particularly interpretive, but there are things you can do with the music.

[Gadget]

Apart from comps, I don't recall any routines or fixed partner dancing from my ballroom days.I didn't mean a whole song routine - I meant large bits of the dance being sort of choriographed and then joined together. Sort of like Duplo to MJ's Lego :wink: Isn't there fixed footwork patterns? To me that's actually worse than routines.
Surprised that it's not fixed partners - that seemed a fairly firm preconception in my mind.


There are plenty of right and wrong ways to do bits of MJ. "Right" and "Wrong" boils down to "feels/looks nice" and "doesn't", at the end of the day.:D I think lots of MJ feels/looks nice - I don't think I would be told "that's right" if I did it in ballroom.
'right and wrong' in MJ relate to injury. 'right and wrong' in ballroom relate to style. {Or am I wrong again?}


Doing it right makes it feel nice. There is no downside to doing it right, except the effort it takes to be able to.:D "no downside to doing it right"... I can think on a few. Same with the statement before it; it can still 'feel nice' even if it's not quite done right. In fact doing it "perfectly" may feel more aquard and strained than done "not quite right".


...but there are things you can do with the music.Within the strict framework of that dance? I suppose there must be, but from what I remember seeing in competitions etc., it's all about technique and execution rather than expression and interpritation. *shrug* another missconception?

[ChrisA]

that seemed a fairly firm preconception in my mind.

Do some, then comment. I do think you have a lot of misinformation and false assumptions in your mind. :flower:

The fact of the matter is that most of the moves are small enough not to need large-scale choreography any more than in MJ, and although I'd agree that musical interpretation isn't as accessible as in MJ, it's not completely absent by any means.

As for the fixed partner thing, social ballrooom doesn't need fixed partners any more than social MJ. But you do need to be able to do it to freestyle it, so the bar is higher for all the reasons that have already been explained.

And it does feel nicer, as well as looking nicer, when it's done properly, even for social dancing.

Not that I can really do it properly any more :tears:

[Lou]

Do some, then comment. :flower:
No offence, Chris, but I thought Sparkles started this thread to find out why some of us don't do ballroom. It'd be hard to answer her question if we need to be qualified to comment.... :wink:

[ChrisA]

No offence, Chris, but I thought Sparkles started this thread to find out why some of us don't do ballroom. It'd be hard to answer her question if we need to be qualified to comment.... :wink:
Point taken.

Misunderstandings and false assumptions are just as useful for working out why people won't do something.

:flower:

[David Bailey]

it's all about technique and execution rather than expression and interpritation. *shrug* another missconception?
There's some truth there, but that's putting it too strongly. Ballroom (and Latin) is more about technique than MJ, but that's mainly because there's more technique. And surely "execution" is just a fancy way of saying "how you dance", which applies to all dances.
Expression and interpretation is perhaps more limited, but I think that's mainly because you're usually dancing within a more limited set of music. Having said that, something like Argentinian Tango is very much about interpretation (from what I dimly recall).
One thing I've learned on this forum is that not to be dismissive of other dance forms, they all have their own beauty*. Hopefully this makes me a nicer person :)

* Except Line Dancing of course :wink:

[MartinHarper]

Talking to folks who've done ballroom stuff, the local scene is more couple-oriented, which reduces the appeal. I'll have a go at some point, though.

[Divissima]

Why not ballroom? It's an interesting question. Ballroom was the first dancing I ever did (in my undergraduate days), but I didn't keep it up for long and vowed I'd never go back to it. Part of the reason why was that, as someone who had never danced, tackling six or seven new dances (I'm pretty sure I never got round to all ten) was just too challenging and I didn't stick with it long enough to click with any of them. I was easily discouraged by the difficulty and by the irritating members of the university squad who would crash the beginners' session and charge up and down looking smug :devil:

The other thing about ballroom, when done at a high level, is that some of the dances require a persona - no smiling in the tango, for example, or pretending to be a bull or a cape in the Paso Doble - which led me to feel that, to the casual observer, the better you get the less you look as though you are enjoying it. I think that it can be difficult to warm to some ballroom dances (and dancers) because they can look terribly severe.

I have since gone back to ballroom and love it - I just wish I had the time to devote to getting seriously competent at it.

[Little Monkey]

'right and wrong' in MJ relate to injury. 'right and wrong' in ballroom relate to style. {Or am I wrong again?}


Ouch - you not over-simplifying things a bit too much here? Or are you serious about 'right and wrong' in MJ relate to injury'........? :eek: I'd like to think there's a lot more to MJ (as to how to do it right or wrong) than simply avoiding injuring your partner.... Hand-hold, lead, keeping the rythm etc etc.... Or are these things not important to do it right??

Hopefully you were just joking..... :whistle:

LM

[Sparkles]

There seem to be several major points that have been brought up, I'll try and cover what I think of each, but please bear in mind this is all IMO and that I'm not on a mission to convert people I just want to further the discussion.


Having to have a partner: to compete, yes. Ballroom is partner dancing, just like MJ, and in an MJ comp you need a partner too. As for lessons, group sessions rarely require you bring a partner and frequently the class sizes are small enough so that each person may receive individual attention form the teacher (in my experience). This has a down side in that the pace of the class moves with the slowest member (so if you're up on your heels and toes you might get bored) but ballroom classes recognise this and often offer a selection of different-paced classes for you to choose from.


Too much foot work: I used to think there was too much too, but I have since realised that it's more about general rules and recognising you can use different parts of your feet. In the modern dances (in general) if you walk forwards you do so on the heel of the foot, whereas in latin you would walk forward pushing you toes first (except in Paso Doble). But getting the footwork right is part of the challenge and makes many things in MJ make a lot more sense (I have found) - and it's so satisfying when you 'get it right'.


Having to dance routiens: With regard to foot patterns or sequences or routiens it's very much the same as MJ, you learn moves and then string them together and it's perfectly possible to freestyle them if both you and your partner have a basic knowledge. And it's not quite like learning 10 completely separate dances, just to give one example, many moves in the rumba can also be done in the cha cha cha if you add a side-close-side in the middle. Couples often pt for fixed routiens in competition, because it makes it easier to work on a set outline, but these patterns often get interrupted , for example if there is a collision on the floor, and so the ability to freestyle and pick up the routien again is essential. Having spoken to several MJers who compete they have a few moves that they always do in sequence and have mini-routiens that they string together in competition. It makes it easier to 'show off' if you already know what's coming next...


Social dancing: Ballroom is not as socially-orientated as MJ (from my experience) but that doesn't mean to say there are no social aspects. They have freestyle nights and tea-dances and parties and balls too y'know :rolleyes:. The age ranges, again, I have also found to be a problem, but that's one of the things that interests me - if all the people that do modern jive also did ballroom there would be a much wider spectrum of ages, but for some reason they don't - hence my curiosity in this thread.


I wonder if these things ring true with anyone else?
S. x :flower:

[Franck]

I wonder if these things ring true with anyone else?
S. x :flower:An interesting question to ask, but the points you make don't ring true with my experience either. Things that put me off Ballroom were:

- Classes taught in fixed partners for classes / social dancing.
I appreciate that there must be classes where that's not the case, but all the ones I've attended here or seen, you had to come with a partner or you'd be fixed with one of the other extra ladies for the duration of the class!

- The competition ethos.
Things might have changed but all teachers came from competition background, in order to teach or start a new class you had to be a successful Ballroom competitor. This created generations of teachers who focused on presentation rather than feel / lead / follow. Most techniques I remember learning were aimed at competing, and in many ways, this has been responsible for my 'Competitions are evil' mantra.
When you have spent years perfecting a smile, hand position, toe placement, it is hard to teach anything else and none of the teachers I had / saw were able to stand back and adapt to casual learners who didn't want to compete, just wanted to dance.

- The fixed (long) routine way of learning.
With Ballroom classes, we would learn a routine (in each dance) over a period of months, yes, we were taught the individual components (natural turns, etc...) but we were expected to dance the full routine (with weekly additions) each week. Missing a week was not only frowned upon, but really put everyone back so eventually you either dedicated your life to it, or gave up :sad: I know many did before I eventually moved on too...

So to summarize, the difficulty of the dance, the footwork and even the music had nothing to do with why I stopped.
I feel that Ballroom offers great dances but is let down by the classes and competitive ethos.

[Chef]

I started doing ballroom because my girlfriend was a keen ballroom dancer and she had taken up MJ with me and I wanted to reciprocate and learn ballroom to be with her. I immersed myself in B&L for 2 months so that I could take her out to the Ritz for one of their dance evenings with lilght supper and at least be able to dance with her a bit.

After this event I carried on doing my B&L lessons in tandem with my MJ even after the relationship ended.

I enjoyed the dances and the rigor of the training and attention to detail (which I have tried to pass through to my MJ), but this is why I have stopped (at least for the moment).

1) After two years I am still have only been taught enough of each dance to get me through the bronze classification. The schools are interested in competitions and are interested in you doing the moves at your level perfectly. If you move up a level and don't do so well the school does not have the kudos of a competition win or placing. So two years on and I still couldn't do a single dance for longer than 30 seconds without starting the routine over again.

2) Learning routines. So I never got to learn how to lead. If the woman didn't know the routine or someone was in the way I didn't know enough leading or floorcraft to rescue the situation. So if one couple fluffs up on the dance floor and stops everyone else piles into them.

3) Number of dance styles. Six dance styles were taught in an hour. That is just 10 minutes per dance style. Not enough time to get your body into the rythmn of the dance or even remember the routine from last week (was that heel, toe, toe, heel flat?). At the end of that time then you were out of the door with nothing in your muscle memory.

4) Fixed partners. Being a lone male at a ballroom class means that you either get paired up with the teachers assistant or the teacher. So you never learn to lead.

5) Lack of resource material. I am a visual learner so videos and DVDs are great for me to go back to and work things out on, as well as being an aid to memory. Apart from Peggy Spencers "ballroom and latin for beginners" and the "Discover ballroom and latin" (which are so unbelievably basic it is untrue) there are no reasonably priced video resources to act as a source for practice. A MJ video or DVD is around £20. A B&L video is £60! Not even the teachers buy them at that price. The dancers that make these videos say that they have to charge that much because they sell so few. I tell them that if hollywood films were £60 each then they wouldn't sell many of those either.

So in short, for me, they are great dances, I like the idea of training and working on something but there is little fun in my experience of B&L because there is a lot of effort and I still don't have anything remotely usable even after 2 nights a week for two years. I have now filled my available time with other things that are more fun.

What might change things for me.

1) Being able to have a themed day or weekend where one dance style is taught and you can get to grips with it and have some practice time to embed it into your body.

2) Reasonably priced DVD to act as a resource so that finer details are not lost.

3) Concentration on social dancing rather than competative dancing. Teaching lead and follow and floorcraft.

4) Its about the dance, not the costumes, and ditch the fake tans. It is really stupid seeing Scots in January looking like they have spend 4 months in Bermuda.


Well that is my bit, for what it is worth.

[bigdjiver]

...So to summarize, the difficulty of the dance, the footwork and even the music had nothing to do with why I stopped.
I feel that Ballroom offers great dances but is let down by the classes and competitive ethos. :yeah: Inept as I was my teacher was good enough to let me experience the great intensity of feeling that you can get from a waltz, but that was already planned as my last ballroom dance at a serious class for the reasons Franck gave. I have had about one ballroom lesson a decade since, and found the ethos the same.

Maybe Ceroc can bring a more "pop" influence into ballroom, and it would be a good thing if they could. However I would prefer them to concentrate on improving their organisation here before exporting MJ to Europe and the States. Alas, I believe they have taken at least one wrong turn - and I am not going to expand on that in a public forum.

[Lynn]

but more importantly b) you need a regular partner to go along to classes with! Not so (or it ain't necessarily so). Again looking from a social dancer's perspective and what I remember of my Mum and Dad dancing whilst I sat glumly and passively on the side, they danced with many different people through an evening. I accept, to compete then you need a regular partner. I did say 'locally' and from what I know of here, you need a partner to attend classes. Partners are not rotated in classes. If you go to a social event with people from your class, yes, you then dance with different people - but for regular classes, you need a regular partner. I know people who went and loved it, but had to stop as their regular partner wanted to stop and they couldn't find another person to go with.

[foxylady]

An interesting question to ask, but the points you make don't ring true with my experience either. Things that put me off Ballroom were:

- Classes taught in fixed partners for classes / social dancing.
I appreciate that there must be classes where that's not the case, but all the ones I've attended here or seen, you had to come with a partner or you'd be fixed with one of the other extra ladies for the duration of the class!

- The competition ethos.
Things might have changed but all teachers came from competition background, in order to teach or start a new class you had to be a successful Ballroom competitor. This created generations of teachers who focused on presentation rather than feel / lead / follow. Most techniques I remember learning were aimed at competing, and in many ways, this has been responsible for my 'Competitions are evil' mantra.
When you have spent years perfecting a smile, hand position, toe placement, it is hard to teach anything else and none of the teachers I had / saw were able to stand back and adapt to casual learners who didn't want to compete, just wanted to dance.

- The fixed (long) routine way of learning.
With Ballroom classes, we would learn a routine (in each dance) over a period of months, yes, we were taught the individual components (natural turns, etc...) but we were expected to dance the full routine (with weekly additions) each week. Missing a week was not only frowned upon, but really put everyone back so eventually you either dedicated your life to it, or gave up :sad: I know many did before I eventually moved on too...

So to summarize, the difficulty of the dance, the footwork and even the music had nothing to do with why I stopped.
I feel that Ballroom offers great dances but is let down by the classes and competitive ethos.

I have been learning B&L for almost a year now. I was inspired to do so by the SCD programmes, and I decided to take private lessons because I didn't want to go back to dancing with true beginners who may or may not have a sense of being able to dance, and may not have any sense of lead or follow...
This was not necessarily the right thing to do, but I certainly have enjoyed myself...

However going to one of the SNS nights I found that whilst I am able to dance extremely competently with my teacher, I found it hard to follow someone else's lead... I certainly have missed out by not having 'social dancing' practice.... Not enough hours in the week to go to numerous ballroom social dances too....

But it has enriched my MJ.. at least I think it has !

FL

[ChrisA]

1) After two years I am still have only been taught enough of each dance to get me through the bronze classification.

Heavens. This sounds horrendous. Admittedly my experience is :blush: years out of date, but at the B&L school I went to I got to gold in Latin and Ballroom in about 3 years. I was pretty much about the same level as everyone else, certainly nothing special.



2) Learning routines. So I never got to learn how to lead.

Again, zoikes. There were never any routines, just moves, and then we were expected to be able to freestyle them round the floor, and avoid other dancers. In retrospect, lead and follow were taught very badly, and only now do a lot of the difficulties I had make any sense.

There are differences, though - in waltz, for instance, once you've learned the natural and reverse turns, you can go round the floor to a whole track to your heart's content. Not as flash as bunging in some whisks and spin turns, of course, but it was pretty cool to get to be able to do that without stepping all over your partner. In MJ of course, a whole track of octopuses would be a bit boring quite quickly.



3) Number of dance styles. Six dance styles were taught in an hour.

Six? Six??????

I got two per lesson in the early days, which did grow a bit, but never fast enough to feel that there wasn't anything actually going in.



4) Fixed partners. Being a lone male at a ballroom class means that you either get paired up with the teachers assistant or the teacher.

Not me. I was one of three guys in a class with about 8 girls. I had to dance with them all. :drool: The teacher and the demo danced with them too, so only a few girls over. It was very MJ class like in structure, AFAIR.



5) Lack of resource material.

.......:yeah:

And certainly no competition emphasis at the local school. I went to one comp, as a spectator for everything except, rather prophetically, a beginners jive comp, in which I came nowhere, but there was lots of freestyle between the rounds, and I had a blast.

The real competing didn't start till uni, and it put me off comps, and indeed dancing, for a long time. It wasn't until several people assured me that MJ comps weren't expected to be quite the be all and end all of life that B&L comps seemed to be in those days, that I was tempted to get back into dancing competitively.

But there was lots of freestyle at uni - tea dances, socials.

In short, my experience is virtually identical to Sparkles, and it looks like I was just lucky with the school my mum dragged me to, screaming, aged 15 :blush:

[Sheepman]

I was just wondering why this is...
Is it because of the footwork?No

Or the routine element - ie that it's not so easy to freestyle?Yes

Or is it because it's harder (IMO) for individuals to put their personal stamp on the dances with musical interpretation?Yes

Or is it some other off-putting element (I know the music is certainly not to everyones' tastes :whistle: )?Yes

The music is still the main one for me, but I also have this perception of the whole thing being so false and unnatural. (From the little bits of Argentine Tango I've done, I want to do more, but I wouldn't want to touch Ballroom Tango.)
(On last Saturday's SDF, I was impressed by the wonderful technical ability of the "Ice Man" and partner, but I found the dance rather ridiculous, especially to Objection (Tango). (Which I make as a mere 180bpm, not 190 as previously mentioned, nowhere near enough to make Debster spontaneously combust, though I did think that was the fate of all her partners! :drool: :really: ))

I was watching several of the world's top dancers on DVD last night, and I think there could hardly be more of a contrast than between watching WCS, where the dancers weren't just smiling, but were obviously enjoying the dance, and with moves where they practically stood still for 2 or 3 bars, just with little inflexions or movements that emphasised the music. Then I watched Ballroom Jive (which I have done several lessons in), I marvelled at the high kicks, speed of movement and precise execution, but overall, just thought "it looks so ridiculous!" (and the dancers danced straight through the break with not a hint of acknowledgement!)
The WCS was a freestyled cabaret slot, and was breathtaking in the way the music was interpreted. The Ballroom Jive was a choreographed routine with lots of big Wow moments, but I went "Wow!" far more often to the understated WCS freestyle dance.

Invariably I do find that the women who have done B&L in the past are the better Modern Jivers. (Does that mean I'm being selfish by not learning B&L myself to improve my dancing?) I did need something to further challenge and improve my dancing, and so I feel fortunate to have access to brilliant wcs teachers.

I do sometimes go along to MJ lessons and think "there's nothing in this routine for me." But I'm never there thinking "why do I have to learn 10 dances when there's only 3 that I can stand listening to the music for?" I have always enjoyed whatever type of dancing I've tried, but where the music doesn't do it for me, then I won't be repeating my visits.

Greg

[Mary]

I went to SNS last night for the first time. I was a bit nervous as I am a beginner, but had a great time. The Ceroc format for teaching ballroom I thought worked extremely well, and top marks to the taxi dancers. Lots of familiar face MJ'ers there.

I think learning any kind of dance style can only improve one's MJ. There is very little initial technique involved in learning MJ, but by learning any other more complex or technique based dance form can only help improve lead/follow technique, style and, hopefully, musicality.

I didn't really expect to be doing any freestyle dancing last night (being a shy beginner), but found I was asked for lots of dances. I would like to thank all those fantastically patient people who allowed me to stagger round the floor with them attempting a waltz, quickstep, rumba and cha cha. Only 2 of them or forumites that I know of :wink:

When social dancing in MJ it always seems to stand out when the person leading me has had some other form of dance training, especially ballroom/latin. Not saying that people who only do MJ can't learn to become good at leading but it seems to come more naturally with those who have experience of other dance styles.

:worthy: :worthy: to Mike & Linda for giving us Nose quines. And Minnie for her recent venture which I gather was a great success.

M

[Lynn]

The Ceroc format for teaching ballroom I thought worked extremely well, and top marks to the taxi dancers. I would definitely give ballroom a go if it was rotated class and you didn't need a partner.

[Sparkles]

I think learning any kind of dance style can only improve one's MJ. There is very little initial technique involved in learning MJ, but by learning any other more complex or technique based dance form can only help improve lead/follow technique, style and, hopefully, musicality.

:yeah:
I completely agree with this.
I find that I now go to dance classes searching for what that class can give me to improve my dancing in general, not just make me better at, for example, foxtrot.


When social dancing in MJ it always seems to stand out when the person leading me has had some other form of dance training, especially ballroom/latin.

From what I understand, the advantages of doing ballroom when it comes to leading are a) the use of a firm frame, b) rhythmic understanding (including being able to dance on the half, quarter :eek: and off beats) and c) understanding of footwork which (even if you don't use it in MJ) is particularly useful in avoiding 'wrong-footing' the lady when leading - and as anyone who's been 'wrong-footed' on swivels will testify, this is a huge advantage! :cool:

S. x

[Sparkles]

No
(From the little bits of Argentine Tango I've done, I want to do more, but I wouldn't want to touch Ballroom Tango.)


IMO There are useful aspects to be taken from both forms.
Argentine tango is particularly useful for lead and follow, interesting, and I suppose otherwise unavailable, moves and challenging music.
Ballroom tango would aid rhythmic expression, body isolations (to some degree), use of feet and frame.
Both dances are extremely passionate and intense and IMO worthwhile learning.
I personally find Argentine tango a very difficult dance but maybe that's because I'm used to having so much independance when I'm dancing and find it difficult to give that up (it was hard enough learning to follow in MJ! :eek: ).

Sounds like a case of horses for courses if you ask me, but it's a shame if you've ruled it out without trying it. :flower:

S. x

[Mary]

From what I understand, the advantages of doing ballroom when it comes to leading are a) the use of a firm frame, b) rhythmic understanding (including being able to dance on the half, quarter :eek: and off beats) and c) understanding of footwork which (even if you don't use it in MJ) is particularly useful in avoiding 'wrong-footing' the lady when leading - and as anyone who's been 'wrong-footed' on swivels will testify, this is a huge advantage! :cool:

S. x

:yeah: :yeah: And someone who can place you on the right foot :drool: :drool: :worthy:

M

[MartinHarper]

What about the disadvantages? Are there any?

[Mary]

What about the disadvantages? Are there any?

None spring to mind. Can anyone else think of any?

M

[spindr]

What about the disadvantages? Are there any?

You will start to wish for a Latin partner when the DJ plays an obvious cha-cha at an MJ event.

SpinDr.

[David Bailey]

None spring to mind. Can anyone else think of any?

Hey, I can always think of problems :)
- Limiting: you get specialised, and can't switch from one form to another well
- Inhibiting: you're not so used to just doing any old thing as the mood takes you, so you may not be as free to interpret the music
- Boring :)

Having said that, this probably mainly applies for people only doing one dance form - I think once you start to branch out, you start to develop flexibility.

If you are doing ballroom as additional or complementary to MJ, then the only problem I can think of is that you may find it difficult to switch - but arguably, this is a good thing, it forces you to think about what you're doing in each dance form.

So, no. :)

[Mary]

You will start to wish for a Latin partner when the DJ plays an obvious cha-cha at an MJ event.

SpinDr.

OK. Granted. But that applies to partner dancing in general. If an inspiring track starts playing then you hope for an inspiring dance partner...........then you start to worry in case you try too hard and then let them down :sick: :tears:

M

[El Salsero Gringo]

You will start to wish for a Latin partner when the DJ plays an obvious cha-cha at an MJ event.

SpinDr.That describes me, absolutely! I'm starting to find it hard to MJ 'on the one' when a cha cha comes on, since I've been working hard to dance 'on the two'. (I'm having the same problem not doing a triple-step during the more obvious swing numbers at Ceroc, having done a couple of months of Lindy.)

[MartinHarper]

I heard some folks comment that folks with ballroom experience can have problems with an overly stiff "ballroom arm". Is there any truth in that, or is it just rumour?

[Mary]

I heard some folks comment that folks with ballroom experience can have problems with an overly stiff "ballroom arm". Is there any truth in that, or is it just rumour?

It's my guess that anyone with an "overly stiff ballroom arm" is also likely to be overly stiff regardless of ballroom experience.

M

[David Bailey]

I heard some folks comment that folks with ballroom experience can have problems with an overly stiff "ballroom arm". Is there any truth in that, or is it just rumour?
My guess is this is rumour. OK, it sounds plausible, in that the ballroom hold is of course fairly rigid, and it's vaguely possible than dancers would retain that much rigidity into MJ.

But:
- Most MJ dancers are too flippin' floppy anyway, a bit of stiffness would be a nice change.
- There aren't that many moves in MJ where over-stiffness is a problem.
- I've never encountered this with people who've done lots of ballroom

P.S. It's very difficult for me to avoid smutty comments / icons when using the word "stiffness"...

[Ballroom queen]

:cheers:
What puts me off:
- limited music.
- strict "right" and "wrong" ways of doing things
- fixed partner
- routines and fixed x count moves
- time and finances

Why I would still like to:
- improved posture.
- better understanding (and practical application of) body movement and control.
- better discipline over my feet.


Interesting.

I can agree with many perceptions of ballroom - and I guess some are why I hadn't got back into it before nose quins came along. I think a lot of ballroom places are fixed partners, too old, etc etc - but I don't KNOW, coz I never got off my arse to find out !!!! Even though I LOVE ballroom dancing!!!

However, some places (dance schools/venues) do not require the above, and as for the dances themselves, well, there is nothing better than the correct hold and being whisked around the floor for a quickstep or foxtrot, with a good string lead by a fab bloke. True, there aren't many (Hannes is one :worthy: :worthy: )

I do wish there was more "modern" music, but apart from a few dodgy waltzz they are not that bad. Those of you that like blues - most are foxtrots (Sheepie)
I'm sure in some more complex MJ steps there are fixed "right and wrongs". In ballroom there are fixed sets of moves - consisting of 4-8 ish beats of music, and steps that naturally follow other steps, but that is not that different from some MJ. It is NOT choreographed!!! As for routines, any school teaching that is making their pupils miss out. Ones I have been to do encourage lead and follow, more so than MJ (in my experience and IMHO)

The improved posture and also correct lead without over use of the man's left hand make all dances, MJ included better (IMHO)

any way, Hannes and Amy may be making DVDs of the dances, and for those of you going to nosequins if you want to learn other dances - samba, tango etc email mike et al, and they hopefully will add them to the teaching schedule.

long live nosequins!!!! :clap: :clap: :clap: :worthy:

[Ballroom queen]

The other thing I meant to say is that I have often asked guys what its like dancing with fab ladies. They often say that in fact they prefer not to, or to dance with good ladies rather than the best as the best may be a bit scary. Anyway, maybe this is why I get a big high out of ballroom, but male friends don't. To be led in a ballroom dance is SO fab, you just glide round the floor, not really thinking, or concentrating, they lead you, it feels fab, etc etc etc, whereas (maybe, IMHO) as a guy you have to concentrate, lead etc that you don't get quite the same high. I dunno.

[Sparkles]

What about the disadvantages? Are there any?

I think one of the huge disadvantages (from the female perspective) of having done ballroom is that it makes you anticipate more (especially when, like me, you've been taught to lead and so following is even more of a struggle). But for the guys I guess this should be an advantage!

Because in ballroom you're taught routiens I guess it can also be difficult when you're starting out at ceroc to understand that the four beginners' moves you're taught in your first few lessons don't have to always be done in that particular order but that you can 'mix and match' - but I think this difficulty is quite easily overcome.

Other than that I'm struggling to find disadvantages.

[Lou]

there is nothing better than the correct hold and being whisked around the floor on a good string lead by a fab bloke.
See... I always suspected there was something odd about ballroom dancing. :eek:

[Sheepman]

a good string lead by a fab bloke. Aha! So that's why it's so tricky, is it all to do with quantum mechanics and string theory? :wink:

Greg

[Sheepman]

Ballroom tango would aid rhythmic expression, body isolations (to some degree), use of feet and frame.
Both dances are extremely passionate and intense and IMO worthwhile learning. That may all be true, but it certainly doesn't look that way to me, after seeing demonstrations of it like that on SDF last Saturday (and any examples I've seen on Come Dancing in the past), to me it just looks over stylized, and frankly, silly. So this is the perception thing again. What I perceive of it may be wrong, but it is my perception that has to improve before I'm likely to take that first step...


Sounds like a case of horses for courses if you ask me, but it's a shame if you've ruled it out without trying it. :flower: I won't say "never", and who knows - if some gorgeous, fantastic dancer was prepared to patiently take me through the process...

If I lived within a stones throw of Ashton's, and if it didn't clash with Hipsters, I'm sure I would have given it a try by now, and maybe my perception would be changing, but without that accessibility, I'm likely to just stick with the occasional class that comes up at weekenders, and then never being able to practice it.

There again, I think about what inspires me to try new dances, and it is mostly about seeing inspirational people doing it. I started wcs with the odd class at a weekender, and there was nothing to inspire me there, until I saw the world's top dancers, and thought "I want to dance like that."
I've seen several of the world's top B&L dancers, and I still don't think "I want to dance like that."

So I think I'd have to be persuaded that it is more about feel than how it looks, and then I'd have to try to get over the music :eek:

I can think of one disadvantage to ballroom, that is, MJing with a lady who'd got all the medals and qualifications in B&L, but had been leading it for 30 years, due to a shortage of men. Trying to lead her in MJ was like going 5 rounds in a wrestling match!
I should make it clear that this is certainly not the case for ALL women who are used to leading! :flower:

Greg

[Ballroom queen]

Aha! So that's why it's so tricky, is it all to do with quantum mechanics and string theory? :wink:

Greg


oh poo, a typo.

I meant a good STRONG lead

[ChrisA]

I've seen several of the world's top B&L dancers, and I still don't think "I want to dance like that."

I don't blame you. I particularly don't like the runny-jumpy stuff in Quickstep, I think it looks daft. And it just felt silly when I used to have to do a bit of it.

But the rest, does feel lovely when it goes right. Which wasn't all that often, and pretty much never these days :tears:

[Ballroom queen]

But the rest, does feel lovely when it goes right. Which wasn't all that often, and pretty much never these days :tears:


Which is why we are so lucky to have nose quins, why its so important to go to the classes - even if (like me) you have gold medals in them all, and then why its so FAB to dance with Hannes :worthy: :worthy: :worthy:

[ElaineB]

I have discovered that quite a few of the 'good' leaders that I have danced with have had some ballroom or latin background and therefore have a good frame, which means a good lead. I have also noticed that the Ladies who I admire on the dance floor seem to have 'latin' legs and feet.

Simon and I have just started to take some 'latin' lessons and love it. However, there do seem to be some 'moves' that are formula based, rather than led. So far, the music seems to be OK.......... :D


Elaine

[curious]

There seem to be several major points that have been brought up, I'll try and cover what I think of each, but please bear in mind this is all IMO and that I'm not on a mission to convert people I just want to further the discussion.

Having to have a partner: to compete, yes. Ballroom is partner dancing, just like MJ, and in an MJ comp you need a partner too. As for lessons, group sessions rarely require you bring a partner and frequently the class sizes are small enough so that each person may receive individual attention form the teacher (in my experience). This has a down side in that the pace of the class moves with the slowest member (so if you're up on your heels and toes you might get bored) but ballroom classes recognise this and often offer a selection of different-paced classes for you to choose from.
The pace at Nosequins seems entirely dictated by the teacher, if you can't keep up you get a bit left behind and with around 130 people in the class means it's not possible to get that individual attention unless you're prepared to grab a taxi or a teacher afterwards. Guess if you do beginners and improvers classes there's as much to learn as in a Ceroc night - maybe a bit more complicated as there's a complete switch of styles involved between the ballroom and latin as well.


Too much foot work: I used to think there was too much too, but I have since realised that it's more about general rules and recognising you can use different parts of your feet. In the modern dances (in general) if you walk forwards you do so on the heel of the foot, whereas in latin you would walk forward pushing you toes first (except in Paso Doble). But getting the footwork right is part of the challenge and makes many things in MJ make a lot more sense (I have found) - and it's so satisfying when you 'get it right'.
If the top half is fixed in ballroom (modern?) then guess all the moves have to come from the feet?! Latin seems much open to interpretation - isn't it allowed to break the rules and dance to the music as well as just dancing moves or steps? :confused:


Having to dance routiens: With regard to foot patterns or sequences or routiens it's very much the same as MJ, you learn moves and then string them together and it's perfectly possible to freestyle them if both you and your partner have a basic knowledge. And it's not quite like learning 10 completely separate dances, just to give one example, many moves in the rumba can also be done in the cha cha cha if you add a side-close-side in the middle. Couples often pt for fixed routiens in competition, because it makes it easier to work on a set outline, but these patterns often get interrupted , for example if there is a collision on the floor, and so the ability to freestyle and pick up the routien again is essential. Having spoken to several MJers who compete they have a few moves that they always do in sequence and have mini-routiens that they string together in competition. It makes it easier to 'show off' if you already know what's coming next...In MJ you only have to worry about the couples nearest you (usually), but in the ballroom seems you can be hit by a couple that was 10 metres away last time you looked, ouch!


Social dancing: Ballroom is not as socially-orientated as MJ (from my experience) but that doesn't mean to say there are no social aspects. They have freestyle nights and tea-dances and parties and balls too y'know :rolleyes:. The age ranges, again, I have also found to be a problem, but that's one of the things that interests me - if all the people that do modern jive also did ballroom there would be a much wider spectrum of ages, but for some reason they don't - hence my curiosity in this thread.

I wonder if these things ring true with anyone else?
S. x :flower:Looks like nosequins has a chance to change all that, nice to see some ballroom/latin freestyle at the front of Ashtons and Guiness this week. Shame I'll miss them. :tears:

[ChrisA]

even if (like me) you have gold medals in them all,
You mean some don't?? :waycool:

I bet mine are older than yours. :tears:

[Gadget]

~Or are you serious about 'right and wrong' in MJ relate to injury'........? :eek: I'd like to think there's a lot more to MJ (as to how to do it right or wrong) than simply avoiding injuring your partner.... Hand-hold, lead, keeping the rythm etc etc.... Or are these things not important to do it right??
{...thinking...} nope, I think I am serious about it:
If you can convey your intentions to the lady without leaving bruises, twisting joints or hitting them, then the hand hold is not "wrong"
If you can turn and lead the lady without inflicting pain to either partner, then the hold is not "wrong".
If you can lead a lady where you want them without renching, yanking or having them cause you pain, then it's not "wrong".
If you can step, move, follow and lead without loosing balance or pulling your partner off-balance {poentially causing harm by falling or colision}, then it's not "wrong".

If it helps you move where you want, without harming you or your partner, then it's "right"
If it helps convey the lead to your partner without harming them or you, then it's "right"

There's a lot of middle ground that initially appears neither 'right' nor 'wrong', but most of it when examined closer is actually in the 'right' camp. Anything else is styling, where "right" and "wrong" are subjective.

{The only point I've glossed over is finding the rhythm - but if you are "off beat" to 99% of the people listening to the same track, you just need to find that one person who hears it the same as you. Besides, dancing to a different beat than your partner has vast potential for injury.}

[David Bailey]

{...thinking...} nope, I think I am serious about it:

(snip lots of good points)

There's a lot of middle ground that initially appears neither 'right' nor 'wrong', but most of it when examined closer is actually in the 'right' camp. Anything else is styling, where "right" and "wrong" are subjective.


You know, I think that's the best definition of "right" and "wrong" in MJ I've seen... :worthy:

[Ballroom queen]

I bet mine are older than yours. :tears:

dunno, 11 years ago?

[ChrisA]

dunno, 11 years ago?
Not even close :rofl:

I win :hug:

:blush:

[DavidY]

even if (like me) you have gold medals in them all
You mean some don't?? :waycool:I only got as far as Silver. :tears: :blush: