Forum FAQ documentation: Glossary

[Emma]

Should 'hotshot' be in?

[David Bailey]

Should 'hotshot' be in?

Sounds sensible, I've also added "no-row"

[David Franklin]

Some more edits:

I just plain don't like the "advanced moves" definition. Mainly the inference that "advanced moves == drops and aerials", but also (though it follows on) the whole thing about signals etc. I don't believe you need signals for many advanced moves, though often you might require the partner to have done it before. I'm not sure what the "right" definition for this is though.

For aerials, I think the key point is "a dancer's feet leave the floor dueto the support or assistance of her partner". An unassisted jump is not an aerial. I'd also say "think partnered acrobatics" is much better than "think ice-skating".

Break: the definition says bar or two, but many breaks only last for a count or two. I think I gave a pretty good definition of 'break' somewhere on the forum a while back but d*mned if I can find it right now.

Drop: sorry but saying the follower should freefall is not only wrong, but actively dangerous. Unless it's for a performance, the follower should always be lowered under control- there's just too much potential for injury to do otherwise in social dancing.

Frame: I don't think frame is specifically 'ballroom' - you can have a tango frame, ballroom frame, blues frame etc.

Signals: when it comes to aerials, I don't think any of the top couples use visual signals for aerials. Verbal signals are easier, less ambiguous, and they usually look better. Certainly we don't use visual signals, neither, I believe, do David and Lily.

[David Bailey]

I just plain don't like the "advanced moves" definition. Mainly the inference that "advanced moves == drops and aerials", but also (though it follows on) the whole thing about signals etc. I don't believe you need signals for many advanced moves, though often you might require the partner to have done it before. I'm not sure what the "right" definition for this is though.

You're right. I don't like it either. So I've removed it, until someone can give me a good definition (well, one that I like anyway!)

I've updated it to include your other comments - thanks, they're very useful.

[TheTramp]

Definitions:

Advanced moves. There are none!

Intermediate moves. These are all the moves that aren't beginner moves or type-specific moves, such as drops, or aerials. There are harder intermediate moves, and easier intermediate moves. Advanced dancers do all these moves well.

[David Bailey]

Definitions:

Advanced moves. There are none!

Intermediate moves. These are all the moves that aren't beginner moves or type-specific moves, such as drops, or aerials. There are harder intermediate moves, and easier intermediate moves. Advanced dancers do all these moves well.

Yeah. I'm actually thinking of zapping "intermediate moves" as well... OK, I will.

[Gadget]

Unfortunatly competitions still refer to "advanced" dancers. Workshops still refer to "advanced" moves. People still point out others and say that they are "advanced" dancers.
Therefore the only real definition of an advanced dancer is laid down by the rules that govern entering an advanced cattegory of competion. If you're not interested in competitions, then it's doubtfull that you care what the definition of an advanced dancer is.

Same with "intermediate". We may not have a definition, but we need an entry.

Re: signals - a signal can be physical, tactile or verbal - dosn't stop them being used as a signal that a particular sequence or move is next. dosn't stop them from being missinterpreted no matter what they are. Signals only for partners who both know what the other means by it. (rather than think they know)

For aerials, I think the key point is "a dancer's feet leave the floor dueto the support or assistance of her partner". An unassisted jump is not an aerial. I'd also say "think partnered acrobatics" is much better than "think ice-skating".

How many 'joe public' folk will know what "partnered acrobatics" is? Is that stuff from a circus? To me that just sounds pretentious - everyone knows what ice-skaters look like.

Break: the definition says bar or two, but many breaks only last for a count or two. I think I gave a pretty good definition of 'break' somewhere on the forum a while back but d*mned if I can find it right now.

Bars - counts - for a beginner wanting to know what a break is, which do you think they will feel comfortable with? Would they be able to tell the difference?

Drop: sorry but saying the follower should freefall is not only wrong, but actively dangerous. Unless it's for a performance, the follower should always be lowered under control- there's just too much potential for injury to do otherwise in social dancing.

yea, I got stick for that at the time as well - you only know it to be controlled because you've studied it. One of the reasons for using the 'free-fall' term is to underline the dangerous element and discourage any drops in "social dancing".
"Free-fall" implys that the follower has no control - true. It may also imply that the lead has no control - false. But the second point is only relevant when learning the move, not when defining it (IMHO).

Frame: I don't think frame is specifically 'ballroom' - you can have a tango frame, ballroom frame, blues frame etc.

You don't. But it's not written for someone who already knows the definitions. A 'frame' is a structure that keeps something in place. In dancing terms; the body. The most obvious example that people can relate to is a ballroom frame.

[David Bailey]

Argh! I'm Mr Piggy-in-the-middle between Gadget and David

Unfortunatly competitions still refer to "advanced" dancers. Workshops still refer to "advanced" moves. People still point out others and say that they are "advanced" dancers.

OK, I'll keep dancer categories, but I'll remove move categories (except Beginner Moves, as that's a specific Ceroc term).

I've also modified signals to include tactile, but the rest of it looks OK to me.

How many 'joe public' folk will know what "partnered acrobatics" is? Is that stuff from a circus? To me that just sounds pretentious - everyone knows what ice-skaters look like.

OK, I've changed it to "circus gymnastics", that should annoy both of you

Bars - counts - for a beginner wanting to know what a break is, which do you think they will feel comfortable with? Would they be able to tell the difference?

Doesn't matter, as I've said "a short time"

Re: drops:

yea, I got stick for that at the time as well - you only know it to be controlled because you've studied it. One of the reasons for using the 'free-fall' term is to underline the dangerous element and discourage any drops in "social dancing".
"Free-fall" implys that the follower has no control - true. It may also imply that the lead has no control - false. But the second point is only relevant when learning the move, not when defining it (IMHO).

I've reworked that definition now.

Re: frame:

You don't. But it's not written for someone who already knows the definitions. A 'frame' is a structure that keeps something in place. In dancing terms; the body. The most obvious example that people can relate to is a ballroom frame.

Good point - I've clarified it now.

[David Franklin]

Therefore the only real definition of an advanced dancer is laid down by the rules that govern entering an advanced cattegory of competion. If you're not interested in competitions, then it's doubtfull that you care what the definition of an advanced dancer is.

Even then, most competitions don't actually define what they mean by advanced.

We may not have a definition, but we need an entry.

OK, but I'd prefer something trite like "There are no advanced moves, only moves you haven't learnt yet" than something actively misleading.

Re: signals - a signal can be physical, tactile or verbal - dosn't stop them being used as a signal that a particular sequence or move is next.

Are you still talking about 'advanced moves'? I would maintain that many 'advanced moves' are leadable and don't require a signal. (Then we get into the exact difference between a lead and a signal, of course). The follow may still need to know the move, but this is more an issue of 'knowing the move is possible' than having to recognize it. (Bryony talks about a 'decision tree': when you learn a new move, you're discovering a new fork in the tree. If you don't know about that fork, however the man leads, you're probably going to go in one of the directions you already know about).

How many 'joe public' folk will know what "partnered acrobatics" is? Is that stuff from a circus? To me that just sounds pretentious - everyone knows what ice-skaters look like.

Well to me, ice-skaters just sounds inaccurate, given that 95% of ice-skating has absolutely nothing to do with lifting a partner off the ice. My first thought was "ice-skaters? What on earth is he talking about?". If you specifically said pairs skating (which is very much a niche section of figure skating), fair enough, but as you say, would anyone know what was meant by 'pairs skating'? I think more people have an idea what acrobatics is. (DavidJames: I'm fine with calling it Circus Acrobatics, by the way).

Bars - counts - for a beginner wanting to know what a break is, which do you think they will feel comfortable with? Would they be able to tell the difference?

More comfortable? Show me a beginner class that talks about bars of music. Whereas every beginner class has counts.

yea, I got stick for that at the time as well - you only know it to be controlled because you've studied it. One of the reasons for using the 'free-fall' term is to underline the dangerous element and discourage any drops in "social dancing".

So shouldn't the Glossary be telling people how it is, rather than continuing the misconception. In this case, the consequence of using the free-fall term will be to make people think that's how they are supposed to do it. As such, it is not only wrong, but it is dangerously wrong.

"Free-fall" implys that the follower has no control - true.

False. There are follows who can do a ballroom drop, head to the ground, without any reliance on their partner support. (They are rare).

It may also imply that the lead has no control - false. But the second point is only relevant when learning the move, not when defining it (IMHO).

But you're the one insisting on the term 'free fall'. If it's not relevant when defining the term, why use it?

You don't. But it's not written for someone who already knows the definitions. A 'frame' is a structure that keeps something in place. In dancing terms; the body. The most obvious example that people can relate to is a ballroom frame.

Here, I think, we get to the crux. A dance glossary should not only for people new to dance. It should be something more experienced dancers can refer to. As such, although it need not be nitpickingly accurate, it should avoid statements which are simply incorrect. The definition you give above is fine and I think a better one that I gave. But I stand by my objection to the original definition that implied that the only frame is a ballroom frame.

[LMC]

Instead of "Advanced"/"Intermediate" - how about some of the move 'families' - along the same line as drops and aerials - a very simple description, so as not to duplicate all the good stuff/move databases out there. E.g.

Backhanders - not sure how to describe, but surely enough variations to include in glossary?

Combs - well, possibly best if Franck writes that one

Colombians - first move leading into a ballroom hold and walk (with f**twork)

Mangles - Can be more like strangles unless your follower knows the move - lead with care.

etc (OK, my definitions are quite crap, but I'm not a teacher)

And if we have "hotshot" and "no row" can we have "The Ten" as well please?

[David Bailey]

Instead of "Advanced"/"Intermediate" - how about some of the move 'families' - along the same line as drops and aerials - a very simple description, so as not to duplicate all the good stuff/move databases out there.

There was a good set of move definitions in there previously, but I removed them - as you say, there are more than enough move description sites out there, and I don't want to update the glossary every time Ceroc come up with a new set of basic moves or whatever.

So I want to avoid move descriptions.

And if we have "hotshot" and "no row" can we have "The Ten" as well please?

Tempting, but no - they're not big on whistleblowers advertising their presence

[David Bailey]

{ stuff }

Guys, I'm pretty sure most of your discussion is now irrelevant, considering the changes I've made to the glossary.

Here, I think, we get to the crux. A dance glossary should not only for people new to dance. It should be something more experienced dancers can refer to. As such, although it need not be nitpickingly accurate, it should avoid statements which are simply incorrect.

Although I agree that obviously it should be accurate, the aim of the Ceroc Scotland Forum Glossary is to explain terminology commonly used in the Ceroc Scotland Forum, that's all.

And it should be short enough so that people actually use it.

[David Franklin]

Although I agree that obviously it should be accurate, the aim of the Ceroc Scotland Forum Glossary is to explain terminology commonly used in the Ceroc Scotland Forum, that's all.

The problem is, there are dancers of all levels of experience posting on the forum, so if you are overly simplistic in the glossary, you're not reflecting actual usage. For example, I'd say most of the time people talking about 'frame' here don't actually mean 'ballroom frame'; it's certainly not what comes to mind when I think 'frame'.

And speaking from personal experience as someone who's tried to work out moves based on inaccurate descriptions on the internet: if you describe a move in the glossary, you can bet someone's going to find it and take it as concrete advice. So if you're going to talk about potentially dangerous moves, you should take the trouble to get it right.

And it should be short enough so that people actually use it.

Snarky solution: if you can't find a concise way of giving an accurate description, then don't give a description at all.

Less snarky solutions:

• If it's a contentious description, then give a link to one of the (better) threads discussing it. In particular, make it clear it's contentious so no-one thinks "it's in the glossary, so it must be true".
• All the serious dance glossaries I've seen have an index, so you don't have to read the whole thing if you just want to find out the definition of a particular term.

[Gadget]

Snarky solution: if you can't find a concise way of giving an accurate description, then don't give a description at all.

I would rather see an entry than an omission - even a "wrong" entry: it shows that the item is relevant, gives a discussion point as to why it was/is incorrect (like this one), and gives an opportunity to correct it.

If it's a contentious description, then give a link to one of the (better) threads discussing it. In particular, make it clear it's contentious so no-one thinks "it's in the glossary, so it must be true".

I don't think that linking to a specific thread is an answer - threads change too often and new ones pop up all the time. You could give a link to a search though. Perhaps explain that there is lots of discussion about it and to come to a conclusion yourself... hmmm... didn't I put something like that into the definition of "advanced" ?

All the serious dance glossaries I've seen have an index, so you don't have to read the whole thing if you just want to find out the definition of a particular term.

Each definition is a paragraph. It's in alphabetical order. What is the point of an index? Does a dictionary have an index?

We may not have a definition, but we need an entry.

OK, but I'd prefer something trite like "There are no advanced moves, only moves you haven't learnt yet" than something actively misleading.

The definition of "advanced" is not misleading. The definition of "Advanced Moves" seems to be given by people who are commonly called (by the masses(tm)) "advanced dancers". And it's normally saying 'it's nothing special'.

The above (trite) quote is deliberatly misleading in that it implys a beginner move is just as 'easy' to learn and execute as an "advanced" move.
In my opinion, moves that require dedicated practice are 'advanced'. Drops and arials specificaly fall into this cattegory.

"Advanced dancers" are ones who put in the dedicated practice and perform "advanced" moves. Generally dedicated practice for a competition. Qualifying/Entering an advanced competition makes you an advanced dancer. What's the problem with that logic?

[David Bailey]

I would rather see an entry than an omission - even a "wrong" entry: it shows that the item is relevant, gives a discussion point as to why it was/is incorrect (like this one), and gives an opportunity to correct it.

I agree with this, but only if it's a commonly-used term which is not clear, and which is not covered better elsewhere. Although I now think that a "useful links" page / section would be a valuable addition - not sure where it would go, but I'll have a think about that.

I don't think that linking to a specific thread is an answer - threads change too often and new ones pop up all the time. You could give a link to a search though. Perhaps explain that there is lots of discussion about it and to come to a conclusion yourself... hmmm... didn't I put something like that into the definition of "advanced" ?

Yes, and I retained it; it's a good get-out

I'm also not a fan of having too many links within text as it degrades readability - that's something I've noticed within Wikipedia.

Each definition is a paragraph. It's in alphabetical order. What is the point of an index? Does a dictionary have an index?

Well, actually, some form of navigation at the top might not be a bad idea, I'll have a go at that and see how it looks...

The definition of "advanced" is not misleading.

I agree, and I've kept the definition and removed the move description.

[David Bailey]

OK, I've added an index thingy.