DanceSport on NBC
eeyore
Might as well be among the first to say it....
Was anyone else as annoyed as me at Debbie Allen's constant
comments on the ladies' outfits? "Oooh, look at that great
outfit. At my age, I couldn't wear that. Where did she get it?
How do they dance in those high heels?" etc. etc. And then
the other commentator said he thought the sleeves of one male
competitor were too long, and Debbie disagreed. Like I care
about this??
Granted, I'm rather new to ballroom dancing and I haven't
seen many competitions, but I was a little disappointed
-- not at the talent of the competitors, but at the way the
show was put together. Maybe it was because they squished
it all into one hour after that silly Ace Venture movie.
Melissa
(I can't dance in 4" heels either, but I don't announce it on TV :)
Smcnyb
not bad for a first attempt (better than I hoped for) and better than the PBS
show.
At least this show focused on the best of competitive dancing. The producers
seemed to trust the product, the dancing itself, more than the PBS producers,
who have turned that show into a calvalcade of goofy show numbers and cabaret
presentations which don't represent what is actually going on in ballroom
competing these days.
While many people are upset at the new format prescribed by the International
Dancesport Federation (which sold the rights to this show), especially the
addition of solo dances, I thought that the way it was handled last night would
be a small price to pay for getting to see dance competitions on TV.
The solo routines focused on what the dancers do best (I'll watch Michael and
Beata do their samba solo anytime), not on some show number created just for
the telecast.
I think the show also benefitted from having such a top field, whose skills and
energy came across well on TV. Too often in the PBS show the field has been
somewhat thin, and a few of the competitors a bit old-in-the-tooth, to say the
least.
But this kind of IDSF field, nominally an amatuer field (although some of these
couples are amateur in name only), is probably what works best on TV now:
young, in top shape, making extremely attractive presentations.
I was only surprised that they made so little of the marking and placements,
especially considering that the IDSF has made such a big deal of changing the
marking system to have stir up more Olympic style excitement between dances.
The results seemed only an afterthought.
As for Allen, the whole issue of who is best suited to work on such events is
still up for grabs. The TV folks seem to think we need a well known personality
in the mix, but Allen not only went on too much about the dresses, she didn't
pick up on any of Gary McDonald's comments about the dancing, leaving much
unexplained to a general audience.
The Nostalgia channel has done better, I think, using a former play-by-play
sports announcer, complemented by an experiened dancer as an analyst.
Still, I think NBC is headed in the right direction, and I would like to see
more. I understand they have an agreement to do another show this year. It will
be interesting to see if they choose ballroom this time, and if they make it as
interesting as the Latin.
Psychohist
Might as well be among the first to say it....
Was anyone else as annoyed as me at Debbie Allen's
constant comments on the ladies' outfits? ... And then
the other commentator said he thought the sleeves of one
male competitor were too long, and Debbie disagreed.
Like I care about this??
Well, from an entertainment perspective, the costuming is a lot of the
attraction. (And, frankly, I agreed with Gary's comment on the sleeves.)
Even on the Blackpool tapes, where the commentators are quite highly qualified,
you hear quite a bit about the costuming, generally when they don't have
anything much to say about the dancing.
Steve Malanga posts, in part:
As for Allen, the whole issue of who is best suited to
work on such events is still up for grabs. The TV folks
seem to think we need a well known personality in the mix,
but Allen not only went on too much about the dresses,
she didn't pick up on any of Gary McDonald's comments
about the dancing, leaving much unexplained to a general
audience.
Actually, she did pick up on several of Gary's dance comments - I noticed,
because they tended to be the times when Gary made criticisms that I disagreed
with.
Nor do I think you can blame her personally for the 'male dancer - female
bimbo' approach. The commentary was a lot more scripted than it appeared -
there was quite a bit of off camera cueing that went on at the event. She was
just doing what she was hired to do.
The solo routines focused on what the dancers do best
(I'll watch Michael and Beata do their samba solo anytime),
not on some show number created just for the telecast.
I'd have to disagree with this. The solos favored couples, like Michael and
Beata, who are strong in the particular solo dances selected. Me, I would have
preferred seeing the Cutlers doing a rumba solo.
I think unjudged show numbers may be the way to go. If they are unjudged, the
competitors won't spend a lot of time creating special choreography, but they
will be able to select their own best dances. And put them all at the
beginning, before the couples get tired - six tired jives in a row was just too
much.
I think the show also benefitted from having such a top
field, whose skills and energy came across well on TV. Too
often in the PBS show the field has been somewhat thin, and
a few of the competitors a bit old-in-the-tooth, to say the
least.
Mostly it's an issue of having an international field. The PBS field is
limited to U.S. couples; the younger ones are even farther from world class
than the older ones.
I did think it a little bogus that they never said the word 'amateur' in the
entire show. But I understand why they did it - the IDSF doesn't want people
to catch on that there are pros that are even better than the 'amateurs' they
have.
I was only surprised that they made so little of the
marking and placements, especially considering that
the IDSF has made such a big deal of changing the
marking system to have stir up more Olympic style
excitement between dances.
If they really wanted the audience to understand the marking, they wouldn't
have changed to such an obscure system. I'm not at all surprised - messing
around with the marking system was all part of making it more of a show and
less of a competition.
The Nostalgia channel has done better, I think, using
a former play-by-play sports announcer, complemented by
an experiened dancer as an analyst.
I definitely agree with that. While I don't have cable, I recently spent some
time watching a tape of one of their shows. I was really impressed with the
detail with which they were analyzing the actual dancing, and the depth of
understanding that the announcers exhibited.
The Nostalgia channel has definitely got the right idea: accept the sport as
it is, and show and describe what's going on - the approach that succeeded so
well with sports like football and such.
Warren Dew
James Marshall
>While many people are upset at the new format prescribed by the International
>Dancesport Federation (which sold the rights to this show), especially the
>addition of solo dances, I thought that the way it was handled last night would
>be a small price to pay for getting to see dance competitions on TV.
Where can we find these new rules? I was surprised to see the format being
solo sambas, then a three dance cha cha/rumba/paso doble in regular old
group format, followed by solo jives with a short little group jive after
all the individual couples went. From what you say above, this or something
of this type is the standard now. I checked the IDSF web site but their
rules page is dated June 8, 1997 and I can't find the new updated rules that
they claim exist in another location. Are the new rules available on the
web somewhere? If not, could someone who does have access to the new rules
post them up or just important/relevant pieces or something? If there is
a change, I would like to know what it is, but can't seem to find any
details. Thanks.
--
. . . . -- James Marshall (ORI) * ,
,. -- )-- , , . -- )-- , mars...@astro.umd.edu
' ' http://www.astro.umd.edu/~marshall '''
"Astronomy is a dyslexic's nightmare." , *
Dave Goggin
> Still, I think NBC is headed in the right direction, and I would like to see
> more. I understand they have an agreement to do another show this year. It will
> be interesting to see if they choose ballroom this time, and if they make it as
> interesting as the Latin.
In the interest of the art of dancing, I hope they do.
It is very disturbing to me that NBC did not show the whole thing.
The fact that only the Latin portion of the competition was shown really
bothered me. There were a couple of references to "the other dances"
that slipped in but for the most part it appeared that the NBC opinion-
makers decided what the public ought to see and simply chopped
Viennese waltz, foxtrot, tango, etc. out of the deal.
I would like to encourage EVERYONE in this newsgroup to contact NBC and
let them know that we would like to see BOTH smooth and Latin dances
presented to the public. There is a very great danger that if the
public and especially young people only see the Latin dances in
network specials, movies, etc, they will assume the smooth dances are
no longer done by anyone -- which would have the inevitable effect of
leaving the smooth dances out of the current revival in dance interest.
From my point of view that would be profoundly tragic.
regards,
Dave Goggin
James Marshall
> Might as well be among the first to say it....
> Was anyone else as annoyed as me at Debbie Allen's constant
> comments on the ladies' outfits? "Oooh, look at that great
> outfit. At my age, I couldn't wear that. Where did she get it?
> How do they dance in those high heels?" etc. etc.
Yes, I have to admit that it was a bit irratating that her major comments
were regarding the costumes and asking bunches of questions that Gary
McDonald had to answer. I can see asking some questions about the dancing
and stuff, but, I don't know, in my opinion they seemed to be rather
stupid questions. Of course, they're probably not stupid to people who
don't know that much about ballroom dancing.
> And then
> the other commentator said he thought the sleeves of one male
> competitor were too long, and Debbie disagreed. Like I care
> about this??
Well, that depends. :) I think Debbie was right that the shirt was cut
to look that way, but I also believe that Gary was right that it made the
sleeves look too long. His comment was also that it might influence the
judges by creating some distraction in the look of his arm lines (so you
might care about that, to know what the judges might be looking at).
From what I could see, it appeared to go to about the middle of his palm
with some sort of loop that went around a finger. I'm sure the shirt
was cut that way, but it did make the sleeves look too long.
> Granted, I'm rather new to ballroom dancing and I haven't
> seen many competitions, but I was a little disappointed
> -- not at the talent of the competitors, but at the way the
> show was put together. Maybe it was because they squished
> it all into one hour after that silly Ace Venture movie.
It did seem rather unusual to me, too. From what I've gathered by some
other posts in here, this is a new format that the IDSF has agreed to
use and that alone may account for why it seemed strange. I don't know
if it was really "squished all into one hour" -- the Ohio Star Ball that's
televised on PBS as Championship Ballroom Dancing is one and a half hours
long and it covers both standard and latin final with other exhibition
dances, too. An hour should have been plenty of time to show the full
latin finals and I would have thought the whole semifinals as well. I
was a bit disappointed that there were only a few clips from the semis,
but that may just be because I was expecting something different from what
they actually did. *shrug* Well, if this is how things are going, I
guess we'll have to get used to this new format. It is nice to see
ballroom dancing on TV outside of PBS and cable stations, though. :)
Timothy Hunt
James Marshall <mars...@astro.umd.edu> wrote:
>guess we'll have to get used to this new format. It is nice to see
>ballroom dancing on TV outside of PBS and cable stations, though. :)
It woudl be nice to see dancing on TV outside of the US too. Sigh.
Timothy
Eric Greenberg
liked 2 hours, but 1 1/2 would have been fine. What's with the 45
seconds? I know in collegiate competition we get 90 seconds.
Smcnyb
>liked 2 hours, but 1 1/2 would have been fine.
We would all like that very much, but it's unrealistic to hope for now.
NBC is going out on a limb as it is. Sports producers in the US still don't
recognize dancesport as a real sport, and I'm sure the networks also wonder
about whether there's a mass audience for it. (that's what the sillouhette
stuff was for--to get the bulk of the TV audience, which knows nothing about
dance comps or the people who do them, interested in the competitors.)
Given that, I applaud NBC for actually giving us an hour in prime time. It was
a great selling job by the IDSF just to get this far.
Smcnyb
>The fact that only the Latin portion of the competition was shown really
>bothered me.
There was no ballroom portion of the event. This event was created expressly
for TV. It was an invitational latin event that was put together once the IDSF
sold NBC on televising a comp.
I can only speculate that once NBC agreed to an hour show, the IDSF had to make
a choice of what to produce and decided to go with latin because it might be an
easier sell to a mass audience.
Smcnyb
Warren writes:
>I did think it a little bogus that they never said the word 'amateur' in the
>entire show. But I understand why they did it - the IDSF doesn't want people
>to catch on that there are pros that are even better than the 'amateurs' they
>have.
>
>
The word ``amateur'' is a misnomer about many of these dancers, especially from
countries like Germany and in Eastern Europe, where top couples are heavily
subsidized, paid for shows, win prize money and dance fulltime.
Plus, I'm not sure there really is that much distance between the pros and the
amateurs in the Latin field right now (as long as we're talking about an
international field, not a US one)
There is no one in the pro latin ranks the equivalnt of the Hiltons on the
professional standard side--that is, way out in front of anyone in the
corresponding amatuer field.
The last two latin amatuer world champs who turned pro immediately made it into
the pro finals at Blackpool their first years as pros.
For an audience whose only exposure to ballroom competitions up to this point
may have been the PBS show, which is limited to North American couples, this
was a step up in terms of the field.
Psychohist
asks, "Where can we find these new rules?"
Heh. I'm still seeing conflicting published reports about what they are. It
appears the IDSF aren't telling.
Dave Goggin posts, in part:
It is very disturbing to me that NBC did not show the
whole thing. The fact that only the Latin portion of
the competition was shown really bothered me.
You needn't feel as upset, then - there wasn't any Standard part of the
competition to show. And very nearly all of the Latin final was shown - only
the 45 seconds of 'all on' Samba was omitted.
I do hope, as you do, that NBC will do a similar show focusing on Standard. It
might be more difficult, though, for the producers to come up with as
international a set of competitors and still guarantee a U.S. couple in the
final, as they apparently had to do to get NBC backing.
Warren Dew
Victor Eijkhout
> >I think NBC wasted alot of time with that silloutte stuff. I would have
> >liked 2 hours, but 1 1/2 would have been fine. What's with the 45
> >seconds? I know in collegiate competition we get 90 seconds.
> I agree, the idea was good but the execution was pretty lame. The first 15
> minutes of the show was a complete waste and the 45 seconds time limit for each
> dance was laughable.
Guys, could you come down to earth? The first time some serious dancing
made it to prime time on a major network! That's a milestone.
Personally I thought it was quite good. The first 15 minutes made
me a bit apprehensive, the way they cut everything to pieces, but
that was the semi-finals bit. The finals were done about as decently
as you can expect from a network show.
> I hope NBC continues to provide this type of programming, but I do wish they
> air it on a different night. Saturday night, what dancers are home on Saturday
> night to watch it?
Ahem. Wasn't the point that "we" (the dancers) want to evangelise,
bring our hobby to the masses? Or would you rather hide everything
dance-related to 3am on tuesday morning on an obscure cable
channel? That would work too. And who cares about drawing more people
into dance, being taken seriously, for instance to pass for a legit
olympic event? "I have a dance partner, I don't want more
people on the floor" :-)
--
Victor Eijkhout
"The Navy began running shipboard applications under Microsoft Windows NT [..]
The ship had to be towed into the Naval base at Norfolk, Va., because
a database overflow caused its propulsion system to fail [...]" (GCN)
Achim Jansen
Smcnyb wrote in <199807270117...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>
>The word ``amateur'' is a misnomer about many of these dancers,
especially from
>countries like Germany and in Eastern Europe, where top couples are
heavily
>subsidized, paid for shows, win prize money and dance fulltime.
>
>Plus, I'm not sure there really is that much distance between the
pros and the
>amateurs in the Latin field right now (as long as we're talking about
an
>international field, not a US one)
>
>There is no one in the pro latin ranks the equivalnt of the Hiltons
on the
>professional standard side--that is, way out in front of anyone in
the
>corresponding amatuer field.
>
>The last two latin amatuer world champs who turned pro immediately
made it into
>the pro finals at Blackpool their first years as pros.
What you wrote corresponds with my constant claim to give up the
division between professionals and amateurs in international dancing.
As you wrote, there ist no _significant_ difference between these
groups, neither in the way they dance nor in the way they earn their
money. Apart from the top 10 or so couples, most professionals would
have heavy difficulties to make it to an amateur final.
Putting these groups together would help solving some of the problems
in international dancing: a) reducing the number of championships to
an amount that one tv station can handle and even outsiders may
understand (national/continent/world, modern/latin, couples/formations
AND pro/am?) and b) stop the cynical way the "amateur" status ist
dealt with (in Germany, amateurs are not allowed to earn theit living
with dancing; thus some couples are officially workless...).
I know that this is an Idea neither the professionals nor the amateurs
(or at least their organizations) like, but nevertheless I believe
that this is something tu think about...
Achim Jansen
George Deliz
>
> pron...@aol.com (Prone2xs) writes:
>
<SNIP>
>
> Guys, could you come down to earth? The first time some serious dancing
> made it to prime time on a major network! That's a milestone.
>
> Personally I thought it was quite good. The first 15 minutes made
> me a bit apprehensive, the way they cut everything to pieces, but
> that was the semi-finals bit. The finals were done about as decently
> as you can expect from a network show.
>
> > I hope NBC continues to provide this type of programming, but I do wish they
> > air it on a different night. Saturday night, what dancers are home on Saturday
> > night to watch it?
>
> Ahem. Wasn't the point that "we" (the dancers) want to evangelise,
> bring our hobby to the masses? Or would you rather hide everything
> dance-related to 3am on tuesday morning on an obscure cable
> channel? That would work too. And who cares about drawing more people
> into dance, being taken seriously, for instance to pass for a legit
> olympic event? "I have a dance partner, I don't want more
> people on the floor" :-)
>
for the general public. The number of ballroom dancers in the U.S. is a
small(tiny?) portion of the target audience. The number of those who do
International style is much smaller still. The IDSF may not be pleasing
a lot of dance cognocenti(and any change from the status quo will be met
with grumbling from some of these folks) but it is doing what it needs
to do to promote ballroom as an Olympic sport, and just getting a major
network to air this show was a significant achievement.
George Deliz
Joseph Huesmann
On 27 Jul 1998, Achim Jansen wrote:
>
> What you wrote corresponds with my constant claim to give up the
> division between professionals and amateurs in international dancing.
> As you wrote, there ist no _significant_ difference between these
> groups, neither in the way they dance nor in the way they earn their
> money. Apart from the top 10 or so couples, most professionals would
> have heavy difficulties to make it to an amateur final.
>
> Putting these groups together would help solving some of the problems
> in international dancing: a) reducing the number of championships to
> an amount that one tv station can handle and even outsiders may
> understand (national/continent/world, modern/latin, couples/formations
> AND pro/am?) and b) stop the cynical way the "amateur" status ist
> dealt with (in Germany, amateurs are not allowed to earn theit living
> with dancing; thus some couples are officially workless...).
>
> I know that this is an Idea neither the professionals nor the amateurs
> (or at least their organizations) like, but nevertheless I believe
> that this is something tu think about...
>
> Achim Jansen
If I'm not mistaken, some European countries permit their "amateurs" to
actually teach and own studios and engage in other activities which would
not be permitted in the US. This is aside from any turning a blind eye
from any violation of rules... I hear that European amateurs are often
quite heavily subsidized. As far as I'm aware, few if any US amateurs
dance full time to the exclusion of having a non-dance job to pay for
their dancing. I don't include England in "Europe"--I hear that Enlgish
amateur status is more American than European.
Joe
Psychohist
Guys, could you come down to earth? The first time some
serious dancing made it to prime time on a major network!
That's a milestone.
It's true, it is a milestone, and we shouldn't lose sight of that. On the
other hand, it isn't as major a milestone as it would have been a few years
back; what with the plethora of cable channels now available, the networks are
no longer as critical a part of the distribution channel as they used to be.
Given that PBS has been broadcasting "Championship Ballroom Dancing" for years,
I think that it represents less an advance in the size of the audience than in
the way competitive ballroom dancing is presented. It's a step away from the
'variety show' format toward the 'competitive event' format. Unfortunately,
it's only a small step in that direction - there's still a long way to go.
Wasn't the point that "we" (the dancers) want to
evangelise, bring our hobby to the masses? ... drawing
more people into dance, being taken seriously, for instance
to pass for a legit olympic event?
Well, there's two parts to that. One is to get recognized, which a network
show, even just a one time show like this, helps with. Another is to get taken
as a serious competitive activity - and that goal, in my opinion, is hindered,
not helped, by changing the competition format specifically for television. To
the extent that we're willing to change the rules at the drop of a hat, it's
pretty clear that we're not taking our own 'sport' seriously. And if we don't
take it seriously ourselves, how can we expect anyone else to?
Warren Dew
Greg White
played was from one or the other of his Latin Jam CDs.
However, I didn't like the fact that the solo dances used
the same tune for all competitors -- seemed a bit odd. Was
there a reason for this (like to give everyone an equal
playing field in terms of music)? Why not let the
competitors each pick their own music for the solo dances?
Regarding the silhouette part, that was obviously Gary
dancing, but I couldn't tell for sure if his partner was
Diana. Anybody know?
Greg
Psychohist
What you wrote corresponds with my constant claim to give
up the division between professionals and amateurs in
international dancing. As you wrote, there ist no
_significant_ difference between these groups, neither in
the way they dance nor in the way they earn their money.
Apart from the top 10 or so couples, most professionals
would have heavy difficulties to make it to an amateur
final.
I agree with the last sentence, but not with the rest of the paragraph.
At least in Standard, if you watch top amateur couples who turn pro, you will
see that some of them show huge amounts of improvement within their first year
as professionals - much more than in any single year as amateurs or any single
year after the first as pros. Most of the couples that show this pattern of
improvement are English, and thus were amateurs under a relatively strict
interpretation. And those are the couples that have the best chance of
eventually attaining the to world championship in the professional ranks.
To me, this says that the English are doing something different with respect to
training their amateurs and training their pros. In particular, I suspect that
with their amateurs, they are laying some ground work on which they capitalize
when a couple turns pro.
And I suspect also that eliminating the amateur/pro distinction, as continental
European countries seem to be doing, may make it more difficult to lay this
ground work, perhaps because people making their livings from dance cannot
afford to spend as much building a foundation before they capitalize on it.
Warren Dew
henry joel neeman
>Given that PBS has been broadcasting "Championship Ballroom Dancing"
>for years, I think that it represents less an advance in the size of
>the audience than in the way competitive ballroom dancing is
>presented. ...
I'm not convinced of this. I admit that I don't know the ratings for
the PBS show -- I can't seem to find a listing for them in ratings
lists, probably because their member stations have a lot of leeway
on when to broadcast shows like "CBD" -- but based to the Saturday
overnight ratings, the NBC dance show did pretty well for its
timeslot. According to Ultimate TV News
http://www.ultimatetv.com/news/nielsen/daily/98/07/26daily.html
the ratings for 10pm ET were:
CBS: "Walker, Texas Ranger" 6.4 rating/13 share
NBC: "International Dancesport Championship" 5.7 rating/12 share
ABC: Movie: "Last Action Hero" 4.2 rating/9 share
(A ratings point represents 1% of the 98 million US households that
have tvs; share is percentage of in-use tvs tuned to the show. So
about 5.6 million households watched "IDC.")
A couple important notes. First, the lead-in show for "IDC," a repeat
of Jim Carrey's very popular movie "Ace Ventura: Pet Detective," had
only a 5.2 rating/11 share, almost 10% lower than "IDC." But, last
week's "Unmasked! Exposing the Secrets of Deception" got a much higher
7.1/14 in the "IDC" timeslot. On the other hand, "IDC" worked as a
good lead-in (with local news in between) for "Saturday Night Live,"
which got a 5.2/15 (though down 10% from last week's 5.7/11).
And of course the overnight ratings are based on a small sample in a
few cities, so their potential for error is high.
Basically, I'd sum up by saying that "IDC" did very respectably for
its timeslot (coming in second), and I suspect it did a lot better
than "CBD."
If anyone happens to know the ratings for "CBD," could you please
post them?
Henry Neeman
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
hne...@ncsa.uiuc.edu
Andy Broomsgove
psych...@aol.com (Psychohist) wrote:
> I do hope, as you do, that NBC will do a similar show focusing on
> Standard. It
> might be more difficult, though, for the producers to come up with as
> international a set of competitors and still guarantee a U.S. couple in
> the
> final, as they apparently had to do to get NBC backing.
*GUARANTEE* a US (or any other nationality, if it comes to that) in the
final?
This is meant to be a competition?
And you think that's a good idea?
Sorry, Warren, (and being in the UK I haven't seen the programme) but
everything I've seen posted here about this programme makes me think that
it's (to say the least) the biggest load of whatsit I've heard of for
years.
Ok I'm all for doing things to popularise dancing (of any form), but let's
show it as it is, not what some TV producer would like to think it is.
Andy
laural...@my-dejanews.com
pron...@aol.com (Prone2xs) wrote:
> >Regarding the silhouette part, that was obviously Gary
> >dancing, but I couldn't tell for sure if his partner was
> >Diana. Anybody know?
> >
> >
>
of
> the program.
It was Diana. I loved the way she and Gary were dressed. It proved
that you don't have to dress sleazy to be able to dance Latin well.
Ok, so it's a pet peeve of mine...some of those Latin get-ups just go too
far...guys with greasy ponytails and gals with just about nothing on.
Boy do I sound prude! I guess I am a little...I'd just like to see a tad
bit more elegance and class in the Latin division.
As long as I'm expounding on pet peeves...all the side-by-side precision
moves made it look like the couples were highly skilled Broadway dancers
rather than ballroom dancers. It would be nice if the couples actually held
hands and danced a little more. Striking poses during rhumba just doesn't
seem like enough if over the course of 5 dances there's not much other
physical contact. The Argentine Tango dancers clearly demonstrated that a
lot of highly technical intricate and beautiful work can be done while
maintaining contact between partners. That's not to say that Latin should be
stuck in closed hold! Just that a little more hands-on (and I don't mean
posing caresses) work would be nice.
Laura
(who doesn't know much yet but knows what she likes)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Psychohist
*GUARANTEE* a US (or any other nationality, if it comes
to that) in the final?
This is meant to be a competition?
And you think that's a good idea?
Well, it was pretty obvious as to what was going on from looking at the couples
entered. There was a pretty big gap between Katsevman & Manusova, who were
sixth, and the next (7th) best couple. For Katsevman & Manusova to have missed
the final would have been extremely unlikely - say, about as unlikely as Watson
& Hardy missing the semifinal at Blackpool.
As for whether it's a good idea - I agree it's not a good idea, in the long
run. On the other hand, the general public here is not likely to be interested
in a new sport if the U.S. doesn't have anyone who does well. So in the short
run, I don't mind it that much.
To me, being picky about who you invite to an invitational competition is far
less questionable than messing around with the rules - and in this case, it
will do far more for the popularity of the show.
Ok I'm all for doing things to popularise dancing
(of any form), but let's show it as it is, not what
some TV producer would like to think it is.
That's what I'd prefer, too. Right now, though, we can only really get that in
the U.S. through a cable channel with rather limited distribution (Nostalgia
channel).
Warren Dew
Icono Clast
> I don't know the ratings for the PBS show
So do I but I've heard that Championship Ballroom Dancing is one of the
network's most popular programs. I mean, in the top ten or so. Really
popular! I wish I could give a source for that "information".
--
s/ICONO CLAST, a San Franciscan in San Francisco <- ICl...@jps.net ->
James Marshall
>However, I didn't like the fact that the solo dances used
>the same tune for all competitors -- seemed a bit odd. Was
>there a reason for this (like to give everyone an equal
>playing field in terms of music)? Why not let the
>competitors each pick their own music for the solo dances?
I didn't think it was that unusual, especially considering that normally
in competitions where there are multiple heats, the same song is played
for all heats. I'd imagine they did the solo dances with the same song
for the same reason that they do multiple heats with the same song.
What the exact reason for this is, I'm not certain, but it is probably
as you wrote above to make sure that everyone is starting with the same
level for the music (same tempo and phrasing and all that).
tango...@my-dejanews.com
mars...@astro.umd.edu (James Marshall) wrote:
> In article <35BCE5A8...@siu.edu> ga2...@siu.edu writes:
>>playing field in terms of music)? Why not let the
>>competitors each pick their own music for the solo dances?
> What the exact reason for this is, I'm not certain, but it is probably
> as you wrote above to make sure that everyone is starting with the same
> level for the music (same tempo and phrasing and all that).
Just what I was going to say. Indeed, most major comps will play the same
music for every heat in a particular round exactly so that each couple has to
suffer/enjoy the same music. Note that this is very irritating at Blackpool
when you have to listen to Talk to the Animals for 15 heats in a row :)
Paul
Victor Eijkhout
> As long as I'm expounding on pet peeves...all the side-by-side precision
> moves made it look like the couples were highly skilled Broadway dancers
> rather than ballroom dancers.
My pet peeve too. Ballroom dancers know how to do something that
broadway-type dancers have no clue of: connection to a partner.
(My favourite anti-examples: John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever
and Madonna attempting a jitterbug in League of their own.)
> Striking poses during rhumba just doesn't
> seem like enough if over the course of 5 dances there's not much other
> physical contact.
Notable exception: several couples doing voltas in the samba,
prompting ms Allen to ask if they had to do certain figures.
Smcnyb
ballroom couple which wasn't Gary and Diana.
Anyone have any idea who it was?
Smcnyb
Achim Jansen wrote:
>> Apart from the top 10 or so couples, most professionals would
>have heavy difficulties to make it to an amateur final.
>
>Putting these groups together would help solving some of the problems
>in international dancing: >>
The IDSF is already heading in this direction. The proposed plan, which has
been discussed at various gatherings, is to eliminate the terms ``amateur'' and
``professional,'' merge the separate international organizations, and go to a
grading system. Under such a system, dancers like Michael and Beata and the
Cutlers would undoubtedly have the highest rating, while many people who now
call themselves professionals would not be in the same category.
From what I gather, the key issue is whether the IDSF and the world
professional organization can negotiate a merger or agreement to let this
happen. After that, amateur and pro groups in various countries would do the
same, although the Australians have already done it.
Obviously, all of this is being propelled by Olympic recognition. Remember that
it was the IDSF that gained recognition from the IOC, not any professional
dance organization. From what I have heard, the IDSF is a savvier, more astute
organization, so although they nominally have the title ``amateur,'' they seem
to have most of the leverage these days.
Psychohist
From what I have heard, the IDSF is a savvier, more
astute organization, so although they nominally have
the title ``amateur,'' they seem to have most of the
leverage these days.
Well, more politically astute, perhaps.
The difference is that the pro organization - the WDDSC - is generally
dominated by professional dancers - you practically have to be a (former) world
champion to get any kind of post on it.
In contrast, the IDSF is dominated by politicos - for the simple reason that
the really good amateur dancers turn pro, and become associated with the WDDSC
instead.
My impression is that the WDDSC really cares more about dance, while the IDSF
cares more about political issues like Olympic recognition.
Warren
Yang Chen
the fact that much latin choreography typically begins with side-by-side actions
that then flow into partnered positions. Since the solo dances showed only about
half of the couple's routines, we saw mainly their opening side-by-side
choreography and had to miss much of the partnered portions of the choreography.
If you look hard enough at the group dances, I think you would have seen more of
the partnered parts of the routines.
yc
laural...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <199807272147...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> pron...@aol.com (Prone2xs) wrote:
> > >Regarding the silhouette part, that was obviously Gary
> > >dancing, but I couldn't tell for sure if his partner was
> > >Diana. Anybody know?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Looked like her to me. They did that nice little exibition at the beginning
> of
> > the program.
>
> It was Diana. I loved the way she and Gary were dressed. It proved
> that you don't have to dress sleazy to be able to dance Latin well.
>
> Ok, so it's a pet peeve of mine...some of those Latin get-ups just go too
> far...guys with greasy ponytails and gals with just about nothing on.
>
> Boy do I sound prude! I guess I am a little...I'd just like to see a tad
> bit more elegance and class in the Latin division.
>
> As long as I'm expounding on pet peeves...all the side-by-side precision
> moves made it look like the couples were highly skilled Broadway dancers
> rather than ballroom dancers. It would be nice if the couples actually held
> hands and danced a little more. Striking poses during rhumba just doesn't
> seem like enough if over the course of 5 dances there's not much other
> physical contact. The Argentine Tango dancers clearly demonstrated that a
> lot of highly technical intricate and beautiful work can be done while
> maintaining contact between partners. That's not to say that Latin should be
> stuck in closed hold! Just that a little more hands-on (and I don't mean
> posing caresses) work would be nice.
>
> Laura
> (who doesn't know much yet but knows what she likes)
>
Yang Chen
end of the credits, and I have to guess it was because they did the ballroom
portion of the silhouettes. The couple clearly was not Gary and Diana --
which is strange because Gary and Diana are a ten dance couple.
yc
Yang Chen
a real break on the copyright licensing so they used his music (pure
speculation on my part). I understand that paying the license fees for
music can be a substantial portion of the production cost. For example,
one of the pros who competed at the Manhattan Dancesport Championship
this past April (which was broadcast on Nostalgia TV) mentioned that the
competitors had to dance to cheesy original tunes during the broadcast
portions because getting copyright clearance for the 'good' music would
have cost an arm and a leg.
I rather enjoyed the music that was used in the NBC show, particularly
in the "Up Close and Personal" sequences.
yc
Greg White wrote:
> I bet Andy Fortuna is happy. Just about every number they
> played was from one or the other of his Latin Jam CDs.
> However, I didn't like the fact that the solo dances used
> the same tune for all competitors -- seemed a bit odd. Was
> there a reason for this (like to give everyone an equal
> playing field in terms of music)? Why not let the
> competitors each pick their own music for the solo dances?
>
> Regarding the silhouette part, that was obviously Gary
> dancing, but I couldn't tell for sure if his partner was
> Diana. Anybody know?
>
> Greg
mo...@phwave.phys.lsu.edu
> laural...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
>> As long as I'm expounding on pet peeves...all the side-by-side precision
>> moves made it look like the couples were highly skilled Broadway dancers
>> rather than ballroom dancers.
>
>My pet peeve too. Ballroom dancers know how to do something that
>broadway-type dancers have no clue of: connection to a partner.
My only other exposure to ballroom dancing at a high-level
is the OSB each year. During the last few OSBs, the competitors seemed
to do lots more side-by-side in cha-cha than in the other dances.
I thusly picked up the impression that there was a convention where
cha-cha is the dance where you're really supposed to show off your
side-by-side precision stuff. Is there any grain of truth in this, or
did I just observe too small a sample?
-- Andrew
mo...@phwave.phys.lsu.edu
> (of any form), but let's show it as it is, not what
> some TV producer would like to think it is.
>
>That's what I'd prefer, too. Right now, though, we can only really get that in
>the U.S. through a cable channel with rather limited distribution (Nostalgia
>channel).
>
>Warren Dew
>
The history of the objective sports are filled with cases
of rules changes being made to make things more interesting for
spectators. The designated hitter in baseball, the 24-second
shot clock in basketball, and the use of tie-breakers in tennis
are just a few of the major examples. Even soccer, I believe, imposed
an extra rule or two regulating kicking the ball back to the goalie
in order to speed the games up a bit. I think allowing the couples to do
a few numbers on the floor by themselves is a smaller alteration than
either the DH or the 24-second clock.
Besides this point, besides the argument of "because that's the
we way we've always done it", why is it assumed that the current
competition format is the optimum one? You say that you don't want
dance to become "what some TV producer would like to think it is".
Yet the current competition format carries the history of being
optimized for getting as many couples ou on the floor in as fast a time
as possible. Is this necessarilty the best format for the finals?
Again, look at objective team sports. Baseball and basketball
play 7-game playoff series in their final rounds. In the basketball
regular season, you almost never play the same team in consecutive
games. In baseball, you play a 4-game series at the most during the
season. Does the fact the finals use a different format make it
an "impure" expression of the sport?
-- Andrew
laur...@lagassa.com
Yang.Chen.@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> The preponderance of side-by-side figures you noticed I think had to do more
with
> the fact that much latin choreography typically begins with side-by-side
actions
> that then flow into partnered positions. Since the solo dances showed only
about
> half of the couple's routines, we saw mainly their opening side-by-side
> choreography and had to miss much of the partnered portions of the
choreography.
> If you look hard enough at the group dances, I think you would have seen more
of
> the partnered parts of the routines.
Thanks for the information, but it's not a matter of looking hard at
the routines. I find the side-by-side non-contact Int'l Latin/Amer. Rhythm
happens a lot on the highest levels. Maybe my definition of "a lot" is
different from yours :-) I'm thinking back to the Ohio Star Ball that
PBS showed a couple of months ago, and the only Latin couple that stands
out in my mind are the ones that were dancing a Bronze-level rhumba to
"Candle in the Wind." To me it was a little too plain, but overall -- and
as compared to a lot of the side-by-side stuff I'm seeing in dances like
cha-cha, samba and jive, it was great. The physical connection of being
in dance hold says a lot more to me about the nature of the dance and the
skill of the couples dancing it than a lot of synchronized non-contact
turns, steps and kicks.
This is all really probably just a matter of personal taste.
Laura
Smcnyb
>My impression is that the WDDSC really cares more about dance, while the IDSF
>cares more about political issues like Olympic recognition.
>
>
From what little I know, this is unfair to the IDSF and gives way too much
credit to the WDDSC.
First of all, no matter what the IDSF's motivation, the show last week did more
to promote competitive dancing in the US than the accumulated activities of pro
organizations, as far as I can see.
Certainly in the US, it's difficult to figure out what the professional
affiliate of the WDDSC does to promote ballroom. Mostly they sanction and run
competitions which charge prohibitive prices that make it hard,if not
impossible to attract nondancers to events. What else they do to promote
ballroom isn't evident to me
And there is some evidence that the money the IDSF generates in rights fees and
in other ways in countries where it is strong goes to support dancing in the
form of free dance camps, subsizidized lessons, low-cost comps, etc. In
Germany, it's the professionals who grumble about all the perks that amateurs
get.
It would be naive to believe any dance organization is free from politics or
self-interest. But it strikes me that the pro groups are just too comfortable
with the money they already make (several of those former world champions who
belong to WDDSC drive around in Rolls Royces), and don't seem that interested
in anything that would change the world they created.
Psychohist
From what little I know, this is unfair to the IDSF and
gives way too much credit to the WDDSC.
... no matter what the IDSF's motivation, the show last
week did more to promote competitive dancing in the US
than the accumulated activities of pro organizations, as
far as I can see.
I would agree that it did more to promote the visibility of competitive dancing
in the U.S.
I'm more interested in promotion of the quality of competitive dancing, though.
From this standpoint, the IDSF has done nothing. Agreed, the WDDSC hasn't
done much in the U.S. - though I believe the ISTD is a member of one of its
affiliates, and the ISTD did a lot to improve the quality of ballroom dancing
in the U.S. during the '70s (mainly by providing a support system for
professionals working outside the studio chains).
I agree also that the NDCA, the U.S. affiliate of the WDDSC, is not a stellar
example of a selfless organization. But I think this is just another case of
the U.S. being backward in the world of dance, rather than a reflection on the
WDDSC as a whole.
And as far as how expensive competitions are ... I note that recent USABDA
competitions I've been to have been as expensive, on a per session basis, as
recent NDCA competitions.
Warren Dew
Yang Chen
in the most recent PBS broadcast of "Championship Ballroom Dancing." It was
probably effective because it was such a stark change of pace from the fast turns
and side-by-side actions usually done by open level couples. Although your
personal tastes may run toward the more basic routines -- which is perfectly fine
-- don't discount the difficulty in trying to maintain a sense of connectedness and
synchronized timing without the hand-to-hand connection. Also, in more advanced
levels, couples can explore other points of contact beside the hand-to-hand
connection. Partner dancing is not necessarily less so just because the couples
are not facing each other and holding hands. I would agree that too much
side-by-side choreography detracts from the other aspects of partnering, and a good
routine should strike a proper balance of side-by-side actions with actual
partner-to-partner contact.
yc
CwbyCJ
<esg...@is4.nyu.edu> writes:
>I think NBC wasted alot of time with that silloutte stuff. I would have
>liked 2 hours, but 1 1/2 would have been fine. What's with the 45
>seconds? I know in collegiate competition we get 90 seconds.
Eric:
Unfortunately, odd times like 1.5 hours are very diffcult for the Networks to
program, and reduces the potential license fees of the title in ancilliary
markets. A 2-hour program of this nature are also difficult to program, as it
leaves the station with a 1-hour slot to fill.
Christophe
Christophe
John Stephen Veitch
wrote:
>The preponderance of side-by-side figures you noticed I think had to do more with
>the fact that much latin choreography typically begins with side-by-side actions
>that then flow into partnered positions. Since the solo dances showed only about
>half of the couple's routines, we saw mainly their opening side-by-side
>choreography and had to miss much of the partnered portions of the choreography.
Of course in New Zealand we will not see the NBC Dance Special.
However, I'm not surprised by the comments. Nobody has suggested that
the reason for focusing on Latin American, and then on showing mostly
the open (Side by side) part of most routines is perhaps a problem of
camera positioning, camera technique and the selection of shots during
editing. A couple facing camera and dancing fairly much in one place
are easy to film.
My experience of the NZ Championships professionally recorded on video
was similarly disappointing. The camera people were not dancers.
They had no idea what to focus on, the shots were far too short they
were unable to follow a couple around the floor (or chose not to) so
Ballroom Dancing was mostly couples flashing past. In Latin American
where couples were more static too much time was spent on close camera
shots so we couldn't see the dance. On top of that the announcer
talked over the music and destroyed any real enjoyment the film may
have had.
So I'm wondering if part of the problem with the NBC effort is that
the people who did it are inexperienced in dancing and inexperienced
in filming dance events. Can you imagine what would happen if a
football game was televised by people who didn't play football.
Especially gridiron where so much of the game happens off the ball.
You can't expect TV crews to know enough about dancing to televise it
well if they never dance, and they don't regularly get experience
televising dancing.
Cheers
John
Eileen C Bauer
>On 29 Jul 1998 04:23:39 GMT, Yang Chen <Yang.Chen.@worldnet.att.net>
>wrote:
>>The preponderance of side-by-side figures you noticed I think had to do more with
>>the fact that much latin choreography typically begins with side-by-side actions
>>that then flow into partnered positions. Since the solo dances showed only about
>>half of the couple's routines, we saw mainly their opening side-by-side
>>choreography and had to miss much of the partnered portions of the choreography.
>Of course in New Zealand we will not see the NBC Dance Special.
>However, I'm not surprised by the comments. Nobody has suggested that
>the reason for focusing on Latin American, and then on showing mostly
>the open (Side by side) part of most routines is perhaps a problem of
>camera positioning, camera technique and the selection of shots during
>editing. A couple facing camera and dancing fairly much in one place
>are easy to film.
FWIW, you can get an idea of the camera positioning from the pictures at
www.usabda.org/Comps/june4r.html
Not all cameras are visible in each image, and one boom camera isn't
visible on any image, but here's a rundown as best I can piece it
together (I forget if there was a camera on the short side of the floor
on the left, and no image shows that side well)
1. portable camera held by man travelled all along the long side of floor
that was opposite dais (i.e. on my side). Cameraman had: camera on his
shoulder, held it at full extension above his head, angling down, or
held it in front of him as he knelt, w/camera pointed at upwards angle.
2. Boom camera at short side of floor to images' right. Not visible in any
image. It was mounted pretty high in the stands, but had a very big range
of positions.
3. 2nd Boom camera on long side of floor, same side as dais, accross from
the main entrance to floor.
4. Cameraman usually directly below 2nd boom. It looks like he generally
stayed in that area - it was between the main entrance to the floor (center
long side) and the exit (left far corner) and I've only found one instance
where a cameraman gets in front of the dais, and that was when the results
were being announced (the camera is aimed at the competitors on their risers)
If the dais does cause problems as to where the camera can go, perhaps it can
be elevated, but there are stands behind the dais, so they'd have to be
elevated too.
Were there other cameras that I forgot or missed? (I didn't notice the one
below the 2nd boom until I looked at the photos again before starting to
write this...)
-Eileen
Icono Clast
> showing mostly the open (Side by side) part of most routines is perhaps a problem of
> camera positioning, camera technique
That might have been true at one time but with today's cameras it
shouldn't be.
> and the selection of shots during editing. A couple facing camera and dancing fairly > much in one place are easy to film.
That's pobably a good part of the problem.
> The camera people were not dancers.
That's the major problem.
For quite a few years, a local program called "Dance Party" was shot and
broadcast here. It's still in re-runs. My Partner and I appeared on it
many times.
All of the problems and reasons that you suggest were present. On one
occasion, my Partner and I were introduced for a solo Swing. In the
first place, the music was inappropriate for the dance. The camera's
initial shot of us was of our feet (we couldn't tell where it was
focused) yet our feet were not where the action was at that moment. As
we danced, there were close-ups of us as well as pans of the audience
and the danceball over our heads. You could tell little of us or our
dancing because of the way we were shot.
An interesting thing about that program is who watched it. People of all
kinds came up to me on the street, in bars, in restaurants, at various
events, to say that they'd seen me on the television. They were of all
races, all social strata, all economic status. They were a very broad
cross-section of the local public. It was absolutely amazing. It's
difficult to perceive the power of the medium until you appear on it
and, later, learn just how great an impact it can have.
Psychohist
The history of the objective sports are filled with cases
of rules changes being made to make things more interesting
for spectators.... I think allowing the couples to do
a few numbers on the floor by themselves is a smaller
alteration than either the DH or the 24-second clock.
I rather strongly disagree. Switching to a solo in ballroom is more like
taking one of the two teams off the court in basketball, and deciding the
result based on free throws, on or how artistically the players can slam dunk.
I'd also note that all my baseball friends consider the designated hitter a
National League (?) abomination, and that basically both these sports are
"football wannabe"s who are desperately searching for a way to overtake the NFL
in the network money game.
The biggest changes you see in (American) football are things like moving the
kickoff line a few yards - akin to changing the size of the dance floor or the
length of the music in ballroom, both of which happen regularly.
The question is whether ballroom is a figure skating wannabe, or a sport in its
own right. I say, if you want to watch figure skating, watch figure skating.
Besides this point, besides the argument of "because
that's the we way we've always done it", why is it
assumed that the current competition format is the
optimum one?
Because we already know what solo competition will end up looking like. We've
already got three styles of solo competition - unrestricted (Theatre Arts), and
'Classic Showdance' in ballroom and latin, where lifts are prohibited.
If you start having solos in ballroom, it will become, in short order, the same
thing as 'Classic Showdance'. Then, at some point, a U.S. couple will do a
lift, rules or no, and be disqualified. There will be a huge outcry from the
U.S. television audience, and lifts will be permitted. And in short order,
what we'll have is a Theatre Arts competition, not ballroom.
Now, perhaps Theatre Arts is all right in its own right. But I'd rather have
ballroom as a separate competitive activity, and not see it disappear as a
result of collapsing into Theatre Arts.
Warren J. Dew
George Deliz
>
> Andrew Morse posts, in part:
>
> The history of the objective sports are filled with cases
> of rules changes being made to make things more interesting
> for spectators.... I think allowing the couples to do
> a few numbers on the floor by themselves is a smaller
> alteration than either the DH or the 24-second clock.
>
> I rather strongly disagree. Switching to a solo in ballroom is more like
> taking one of the two teams off the court in basketball, and deciding the
> result based on free throws, on or how artistically the players can slam dunk.
I guess I don't understand this viewpoint. Admittedy floor craft plays a
large part in the skill of a ballroom dancer but dancing without the
burden of floor craft is the ideal situation for any dancer. With
multiple couples on the floor at one time in a highly competive
environment, floorcraft becomes the focus rather than an adjunct. The
incentive to try to outmaneuver the other couples, box them into corners
and indulge in other such antics is too great.
I see this kind of behavior as detracting from both the experience of
dancing and the experience of watching it. Seeing dancers knocked to the
floor may be considered exciting by some but not by me.
I think the main reason that competitions have always involved multiple
couples is due to time and expense considerations in a highly commercial
setting. For Olympic competition I see no reason to compromise on what
is the ideal situation for a dance couple, namely having the floor all
to themselves.
On a side note: If agressive behavior is such a large part of
competitive ballroom then I guess that would explain why a lot of social
dancers get so upset with the International Standard dancers. Maybe the
complaints about the agressiveness of the competition dancers is not
just misplaced envy.
>
> I'd also note that all my baseball friends consider the designated hitter a
> National League (?) abomination, and that basically both these sports are
> "football wannabe"s who are desperately searching for a way to overtake the NFL
> in the network money game.
>
> The biggest changes you see in (American) football are things like moving the
> kickoff line a few yards - akin to changing the size of the dance floor or the
> length of the music in ballroom, both of which happen regularly.
>
> The question is whether ballroom is a figure skating wannabe, or a sport in its
> own right. I say, if you want to watch figure skating, watch figure skating.
>
> Besides this point, besides the argument of "because
> that's the we way we've always done it", why is it
> assumed that the current competition format is the
> optimum one?
>
> Because we already know what solo competition will end up looking like. We've
> already got three styles of solo competition - unrestricted (Theatre Arts), and
> 'Classic Showdance' in ballroom and latin, where lifts are prohibited.
>
> If you start having solos in ballroom, it will become, in short order, the same
> thing as 'Classic Showdance'.
I see nothing wrong with that.
>Then, at some point, a U.S. couple will do a
> lift, rules or no, and be disqualified. There will be a huge outcry from the
> U.S. television audience, and lifts will be permitted. And in short order,
> what we'll have is a Theatre Arts competition, not ballroom.
The ice dancers have to obey rules against lifts and rules governing how
many seconds at a time they can dance without touching. I have yet to
see an overhead lift allowed in ice dancing although the time limits may
have been bent a little by some.
>
> Now, perhaps Theatre Arts is all right in its own right. But I'd rather have
> ballroom as a separate competitive activity, and not see it disappear as a
> result of collapsing into Theatre Arts.
>
> Warren J. Dew
I think your fears are exagerated.
George Deliz
Scott Perlman
>Psychohist wrote:
>>
<< SNIP >>
>> Because we already know what solo competition will end up looking
>> like. We've already got three styles of solo competition -
>> unrestricted (Theatre Arts), and 'Classic Showdance' in ballroom and
>> latin, where lifts are prohibited.
>>
>> If you start having solos in ballroom, it will become, in short order,
>> the same thing as 'Classic Showdance'.
>
>I see nothing wrong with that.
<< SNIP >>
>I think your fears are exagerated.
Actually I think you've just justified those fears.
The point is there exists now solo competition, with appropriate rules
for what it is. This is not what is being expanded into the shows for
TV and Olympic audiences. Instead the group competition is being
modified and will (hypothetically) become identical to the existing
solo competition.
Afficianados of the current competition becry the loss of the group
competition and say that it is turning into the existing solo
competition.
Your reply is that this is not a problem.
If you want SOLO competition expand the SOLO competition and leave the
normal competition alone.
-Scott
--
No good deed goes unpunished. | No bad deed goes unforgotten.
- Clare Boothe Luce | me? (if not, then who?)
===============================+======================================
Scott per...@cgicafe.com
George Deliz
The format of most amateur and professional competitions will remain
much as they are now(group competitions). As I noted in my previous post
,the reasons have to do with time and money. It is only the Olympics and
perhaps some Olympics related comps whose format will change.
Since only a few if any comps besides the Olympics will be able to
afford the luxury of solo competitions the style of dance is not going
to be radically altered by the use of solo competition in the Olympics.
I really think the purists are getting bent out of shape over nothing
more than the prospect of the inclusion of a little open work in the
smooth dance competition. If this helps attract a wider audience and
greater participation in ballroom dance then it seems a small price to
pay.
George Deliz
Psychohist
Admittedy floor craft plays a large part in the skill
of a ballroom dancer but dancing without the burden of
floor craft is the ideal situation for any dancer.
Not true. I prefer to share the floor with a (small) number of other couples.
It's less wasteful, and it adds an interesting cooperative aspect to the
dancing.
Ballroom dance is about interacting with others - one's partner, the other
couples, the audience. If you want to interact only with your partner, dance
on an empty floor in an empty hall with no audience and no judges.
The format of most amateur and professional competitions
will remain much as they are now(group competitions).
Really? When was the last time you saw an ice dance competition with multiple
couples on the floor? They did used to do it that way, you know.
Warren Dew
George Deliz
I suspect that it will be not be until 2008 or 2012 that we will see
ballroom being contested in the Olympics and during that time the IDSF
and IMG will, no doubt, do quite a bit of experimenting with competition
formats and media packaging. I have no idea what the final result will
look like but the only thing certain is that there will be change.
George Deliz
cauce....@vo.cnchost.com
>Psychohist wrote:
>>
>> Andrew Morse posts, in part:
>>
>> The history of the objective sports are filled with cases
>> of rules changes being made to make things more interesting
>> for spectators.... I think allowing the couples to do
>> a few numbers on the floor by themselves is a smaller
>> alteration than either the DH or the 24-second clock.
>>
>> I rather strongly disagree. Switching to a solo in ballroom is more like
>> taking one of the two teams off the court in basketball, and deciding the
>> result based on free throws, on or how artistically the players can slam dunk.
>
>I guess I don't understand this viewpoint. Admittedy floor craft plays a
>large part in the skill of a ballroom dancer but dancing without the
>burden of floor craft is the ideal situation for any dancer.
One could as easily say, "Dancing without the burden of lead and follow is the
ideal situation".
When you are alone on the floor, the chance that you might have to leave you
highly choreographed routine and actually *dance* (lead and follow) is reduced
to close to 0%.
Do we want to pick the best dancers based on who can do the most practiced
routine? Or does floorcraft and the ability to lead/follow and adapt to the
conditions of the room and music matter?
Personally, I feel that the ability to dance a practiced routine is highly
over-rated. So for me, floorcraft is important, and seeing multiple couples on
the floor at a time is the way to really judge dancing.
jc
All email sent to the address used for this post is deleted unread
(although headers may be used in my spam filters). To reach my real
email box, send to personal@ at the above domain.
George Deliz
>
> See ye here, George Deliz <george...@lmco.com> crafted the following words:
>
> >Psychohist wrote:
> >>
> >> Andrew Morse posts, in part:
> >>
> >> The history of the objective sports are filled with cases
> >> of rules changes being made to make things more interesting
> >> for spectators.... I think allowing the couples to do
> >> a few numbers on the floor by themselves is a smaller
> >> alteration than either the DH or the 24-second clock.
> >>
> >> I rather strongly disagree. Switching to a solo in ballroom is more like
> >> taking one of the two teams off the court in basketball, and deciding the
> >> result based on free throws, on or how artistically the players can slam dunk.
> >
> >I guess I don't understand this viewpoint. Admittedy floor craft plays a
> >large part in the skill of a ballroom dancer but dancing without the
> >burden of floor craft is the ideal situation for any dancer.
>
> One could as easily say, "Dancing without the burden of lead and follow is the
> ideal situation".
I don't think that lead and follow developed in order to make it more
difficult for a couple to dance together. It isn't a burden but
an[necessary]aide. Even in highly choreographed routines a couple in
closed dance position must use lead and follow or it will actually be
more difficult to execute the routine well(technically and musically).
>
> When you are alone on the floor, the chance that you might have to leave you
> highly choreographed routine and actually *dance* (lead and follow) is reduced
> to close to 0%.
I would change this to read that the chance of having to improvise
alternative steps is reduced to
close to 0%. The question of whether a dance couple(international
standard) could possibly make it to an advanced level without being
expert at lead and follow might be a good topic for further discussion.
>
> Do we want to pick the best dancers based on who can do the most practiced
> routine? Or does floorcraft and the ability to lead/follow and adapt to the
> conditions of the room and music matter?
>
> Personally, I feel that the ability to dance a practiced routine is highly
> over-rated. So for me, floorcraft is important, and seeing multiple couples on
> the floor at a time is the way to really judge dancing.
>
Although I've already stated my opinion in a previous post that time
and money considerations rule out a widespread adoption of solo
competition ,the question before the IDSF with regards to the Olympics
is basically what can you sell to the IOC and the general public. The
IOC has problems with the current judging system. The public is not
interested in ballroom dancing as it is now. Whether there is anything
the IDSF can do to change that is uncertain at best but there is a lot
at stake in the trying. So, the bottom line is that what us dancers may
find pleasing in a competive format is just not very relevant.
Finally, it is up to the judges to score couples based on how well they
dance and how well they dance together. If a couple does not seem to be
using lead and follow at times then they should be marked down for it. I
can certainly tell when a couple is not using it( at least sometimes) as
I have noted the occasional lack of lead and follow in the dancing of
couples all the way from local amateurs to internationally known
professionals. A whole team of expert judges with only one couple to
watch at a time should certainly be able to tell what is lead and follow
and what is not.
(Which brings up another sticky topic: what is leadable or followable?
Do you outlaw anthing that isn't or do you just penalize couples for not
using lead and follow on the stuff that is leadable while only judging
their ability to dance choreographically for the stuff that isn't? If
everything I see done in international standard competition is
considered leadable then the definition must be broad indeed.)
George Deliz
Mike Corbett
>See ye here, George Deliz <george...@lmco.com> crafted the following words:
>
>>Psychohist wrote:
>>>
>>> Andrew Morse posts, in part:
>>>
>>> The history of the objective sports are filled with cases
>>> of rules changes being made to make things more interesting
>>> for spectators.... I think allowing the couples to do
>>> a few numbers on the floor by themselves is a smaller
>>> alteration than either the DH or the 24-second clock.
>>>
>>> I rather strongly disagree. Switching to a solo in ballroom is more like
>>> taking one of the two teams off the court in basketball, and deciding the
>>> result based on free throws, on or how artistically the players can slam dunk.
>>
>>I guess I don't understand this viewpoint. Admittedy floor craft plays a
>>large part in the skill of a ballroom dancer but dancing without the
>>burden of floor craft is the ideal situation for any dancer.
>
>One could as easily say, "Dancing without the burden of lead and follow is the
>ideal situation".
>
>When you are alone on the floor, the chance that you might have to leave you
>highly choreographed routine and actually *dance* (lead and follow) is reduced
>to close to 0%.
>
>Do we want to pick the best dancers based on who can do the most practiced
>routine? Or does floorcraft and the ability to lead/follow and adapt to the
>conditions of the room and music matter?
>
>Personally, I feel that the ability to dance a practiced routine is highly
>over-rated. So for me, floorcraft is important, and seeing multiple couples on
>the floor at a time is the way to really judge dancing.
In general, I agree. I'm not nearly as impressed with how a couple can
dance a practiced routine as I am with more spontaneous dancing.
Within the narrow context of an International ballroom competition,
however, there is more than what is generally thought of as floorcraft
that is added to the mix with multiple couples on the floor. Couples
must also deal with aggressive competitive floorcraft, such as
intentional blocking and charging. IMO, this is hardly conducive to
delivering one's best performance. Unless one expects such behavior
to diminish or disappear, I don't know a solution.
In another relatively narrow context, a top level Strictly Swing
contest in spotlight format works fine because (with rare exception)
the couple will dance to fit the music rather than a fixed routine.
The same would be true of a top level Jack and Jill.
In C/W competition this intentional blocking or charging is
non-existent. Couples dance together and use floorcraft to avoid the
other couples. Failure to do so is penalized.
Since nobody important is listening anyway, I would suggest those
considering changes in DanceSport competition format consider the
option of using a combination of multiple couple and solo performance
with the added feature of penalties for those who cause collisions in
the group section of the competition.
Mike Corbett - Sunnyvale
Facts are cheap...knowing how to use them is precious...
Understanding the big picture is priceless. Anonymous
Psychohist
IOC has problems with the current judging system. The
public is not interested in ballroom dancing as it is
now.
I guess this is where our fundamental disagreement lies.
Most of the perceived IOC objections to the current judging system are, in
fact, objections to any judging system at all. Many of the people on the IOC
and national Olympic committees feel that anything that needs to be judged,
rather than measured, is not a sport, and shouldn't be in the Olympics -
including, for example, figure skating.
There just isn't any way to change these peoples' opinions by tweaking the
judging system.
The best we can hope to do is to convince these people that at least we
consider ourselves to be a serious competitive activity. That's best done by
using the best judging system we can find - not by changing the judging system
every time some IOC official makes an offhand suggestion about yet another way
in which the judging system could be tweaked.
As for whether the public is interested in ballroom dancing as it is - there's
plenty of evidence that it is. Ballroom dance telecasts in its present format
have been highly successful in Germany, and ballroom shows that are shown in
the U.S. generally get adequate to high ratings, including the ones that use
the present format.
If a couple does not seem to be using lead and follow at
times then they should be marked down for it.
Couples are marked based on how they look, not how they feel - the judge isn't
dancing with them.
Lack of lead and follow hurts the look much more in situations where lead and
follow is critical - particularly floorcraft situations. Indeed, in a pure
performance situation, the look can often be improved by extreme amounts of
drilling of the routine - despite the fact that this can reduce the amount of
lead and follow involved.
This is why there's so much less lead and follow in theatre arts, say, than in
ballroom and swing.
Warren Dew
Psychohist
Couples must also deal with aggressive competitive
floorcraft, such as intentional blocking and charging.
IMO, this is hardly conducive to delivering one's best
performance.
I've never seen intentional charging. There's too much risk of a collision,
and collisions hurt the marks of all couples involved (as long as there's at
least one uninvolved couple in the competition - a reason not to have fewer
than three couples on the floor at a time).
I disagree with regard to intentional blocking, too - being blocked simply
provides another good opportunity to show off one's improvisations skills and
lead and follow. If one is a really good dancer, this will improve one's
performance, just as having more interesting music will improve one's
performance. (If one knows nothing outside one's routine, of course, it's a
problem - but such a dancer isn't really a good dancer.)
Think of it as dancing with the other couples on the floor, as well as with
one's partner.
Warren Dew
Mike Corbett
>Mike Corbett posts, in part:
>
> Couples must also deal with aggressive competitive
> floorcraft, such as intentional blocking and charging.
> IMO, this is hardly conducive to delivering one's best
> performance.
>
>I've never seen intentional charging. There's too much risk of a collision,
>and collisions hurt the marks of all couples involved (as long as there's at
>least one uninvolved couple in the competition - a reason not to have fewer
>than three couples on the floor at a time).
I haven't seen it either. I have seen it referred to in writing as
something to the effect of "get out of the way or be hit".
I'm suggesting the at fault couple be directly penalized to such an
extent the practice will cease. What about the innocent victim?
Replace the aggressive floorcraft with social dance-like floorcraft
and the number of victims will decrease dramatically.
>
>I disagree with regard to intentional blocking, too - being blocked simply
>provides another good opportunity to show off one's improvisations skills and
>lead and follow.
What is it you disagree with? I agree that being blocked
provides....I object to the intentional blocking of another couple.
> If one is a really good dancer, this will improve one's
>performance, just as having more interesting music will improve one's
>performance. (If one knows nothing outside one's routine, of course, it's a
>problem - but such a dancer isn't really a good dancer.)
>
>Think of it as dancing with the other couples on the floor, as well as with
>one's partner.
Ok. As long as nobody is intentionally interfering with their
competitor, it's like a social situation. It's not my understanding
that the competitors are nearly as considerate of each other in a
competitive situation as one would expect on a social floor.
Are you saying otherwise?
Psychohist
I haven't seen it either. I have seen it referred to in
writing as something to the effect of "get out of the way
or be hit".
By people who do it, or by people who think others are doing it?
I suspect what's actually happening is that there's a couple who is locked into
a routine, and doing it regardless of others on the floor. These couples, who
are fortunately not too common, will collide if their paths intersect another
couple.
It's not because they want to collide, though - it's not as if they are aiming
for the other couple. Rather, it's because, lacking any floorcraft skill, they
are unable to avoid the collision, much as they might want to.
That these couples are rewarded by a switch to a solo format is much of the
reason why I object to that format.
I'm suggesting the at fault couple be directly penalized
to such an extent the practice will cease. What about the
innocent victim? Replace the aggressive floorcraft with
social dance-like floorcraft and the number of victims will
decrease dramatically.
This is a nice idea in theory. In practice, though, it's rather difficult to
assign fault in many cases.
The simplest method is to just assume that both couples were at fault - after
all, it takes two couples to make a collision. This is cognate to the
situation in social dancing which seems to have resulted in habits you approve
of.
In response to my argument that being blocked "simply provides another good
opportunity to show off one's improvisations skills and lead and follow":
I agree that being blocked provides....I object to the
intentional blocking of another couple. [ellipses in
original]
I see blocking as a legitimate tactic in competition floorcraft. After all, we
both agree that the blocker is providing the blockee with an opportunity. If
anything, the blocker is doing the blockee a favor - is it the blocker's fault
that if the blockee isn't able to take advantage of it?
It's not my understanding that the competitors are nearly
as considerate of each other in a competitive situation as
one would expect on a social floor.
Depends on the competitor and the competition. In collisions where one couple
is knocked down, I think it's more common for the other couple to stop and help
them up on the competition floor than on the social floor, which says something
good about competitors. On the other hand, fewer social dancers are locked
into routines than competitive dancers.
At Blackpool, I noticed that the amateurs and the top level English pros tended
to be quite considerate. It seemed that the lower and medium level pros were
less so.
Warren Dew
Mike Corbett
>Regarding intentional charging, Mike Corbett posts, in part:
>
> I haven't seen it either. I have seen it referred to in
> writing as something to the effect of "get out of the way
> or be hit".
>
>By people who do it, or by people who think others are doing it?
Both. Sort of like a game of chicken.
>
>I suspect what's actually happening is that there's a couple who is locked into
>a routine, and doing it regardless of others on the floor. These couples, who
>are fortunately not too common, will collide if their paths intersect another
>couple.
>
>It's not because they want to collide, though - it's not as if they are aiming
>for the other couple. Rather, it's because, lacking any floorcraft skill, they
>are unable to avoid the collision, much as they might want to.
I would suspect that sometimes there is lack of skill and at other
times a competitive absence of courtesy. Hard to tell which.
>That these couples are rewarded by a switch to a solo format is much of the
>reason why I object to that format.
I wouldn't want floorcraft deficient couple rewarded either, that's
why I suggested a combination of solo and group competition where
cooperative floorcraft was expected.
> I'm suggesting the at fault couple be directly penalized
> to such an extent the practice will cease. What about the
> innocent victim? Replace the aggressive floorcraft with
> social dance-like floorcraft and the number of victims will
> decrease dramatically.
>
>This is a nice idea in theory. In practice, though, it's rather difficult to
>assign fault in many cases.
If you establish rules of the road it's not all that difficult.
>
>The simplest method is to just assume that both couples were at fault - after
>all, it takes two couples to make a collision. This is cognate to the
>situation in social dancing which seems to have resulted in habits you approve
>of.
As with most "simplest methods" to do so IMO is a cop out. It's
probably true in a social situation but not so likely in competition.
>
>In response to my argument that being blocked "simply provides another good
>opportunity to show off one's improvisations skills and lead and follow":
>
> I agree that being blocked provides....I object to the
> intentional blocking of another couple. [ellipses in
> original]
>
>I see blocking as a legitimate tactic in competition floorcraft. After all, we
>both agree that the blocker is providing the blockee with an opportunity. If
>anything, the blocker is doing the blockee a favor - is it the blocker's fault
>that if the blockee isn't able to take advantage of it?
Blocking is currently widely considered as a legitimate tactic but I
consider it un-sportsmanlike conduct for dance competition. The
blocker is not intending to provide an opportunity for his competitor.
He is intending to hamper him. Ok for some sports but not for dancing
IMO. It *is* just an opinion but I expect it would be widely shared
among the public broadcast audience.
>
> It's not my understanding that the competitors are nearly
> as considerate of each other in a competitive situation as
> one would expect on a social floor.
>
>Depends on the competitor and the competition. In collisions where one couple
>is knocked down, I think it's more common for the other couple to stop and help
>them up on the competition floor than on the social floor, which says something
>good about competitors. On the other hand, fewer social dancers are locked
>into routines than competitive dancers.
I was speaking of the courtesy in avoiding collisions. Whenever I
have fallen to the floor in social dance situations, everybody nearby
stopped and offered assistance. We don't dance in the same venues.
>
>At Blackpool, I noticed that the amateurs and the top level English pros tended
>to be quite considerate. It seemed that the lower and medium level pros were
>less so.
Before or after collisions? I would consider assistance after a
collision to indicate an accident. Lack of consideration after a
collision may well indicate intent. Hard to say. Isn't it.
Accidents do happen.
CwbyCJ
writes:
> Might as well be among the first to say it....
> Was anyone else as annoyed as me at Debbie Allen's constant
> comments on the ladies' outfits? "Oooh, look at that great
> outfit. At my age, I couldn't wear that. Where did she get it?
> How do they dance in those high heels?" etc. etc. And then
> the other commentator said he thought the sleeves of one male
> competitor were too long, and Debbie disagreed. Like I care
> about this??
>
> Granted, I'm rather new to ballroom dancing and I haven't
> seen many competitions, but I was a little disappointed
> -- not at the talent of the competitors, but at the way the
> show was put together. Maybe it was because they squished
> it all into one hour after that silly Ace Venture movie.
>
> Melissa
> (I can't dance in 4" heels either, but I don't announce it on TV :)
Debbie Allen's comments didn't really bother me. I felt that she was playing
the role of viewer who has never seen a dance competition, and was asking
questions that were probably on their minds.
As annoying as some of us might think it is, the majority of viewers are
interested in things such as costuming. Take the Oscors, for example - some
people think the pre-show and and all the talk about costumes are boring. But
many viewers tune in to find out just what the stars are wearing.
Christophe
CwbyCJ
<Yang.Chen.@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>My theory on the music is that Andy Fortuna probably gave the producers
>a real break on the copyright licensing so they used his music (pure
>speculation on my part). I understand that paying the license fees for
>music can be a substantial portion of the production cost. For example,
>one of the pros who competed at the Manhattan Dancesport Championship
>this past April (which was broadcast on Nostalgia TV) mentioned that the
>competitors had to dance to cheesy original tunes during the broadcast
>portions because getting copyright clearance for the 'good' music would
>have cost an arm and a leg.
>
>I rather enjoyed the music that was used in the NBC show, particularly
>in the "Up Close and Personal" sequences.
>
>yc
>
>Greg White wrote:
>
>> I bet Andy Fortuna is happy. Just about every number they
>> played was from one or the other of his Latin Jam CDs.
>> However, I didn't like the fact that the solo dances used
>> the same tune for all competitors -- seemed a bit odd. Was
>> there a reason for this (like to give everyone an equal
>> playing field in terms of music)? Why not let the
>> competitors each pick their own music for the solo dances?
>>
>> Regarding the silhouette part, that was obviously Gary
>> dancing, but I couldn't tell for sure if his partner was
>> Diana. Anybody know?
>>
>> Greg
You are correct - music clearances can be every expensive, depending on the
songs, the intended markets, and the duration of the license. I doubt,
however, that the producers got a break on the music. (I'm not familiar with
the deal, so don't quote me!) Network license fees tend to be pretty high, so
I seriously doubt that any label/publishing house (songs must be cleared by
artist and publisher) would have given them a break.
Christophe
Psychohist
If you establish rules of the road it's not all that
difficult.
Possibly true. Other than following line of dance, though, there aren't really
any universal rules of the road, and arbitrary ones might have unintended side
effects. In addition, there are often situations where the person at fault
isn't actually in the collision - for example, couple A travelling against line
of dance, forcing couple B to take evasive action, which results in a collision
between B and C.
The blocker is not intending to provide an opportunity
for his competitor. He is intending to hamper him. Ok
for some sports but not for dancing IMO. It *is* just
an opinion but I expect it would be widely shared
among the public broadcast audience.
Possibly, though I think at least part of the audience would be interested in
the tactic if it were explained. I find short track speed skating immensely
more interesting to watch than long track because of the the blocking tactics
(though there are those who go overboard). Anyone know the ratings of short
track versus long track speed skating?
In response to my comment:
At Blackpool, I noticed that the amateurs and the top
level English pros tended to be quite considerate. It
seemed that the lower and medium level pros were less so.
Mike Corbett posts:
Before or after collisions? I would consider assistance
after a collision to indicate an accident. Lack of
consideration after a collision may well indicate intent.
Hard to say. Isn't it. Accidents do happen.
Both. Mostly I noticed it in terms of collision avoidance and allowing other
couples space, but it is also true in terms of offering assistance after
collisions.
I think not offering assistance after a collision indicates a refusal to take
responsibility, but that's not the same thing as intent. As you say, hard to
tell.
Warren Dew
ear...@alum.mit.edu
mi...@corbettweb.com (Mike Corbett) wrote:
> On 6 Aug 1998 22:11:44 GMT, psych...@aol.com (Psychohist) wrote:
> > I'm suggesting the at fault couple be directly penalized
> > to such an extent the practice will cease. What about the
> > innocent victim? Replace the aggressive floorcraft with
> > social dance-like floorcraft and the number of victims will
> > decrease dramatically.
> >
> >This is a nice idea in theory. In practice, though, it's rather difficult to
> >assign fault in many cases.
>
This may be true in swing (Mike Corbett's area of expertise), but it's just
not so in ballroom. Intent is almost impossible to determine, and even if
you don't worry about intent, it's hard to determine fault in ballroom.
If we take the example of a couple that crosses over the centerline in the
middle of a group and gets into a collision, it appears that that must be the
couple at fault. But even determining where the centerline is is not easy:
is it the middle of the floor? The middle of the usuable portion of the
floor (i.e., the part not being used by the judges)? Suppose the couple
crossed over the centerline by a little bit, but had been going to the center
to do a stationary group, and had been in position long enough to be seen by
the other couple in the collision. Does it matter where they came from
several bars ago if they're in the space now? What if they crossed the
centerline because another couple got in the way and they were avoiding a
first collision? Does the fault go to the couple that wasn't even in the
collision, and might be across the floor by the time it occurs?
The really good judges who care about floorcraft do try to monitor whose
fault a collision is, and mark accordingly. But the method of simply
assuming that both couples in the collision are at fault isn't all that bad.
Insurance companies have started penalizing drivers who get into a lot of
accidents that are "not their fault," because they realize that there's such
a thing as driving in a way that invites accidents, without directly causing
them. The same thing is true on the competition floor.
-Elizabeth
Mike Corbett
:
>> [mi...@corbettweb.com (Mike Corbett) wrote:]
>> > I'm suggesting the at fault couple be directly penalized
>> > to such an extent the practice will cease. What about the
>> > innocent victim? Replace the aggressive floorcraft with
>> > social dance-like floorcraft and the number of victims will
>> > decrease dramatically.
>> >
>> >This is a nice idea in theory. In practice, though, it's rather difficult to
>> >assign fault in many cases.
>>
>> If you establish rules of the road it's not all that difficult.
>
>This may be true in swing (Mike Corbett's area of expertise), but it's just
>not so in ballroom. Intent is almost impossible to determine, and even if
>you don't worry about intent, it's hard to determine fault in ballroom.
I'm afraid it's a bit dangerous to assume one has a singe "area of
expertise". I have sufficient multiple couple progressive dance
competition floor time to comment on the difference between the more
aggressive floorcraft practiced in ballroom competition compared to
the accommodating floorcraft practiced in C/W competition.
Be that as it may, my comments were in the theoretical context of a
possible combination of multiple couple and solo competition as a
"better for the TV audience" format.
>
>If we take the example of a couple that crosses over the centerline in the
>middle of a group and gets into a collision, it appears that that must be the
>couple at fault. But even determining where the centerline is is not easy:
>is it the middle of the floor? The middle of the usuable portion of the
>floor (i.e., the part not being used by the judges)? Suppose the couple
>crossed over the centerline by a little bit, but had been going to the center
>to do a stationary group, and had been in position long enough to be seen by
>the other couple in the collision. Does it matter where they came from
>several bars ago if they're in the space now? What if they crossed the
>centerline because another couple got in the way and they were avoiding a
>first collision? Does the fault go to the couple that wasn't even in the
>collision, and might be across the floor by the time it occurs?
First the larger numbers and higher level of crowding in the current
Ballroom competition format does make it quite difficult. In my
earlier context, I would include smaller numbers and less crowding as
part of the mix.
When placing blame, there is always the danger of leap-frogging
backwards to blame another and then another.....
With fewer couples on the floor, rules of the road and a mandate to
avoid collisions by accommodating rather than blocking, the job of
penalizing the guilty party is made much easier.
>
>The really good judges who care about floorcraft do try to monitor whose
>fault a collision is, and mark accordingly. But the method of simply
>assuming that both couples in the collision are at fault isn't all that bad.
Never said it was bad. Suggested something I think would be better in
the immediate context.
>Insurance companies have started penalizing drivers who get into a lot of
>accidents that are "not their fault," because they realize that there's such
>a thing as driving in a way that invites accidents, without directly causing
>them. The same thing is true on the competition floor.
Yes, and competent judges can see what's happening with smaller
numbers of competitors when rules of the road are applied.
Example. In a C/W two-step competition where one couple is
progressing quickly in the fast lane and collides with a couple who
suddenly stops progression in the middle of the fast lane, it's the
stationary couple that is at fault. The rules of the road require
that they move inside or allow sufficient space behind them for other
couples to change line and avoid them. On the other hand, if the
stationary couple leaves plenty of room, the moving couple is expected
to make the adjustment. In a gray area, it's the couple in the wrong
lane that's at fault. With fewer (maybe half) the couples on the
floor compared to a ballroom competition, the judges can see what
happened, a conference is then called and decisions made.
This system results in very few collisions because everybody is doing
their best to avoid them.
I'm not suggesting this as a substitute for the current system for
every-day competitions. Again, the context was Television.
Psychohist
posts, in part:
This system results in very few collisions because
everybody is doing their best to avoid them.
The current ballroom system already results in very few collisions because
everyone is doing their best to avoid them. Those collisions that exist are a
result of lack of floorcraft ability, not intent. Rules will not fix the lack
of ability.
If you have ballroom experience that indicates otherwise, all I can say is that
you're experience doesn't reflect the reality on the U.S. east coast and at
Blackpool.
Warren Dew
Mike Corbett
>Regarding penalizing couples according to 'rules of the road', Mike Corbett
>posts, in part:
>
> This system results in very few collisions because
> everybody is doing their best to avoid them.
>
>The current ballroom system already results in very few collisions because
>everyone is doing their best to avoid them. Those collisions that exist are a
>result of lack of floorcraft ability, not intent. Rules will not fix the lack
>of ability.
I'm glad to hear that and no, rules will not fix it. We'll just have
to disagree about the wisdom of continuing the legitimacy of blocking
as a competitive tactic.
Carlie Coats
Psychohist <psych...@aol.com> wrote:
> Andrew Morse posts, in part:
>
> The history of the objective sports are filled with cases
> of rules changes being made to make things more interesting
> for spectators....
> I rather strongly disagree. Switching to a solo in ballroom is more like
> taking one of the two teams off the court in basketball, and deciding the
> result based on free throws, on or how artistically the players can slam
[and then goes on to describe existing solo ballroom events--theatre
arts, etc.]
...
<TROLL>
I think competition has already gone far away from what ballroom
dancing is all about. Go back and read the etiquette book about
dancing with lots of different partners (or the continual thread
here about them: dancing "too many" dances with the same partner
was only permitted to newlyweds, engaged couples, or those making
a nonverbal announcement that they were engaged-wannabe's).
What would be much more in the spirit of ballroom is making a
5-dance or 10-dance competition into a Jack-&-Jill with a new
draw for each dance of each round.
</TROLL>
George Deliz
Your idea has some merit. However, I see one unfortunate problem with
the Jack and Jill format for the smooth dances.
Any one who is significantly shorter or taller than average will be at a
distint disadvantage.
A smooth dance partnership can't work well if there is too large a
disparity in the heights of the partners. An unusually short or tall
person will end up dancing most if not all of their dances with partners
of incompatible height. Persons nearer to average height will dance most
of their dances with persons of compatible height. Add to this the fact
that persons of average height who draw a short or tall partner for one
or more dances will grumble about it (you know that some will), thus
further stigmatizing the shorts and talls and discouraging them from
entering competition at all.
Although this problem would probably affect amateur competition more
severely than professional(the talls and shorts are already discouraged
from becoming dance teachers due to the height disparity they would have
with their students), the unusually short or tall people of the world
could effectively rule out dance competition as a personal goal. Would
you want that on your conscience, Carlie?
George Deliz
ad hoc advocate for the height disadvantaged :-)
simon peters
number of couples you average about 10-15sec of viewing time per judge-
never met a competitor yet who wants to waste this being involved in a
collision- you simply don't have the time or inclination to worry about
other couples while your on the floor.
Simon Peters
Mike Corbett wrote in message <35d13525...@nntp.best.com>...
>On 7 Aug 1998 16:16:30 GMT, psych...@aol.com (Psychohist) wrote:
>
>>Regarding penalizing couples according to 'rules of the road', Mike
Corbett
>>posts, in part:
>>
>> This system results in very few collisions because
>> everybody is doing their best to avoid them.
>>
>>The current ballroom system already results in very few collisions because
>>everyone is doing their best to avoid them. Those collisions that exist
are a
>>result of lack of floorcraft ability, not intent. Rules will not fix the
lack
>>of ability.
>
>I'm glad to hear that and no, rules will not fix it. We'll just have
>to disagree about the wisdom of continuing the legitimacy of blocking
>as a competitive tactic.
>
>
>
Ron Nicholson
> I have sufficient multiple couple progressive dance
> competition floor time to comment on the difference between the more
> aggressive floorcraft practiced in ballroom competition compared to
> the accommodating floorcraft practiced in C/W competition.
CW2S is not Intl. Standard, nor vice versa.
The CW2S art form allows one to stop and twiddle the ladies arms;
allows one to look where one is going more often, and is absent
precise floor angles and large fast diagonal to LOD patterns.
Change the art form and the floorcraft requirements change.
Most of the planet would laugh if you suggested replacing, say,
Intl. Foxtrot with CW2S. As would most CW dancers imagining
the converse.
Besides Intl. Standard is rarely danced in the kind of bars where
one could get killed for overt aggressive behavior. Call it
floorcraft evolution.
IMHO. YMMV.
- Ron Nicholson
AR E ONNA
>Besides Intl. Standard is rarely danced in the kind of bars where
>one could get killed for overt aggressive behavior. Call it
>floorcraft evolution.
I find two things offensive within this quote...
1...country 2step is not danced where you "get killed" for bumping another
couple...
we are far more civilaized than that...many of us being professionals in our
chosen occupations and hardly what one would call the murderous kind.
2...the word" evolution" infers that country dancers are somehow uneducated or
not up on the" latest" floor etiquette.
...if Ron has done any country dancing at all he knows that our form of floor
craft involves courtesy and good naturedness...yes, even toward line dancers
who share our couples floor space.
Perhaps a more open mind and little humility in the next post...recognizing
that while country is different is is hardly inferior.
Ming Mar
>Besides Intl. Standard is rarely danced in the kind of bars where
>one could get killed for overt aggressive behavior.
More's the pity.
Mike Corbett
wrote:
>mi...@corbettweb.com may have written:
>> I have sufficient multiple couple progressive dance
>> competition floor time to comment on the difference between the more
>> aggressive floorcraft practiced in ballroom competition compared to
>> the accommodating floorcraft practiced in C/W competition.
>
>CW2S is not Intl. Standard, nor vice versa.
Never even implied anything of the kind. Talked only about aggression
vs accommodation.
The differences you point out are valid but irrelevant to my context.
Mike Corbett - Sunnyvale
r...@nicholson.com
>On Sat, 08 Aug 1998 18:27:34 -0700, Ron Nicholson <r...@nicholson.com>
>wrote:
>
>Never even implied anything of the kind. Talked only about aggression
>vs accommodation.
>
>The differences you point out are valid but irrelevant to my context.
The differences I pointed out are quite valid to the context. How
well one can accomodate depends on the dance. If exacting balance
due to precise head positioning is more important than standing up
and looking around, then collision avoidance becomes more difficult;
and might even look to a bystander like more "aggressive" floorcraft.
(I try to avoid collisions. I like looking around by turning my head.
I've had a couple national championship class coaches try to break me
of the habit. True world class dancers manage 360 degree floorcraft
the same way as good basketball forwards, invisible eyes in the back of
their heads. :-)
Same with diagonal choreography (as per the syllabi). I've you've got
to move across line of dance, then you've got to take more chances
than if you can just keep on floating directly down LOD.
Romoving these risk factors from Intl. Standard to make it more
"accomodating" would be sort of like removing jumps from figure
skating so the kids won't fall down as much. (possible, but it's
considered a completely different art form.)
Just as an unfamilier partner and music are part of what makes a WCS
jack-n-jill more like real social dancing than a prepared performance.
unpredictable traffic does the same for Intl. Standard ballroom
competitions. One could even claim that with more people sharing the
floor, it's even more truly social than spotlight dancing.
IMHO. YMMV.
--
Ron Nicholson r...@nicholson.com http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/
#include <canonical.disclaimer> // only my own opinions, etc.
Psychohist
True world class dancers manage 360 degree floorcraft
the same way as good basketball forwards, invisible eyes
in the back of their heads.
This is the best way.
I've seen world class dancers resort to head swiveling, though. Marcus Hilton
(current world champion) does it at certain points. On crowded floors,
Jonathan Crossley (recently won the UK closed amateur) swivels his head quite a
bit. The trick is to be able to do the head swivel without having it affect
one's balance enough to be interpreted as a lead.
In a really good partnership, a significant amount of the floorcraft can be
offloaded to the lady. Based on how the Shinglers dance, for example, I think
Donna does a really good job of throttling Alan's speed when they do a backing
movement.
Warren Dew
Mike Corbett
>Mike Corbett <mi...@corbettweb.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 08 Aug 1998 18:27:34 -0700, Ron Nicholson <r...@nicholson.com>
>>wrote:
>>>CW2S is not Intl. Standard, nor vice versa.
>>
>>Never even implied anything of the kind. Talked only about aggression
>>vs accommodation.
>>
>>The differences you point out are valid but irrelevant to my context.
>
>The differences I pointed out are quite valid to the context. How
>well one can accomodate depends on the dance. If exacting balance
>due to precise head positioning is more important than standing up
>and looking around, then collision avoidance becomes more difficult;
>and might even look to a bystander like more "aggressive" floorcraft.
I wasn't talking about what the floorcraft might look like to a
bystander. I was talking about the differences in intent present in
the minds of the "competitor". The first word in the title of the
thread is "Competition".
We are not talking about inherent differences or appearances or
dancing in bars. We are talking about, for example, "blocking" as a
valid "tactic" in Ballroom competition.
The extent to which one may "accommodate" does depend on the dance.
The extent to which one intentionally inhibits his competitor is in
the mind and attitude of the competitor, not inherent to the dance.
>
>(I try to avoid collisions. I like looking around by turning my head.
>I've had a couple national championship class coaches try to break me
>of the habit. True world class dancers manage 360 degree floorcraft
>the same way as good basketball forwards, invisible eyes in the back of
>their heads. :-)
As with the rest of us, it sounds like your floorcraft needs some
work. :-)
>
>Same with diagonal choreography (as per the syllabi). I've you've got
>to move across line of dance, then you've got to take more chances
>than if you can just keep on floating directly down LOD.
>
>Romoving these risk factors from Intl. Standard to make it more
>"accomodating" would be sort of like removing jumps from figure
>skating so the kids won't fall down as much. (possible, but it's
>considered a completely different art form.)
I never suggested making the dance more accommodating. I suggested
removing the need for the competitor to be intentionally aggressive vs
intentionally accommodating. Your examples only match if you broaden
the context significantly enough that we are no more talking about
competitors planned tactics.
>
>Just as an unfamilier partner and music are part of what makes a WCS
>jack-n-jill more like real social dancing than a prepared performance.
>unpredictable traffic does the same for Intl. Standard ballroom
>competitions. One could even claim that with more people sharing the
>floor, it's even more truly social than spotlight dancing.
Claim it and I'll agree with you. What's it got to do with
intentional aggression vs accommodation?
Inherent differences in required floorcraft based on the dance form is
a perfectly valid point of discussion. Are you trying to say these
differences are the reason the Ballroom folks ought not to change the
format to be more palatable for the television audience because you
think it's more important to foster intentional aggressive floorcraft?
Psychohist
We are not talking about inherent differences or appearances
or dancing in bars. We are talking about, for example,
"blocking" as a valid "tactic" in Ballroom competition.
I think if you will look back at where this particular subthread started, it
was a response by Ron to an implied claim by you that your experience in an
unspecified competition form other than swing made you competent to pass
judgement on the similarities between CW and ballroom.
I believe than Ron suspected, as indeed do I, that your actual competition
experience in this area is in CW, not International Standard, and that as a
result you misperceive the major floorcraft issues in Standard.
Ron is absolutely dead on about the characteristics that make floorcraft such
an issue in ballroom - diagonal travel, precise positioning, &c. I believe he
is correct about these particular issues being more important in ballroom than
CW, as well.
Let me give you a personal example. At Blackpool this past May, my partner and
I were knocked flying twenty feet across the floor when another couple ran into
us. This had nothing to do with intent - either of the couples would have
avoided the collision if they could. Indeed, the other couple stopped and
apologized profusely.
It is exactly this kind of situation that Ron is referring to when he talks
about characteristics of ballroom that make floorcraft such an issue. I was
doing a very basic figure that tracked diagonally along and across line of
dance, and the other couple was doing a figure that tracked directly along line
of dance at high speed, and neither of us saw the other in time to avoid the
collision. It just happened, with no one really to blame.
Still, I would much rather have been intentionally boxed in than
unintentionally collided with. If I'm boxed in, I have a chance to show off my
floorcraft by selecting appropriate nontravelling figures or by escaping. If
I'm lying on the floor nursing bruises, I have no such chance.
That's why Ron and I don't see 'boxing in' and such intentional floorcraft
maneuvers as a significant issue in ballroom - or even as particularly
'aggressive'. It's only the people who aren't good enough to do things like
boxing in that need to be aggressive in their floorcraft.
Warren Dew
Mike Corbett
>In response to Ron Nicholson, Mike Corbett posts, in part:
>
> We are not talking about inherent differences or appearances
> or dancing in bars. We are talking about, for example,
> "blocking" as a valid "tactic" in Ballroom competition.
>
>I think if you will look back at where this particular subthread started, it
>was a response by Ron to an implied claim by you that your experience in an
>unspecified competition form other than swing made you competent to pass
>judgement on the similarities between CW and ballroom.
>
>I believe than Ron suspected, as indeed do I, that your actual competition
>experience in this area is in CW, not International Standard, and that as a
>result you misperceive the major floorcraft issues in Standard.
That's absolutely correct. That's why I have passed not judgement on
similarities between CW and Ballroom. I've commented on some very
specific differences in priority and attitude. Intentional blocking,
being the prime example.
>
>Ron is absolutely dead on about the characteristics that make floorcraft such
>an issue in ballroom - diagonal travel, precise positioning, &c. I believe he
>is correct about these particular issues being more important in ballroom than
>CW, as well.
Diagonal travel is more important in ballroom. It makes successful
avoidance of others through precise positioning, more challenging.
However, precise positioning is extremely important in CW competition,
as well. Regardless, one must acknowledge that this line of
discussion significantly broadens the original context.
>
>Let me give you a personal example. At Blackpool this past May, my partner and
>I were knocked flying twenty feet across the floor when another couple ran into
>us. This had nothing to do with intent - either of the couples would have
>avoided the collision if they could. Indeed, the other couple stopped and
>apologized profusely.
Since the incident was an accident rather than "tactical" we are again
looking at much broader context. It's not my dance against yours. I
simply suggested the television audience would prefer to see good
dancing to watching couples hinder their competitors by boxing them in
corners and that they would prefer to see enough fewer couples on the
floor at one time, so that this was not such a factor.
>
>It is exactly this kind of situation that Ron is referring to when he talks
>about characteristics of ballroom that make floorcraft such an issue. I was
>doing a very basic figure that tracked diagonally along and across line of
>dance, and the other couple was doing a figure that tracked directly along line
>of dance at high speed, and neither of us saw the other in time to avoid the
>collision. It just happened, with no one really to blame.
>
>Still, I would much rather have been intentionally boxed in than
>unintentionally collided with. If I'm boxed in, I have a chance to show off my
>floorcraft by selecting appropriate nontravelling figures or by escaping. If
>I'm lying on the floor nursing bruises, I have no such chance.
The fact that the results of accidental collisions are worse IYO than
the result of tactical blocking makes sense but is no justification
for the tactic. We simply disagree on the advisability of continuing
the practice in front of the TV audience.
>
>That's why Ron and I don't see 'boxing in' and such intentional floorcraft
>maneuvers as a significant issue in ballroom - or even as particularly
>'aggressive'. It's only the people who aren't good enough to do things like
>boxing in that need to be aggressive in their floorcraft.
>
>Warren Dew
We shall continue to disagree on tactical floorcraft (other than
accommodating... call it what you like), no matter the differences in
floorcraft requirements from one dance form to another.
My remarks, as made, are only valid (if at all, since it's all
opinion) in their original context, which was worldwide television
viewing. Argument to the contrary from a significantly altered
context is another discussion altogether. I doubt we would find
disagreement on these issues in another context.
r...@nicholson.com
>>... One could even claim that with more people sharing the
>>floor, it's even more truly social than spotlight dancing.
>
>Claim it and I'll agree with you. What's it got to do with
>intentional aggression vs accommodation?
>
>Inherent differences in required floorcraft based on the dance form is
>a perfectly valid point of discussion. Are you trying to say these
>differences are the reason the Ballroom folks ought not to change the
>format to be more palatable for the television audience because you
>think it's more important to foster intentional aggressive floorcraft?
4 completely different replies:
There's enough subjectivity in judging dance competitions as it is.
Adding mind reading over the true intent of artistically or technically
legal moves just adds to the problem. (flag! tweet! intentional
oversway across line of dance, 500 rhinestones penalty, add 10 seconds
to the waltz please.)
Also, as I said earlier, if no one gets in the way of a couple with a
nice routine but no floorcraft lead/follow skills; then better couples
could up end losing to this technically inferior couple. If it's
a social dance it seems perfectly reasonable to make you competition
prove that they can actually lead.
At the highest levels, competitive floorcraft might even be helpful to
the judges and spectators. It's harder to compare subtile differences
between couples on opposite sides of the floor. I've seen couples play
what looked to me like a cat and mouse game, where the better couple
will try to prevent the other couple from escaping to the far corner so
that the judges can see them in close proximity. No one is going to
try a forced comparison if they think they are going to lose in the
evaluation.
You think they just accidentally happen to place cameras aimed at the
places where smashups often occur during (highly rated) televised auto
races? (cut to commercial message about how the promoters are very
concerned about safety...) Where was that thread from last year about
gladiator ballroom?
James Marshall
>That's why Ron and I don't see 'boxing in' and such intentional floorcraft
>maneuvers as a significant issue in ballroom - or even as particularly
>'aggressive'. It's only the people who aren't good enough to do things like
>boxing in that need to be aggressive in their floorcraft.
This may be shifting topics a bit, but I'm not really sure how people would
go about attempting to intentionally block other couples if they wanted to.
Aren't they dancing a routine (primarily)? Unless you're purposely breaking
from the routine in order to choose moves that will place you in a position
to block someone else, I don't really get how dancing a pre-chosen set of
moves will manage to allow you to block someone else; especially since
everyone else is out there doing their own routines. It would seem to me
that most blocking would end up being accidental rather than intentional
unless you were breaking from the routine. Maybe someone can help explain
the situation a little more?
--
. . . . -- James Marshall (SAG) .
,. -- )-- , , . -- )-- , mars...@astro.umd.edu ,. . ,
' ' http://www.astro.umd.edu/~marshall .
"Electrons are just purple hazes with green racing stripes." , .
Ron Nicholson
> This may be shifting topics a bit, but I'm not really sure how people would
> go about attempting to intentionally block other couples if they wanted to.
> Aren't they dancing a routine (primarily)?
See an earlier thread about better couples being able to choreograph
on the fly for reasons of both musical interpretation and floorcraft
during Intl. Standard dancing. (This current thread is a long way from
the possible misperception by WCS dancers in that previous thread that
Intl. Standard couples don't improvise at all.)
YMMV.
--
Ron Nicholson
Ron Nicholson
> 1...country 2step is not danced where you "get killed" for bumping another
> couple...
You'll notice that I never said it was... :)
> 2...the word" evolution" infers that country dancers are somehow uneducated or
> not up on the" latest" floor etiquette.
"evolution" implies that dances evolve over time due to social, economic
and other environemental factors in ways that may be competely different
from what dance organizers might plan. Both CW and ballroom dance today
are different from what they looked like 2 decades ago, and *very*
different
from what they looked like a century ago. But...
Hat, boots and fringes indicate to me that CW dance is still trying to
allude
to a past in the era of the Wild West and rugged individualism.
Tailsuits
and feathers allude more to a past in stuffy effite court dancing.
Neither is even close to modern reality.
Back to my point: My claim is that the evolutionary history of a dance
will
affect the nature of its accepted floorcraft. The king could go
anywhere
he wants on the dance floor; those who don't want to be beheaded get out
of his way. People dancing with six-shooters might reach a more
egalitarian
conclusion. These effects might last well past the era of court
royalty,
guillotines and saloons with patrons wearing side arms.
Just my wild guess. IMHO. YMMV.
--
Ron Nicholson
ear...@my-dejanews.com
mars...@astro.umd.edu (James Marshall) wrote:
> This may be shifting topics a bit, but I'm not really sure how people would
> go about attempting to intentionally block other couples if they wanted to.
> from the routine in order to choose moves that will place you in a position
> to block someone else, I don't really get how dancing a pre-chosen set of
> moves will manage to allow you to block someone else; especially since
> everyone else is out there doing their own routines. It would seem to me
> that most blocking would end up being accidental rather than intentional
> unless you were breaking from the routine. Maybe someone can help explain
> the situation a little more?
You are exactly correct - one cannot execute effective "blocking" manuevers
when dancing a routine. This is why the best dancers don't use routines, or
at least cultivate the ability to drop out of them at a moment's notice.
When Bill Davies was still competing in the U.S., you could never tell when
he was improvising and when he wasn't. It was as if his preplanned
competition routine just happened to always stay in the emptiest area of the
floor, regardless of what anyone else did. I don't have any memories of him
doing intentional blocking or forcing direct comparisons, but there is no
doubt in my mind that he could.
At the Yankee Classic a little over a year ago, there was an "International
vs. American" team match. Andrew Sinkinson appeared to get annoyed at the
American style couple's being locked into a routine, and he proceeded to
start the Tango right next to them by doing stalks in a circle around them.
They accepted the challenge and dropped their routine, and both couples
chased each other all over the room. It was an amazing display of
floorcraft, and (to return to a point of contention in the earlier thread) I
think it would have been more interesting and exciting for any audience (live
or television, familiar or unfamiliar with ballroom) than if the couples had
just stayed out of each others' way. The crowd at the event certainly loved
it; it was one of the high points of the night.
-Elizabeth Nugent
Mike Corbett
wrote:
>AR E ONNA <are...@aol.com> wrote:
>> 1...country 2step is not danced where you "get killed" for bumping another
>> couple...
>
>You'll notice that I never said it was... :)
Ahem. Would you kindly explain the meaning of the following direct
quote?
>Besides Intl. Standard is rarely danced in the kind of bars where
>one could get killed for overt aggressive behavior. Call it
>floorcraft evolution.
I read the sentence as present tense based on your choice to use the
verb "is". What *was* your point?
>Hat, boots and fringes indicate to me that CW dance is still trying to
>allude
>to a past in the era of the Wild West and rugged individualism.
>Tailsuits
>and feathers allude more to a past in stuffy effite court dancing.
>Neither is even close to modern reality.
Nope. Neither is your theory about the wild west. With the exception
of the fringe, C/W attire is current functional clothing. Denim jeans
for protection while working horseback or afoot. High shafted boots
with pointed toes and high heels for protection, convenience and
safety while horseback. (The pointed toes for ease in entering the
stirrup, the shaft for added protection from brush and snakes and the
heels to keep ones foot from sliding through the stirrup, catching the
leg and allowing the rider to be dragged to death beneath the horse.
The cowboy hat offers protection from sun and rain. People still wear
the clothes every day for practical purposes. Spurs and six guns are
not present in the dance halls. The attire does not allude to a past.
It's present tense, city boy. :-)
I'll let the ballroom folks comment on your "stuffy effite court
dancing" theory. :-)
Mike Corbett
Sounds wonderful. How many couples on the floor in this "team match"?
Would it have been as effective or even possible with the usual floor
full of competitors? How much a departure from the original context
is a "team match"? Wouldn't something like this be facilitated
somewhat by placing fewer couples on the floor for a televised
competition?
Stephen Zisk
> With the exception of the fringe, C/W attire is current functional
> clothing... The attire does not allude to a past. It's present tense,
> city boy. :-)
I agree that the clothing matches "functional" wear for horseback,
rather than anything in the past. I also agree that Ron was off base to
identify the clothing as "historical."
I do think that dance clothing, in both CW and International dancing, is
a costume. Most of the dancers you see in Sunnyvale did *not* just come
in off the farm. Mind you, I think costumes can be effective, but they
are usually also meant to be evocative. CW clothing is evocative of a
certain image, and that image is rooted in an ethos of the West with a
long history. I also think that clothing has influenced how we move when
dancing, and always will. This is only peripherally related to
floorcraft, however.
I don't know enough about the history of CW to be able to say if current
CW floorcraft is rooted in a "don't touch me or I'll shoot you" history,
but it certainly did not arise out of thin air. My experience with many
forms of dancing is that floorcraft is geared towards avoiding
collisions and creating space for others to dance. This shows in the
extreme with the various "slot dances," where the whole form of the
dance is geared towards sharing space in a consistent way.
> I'll let the ballroom folks comment on your "stuffy effite court
> dancing" theory. :-)
Court dancing of the 17th and 18th centuries was certainly highly
formalized (perhaps "ritualized" would be a better word). "Stuffy" and
"effete" are our 20th-century (mis)perceptions of 18th-century court
life, often seen through the lens of various "revivals." There was
plenty of dancing (and interactions between dancers) that we would
characterize today as "bawdy" or "lewd." Also, when you are looking at
"court dancing," you are looking back at least two hundred years! For
these reasons and many others, I think it's dangerous to make any
sweeping generalizations about the impact of court dancing on *any*
aspect of modern dancing, including floorcraft.
You should also know that as soon as 19th-century couple dancing became
"middle class," there were many warnings and comments about etiquette on
the dance floor, from the most basic "don't spit on the floor," to the
more ethereal rules about how and when a gentleman should ask a lady to
dance. Floorcraft *was* important for couple dances then, and *nothing*
of "the King can do as he pleases" remained.
If I had to guess, I would say that the modern International floorcraft
arises from competition and the judging rules which allow competitors to
block each other. This has nothing to do with earlier ballroom
floorcraft, and certainly owes nothing to court dance.
Stephen Zisk
Psychohist
With the exception of the fringe, C/W attire is current
functional clothing. Denim jeans for protection while
working horseback or afoot. High shafted boots with
pointed toes and high heels for protection, convenience
and safety while horseback.
Right. I bet you ride a horse to CW dances about as often as I go to a
ballroom competition straight from the fox hunt.
Warren Dew
Psychohist
It's only the people who aren't good enough to do things
like boxing in that need to be aggressive in their
floorcraft.
James Marshall posts, in part:
This may be shifting topics a bit, but I'm not really sure
how people would go about attempting to intentionally block
other couples if they wanted to. Aren't they dancing a
routine (primarily)?
No - the ones who are using routines are exactly the ones I referred to in the
comment above as needing to be aggressive because they aren't good enough to do
things like boxing in.
Unless you're purposely breaking from the routine in order
to choose moves that will place you in a position to block
someone else, I don't really get how dancing a pre-chosen
set of moves will manage to allow you to block someone else;
It won't. This is part of why dancing a routine isn't really ballroom dance.
especially since everyone else is out there doing their own
routines. It would seem to me that most blocking would end
up being accidental rather than intentional unless you were
breaking from the routine.
Actually, most blocking is indeed accidental, though not necessarily the result
of interactions between routines. It takes a very high degree of floorcraft
skill to intentionally block successfully, so it isn't done very often.
People who use routines often attribute such accidental blocking to purposeful
action by the other couples because they are unwilling to admit to themselves
that the real problem is their own lack of floorcraft skills.
Blocking isn't the only tactic that's used. I'd rate the difficulty of various
floorcraft tactics in the following approximate order:
escaping from an intentional block (most difficult)
escaping from an unintentional block
intentionally blocking
avoiding a forced comparison
looking good while blocked
forcing a comparison
avoiding a comparison (least difficult of this list)
Note that all of these are impossible from a routine.
Maybe someone can help explain the situation a little more?
One of my favorite subjects.
Warren Dew
Mike Corbett
Context foul. I was indicating the attire comes from functional
requirements of C/W "cowboy" life in the present tense and not the
"wild west" past tense and therefore Ron's reference to CW floorcraft
having it's roots in the "don't touch me or I'll kill you, wild west"
saloon mentality was flawed. I never argued that anybody rides a
horse to a CW dance. That's irrelevant. What is relevant is that the
CW dance costume reflects a current C/W dress standard. On subject,
the current CW dance floorcraft reflects current competitive rules and
conditions, not "Dodge City" mentality.
I made no comparison to Ballroom but rather left that to you. Stephen
Zisk did quite an eloquent job of putting the facts in perspective for
the context.
For what it's worth, I've worn the same clothes to C/W dance that I
wore to work that same day. I assure you, so have many others. I
never wore a cowboy hat to work during the same era of my dance
experience but I've competed in the same clothes I've worn to work
with the addition of the hat.
Have you competed in the same clothes you wore to work that day?
Please don't expect me to defend the relevance of that question? :-)
Conversely, it's quite uncommon for me to wear to work, any outfit I
would wear for WCS competition. My partner is quoted as saying "WCS
the only activity for which you can dress like a two-bit whore and
your friends will tell you how good you look", to which I replied,
"There's no way you could ever look like a two-bit whore. A thousand
dollar a night call girl, maybe". I recently made the mistake of
failing to remove my Kippy belt before leaving to catch a flight home
from an event. Embarrassing, but at least I didn't have to remove it
to get through the metal detectors like I do with the cowboy buckles.
:-)
Victor Eijkhout
> I agree that the clothing matches "functional" wear for horseback,
> rather than anything in the past. I also agree that Ron was off base to
> identify the clothing as "historical."
Oh? So what's this trend of guys wearing confederate style shirts?
--
Victor Eijkhout
"The Navy began running shipboard applications under Microsoft Windows NT [..]
The ship had to be towed into the Naval base at Norfolk, Va., because
a database overflow caused its propulsion system to fail [...]" (GCN)
Victor Eijkhout
> Right. I bet you ride a horse to CW dances about as often as I go to a
> ballroom competition straight from the fox hunt.
Hee.
That reminds me of that c/w team I once saw: "The Big Hat No Horse dancers".
Dave Goggin
> Tailsuits and feathers allude more to a past in stuffy effite court dancing.
I for one think the tailsuits and feathers are a great tradition.
Our modern world is so devoid, so barren really, of any pomp, ceremony,
and
class that we need to hang onto whatever vestages remain. Tailsuit and
feathers is one of them. Heck, you can't even get guys to come to work
wearing a shirt and tie without moaning and complaints in my business.
regards,
Dave G.
Dave Goggin
> Tailsuits and feathers allude more to a past in stuffy effite court dancing.
I for one think the tailsuits and feathers are a great tradition.
Our modern world is so devoid, so barren really, of any pomp, ceremony,
and
class that we need to hang onto whatever vestages remain. Tailsuit and
feathers is one of them. Heck, you can't hardly get guys to come to
work
wearing a shirt and tie in my line of work.
regards,
Dave G.
r...@nicholson.com
>On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 08:48:45 -0700, Ron Nicholson <r...@nicholson.com>
>quote?
>
>>Besides Intl. Standard is rarely danced in the kind of bars where
>>one could get killed for overt aggressive behavior. Call it
>>floorcraft evolution.
>
>I read the sentence as present tense based on your choice to use the
>verb "is". What *was* your point?
Subject was evolution of dance forms re/floorcraft.
Verb should have been "was".
Good catch :)
There are some very good books on the history of Vintage Dancing and
Cowboy Dancing that we both might need to read to continue this thread.
AR E ONNA
>Ron is absolutely dead on about the characteristics that make floorcraft such
>an issue in ballroom - diagonal travel, precise positioning, &c. I believe
>he
>is correct about these particular issues being more important in ballroom
>than
>CW, as well.
Sorry fella, but wrong!
We are just as interested in these things...in case you did not know, we dance
waltz too. We travel diagonally and we are very picky about precise
positioning. But we are much more forgiving with the floorcraft issue.
ie..huge penalties for couples involved in anything like "blocking" or bumping.
Country is not that different from the ballroom comps you see on TV. We wear
rhinestones, train hard and, yes, we take technique seriuosly.
After all waltz is waltz no matter where you learn it.
So, it was unfair to claim country competitors think these issues less
important.
Ari
Psychohist
Have you competed in the same clothes you wore to work
that day?
Actually, yes, for ballroom J&J competitions.
I may well have competed in more serious competitions in the same clothes I
wore to work, too. Certainly I've worn tails to work ... and when the
secretaries impose a 'casual day' at work, I of course comply by wearing my
'informal' outfit, meaning black tie, an outfit in which I've certainly
competed. Whether I've done so on the same day as a competition, I'm not sure
- usually competitions are on weekend days when I can choose not to work.
If you include volunteer work, I can definitely remember an instance when I
competed in tails after working in them on the same day. (Big mistake - I was
too tired to dance well.)
Please don't expect me to defend the relevance of that
question? :-)
I'm not sure of the relevance of the answer, either....
Warren Dew
Icono Clast
>when the
> secretaries impose a 'casual day' at work, I of course comply by wearing my
> 'informal' outfit, meaning black tie
I'm jealous! That's one my fantasies. We have no such dress days at work
but I, too, would show up in Black Tie as I do every New Year's Eve
'cause we usually get out early and I get to go . . .
--
s/ICONO CLAST, a San Franciscan in San Francisco <- ICl...@jps.net ->
James Marshall
>Mike Corbett asks me:
> Have you competed in the same clothes you wore to work
> that day?
Well, I suppose you could do a ballroom comp in the same clothes you wore
to work. It depends though. If you wear a tail suit or ballgown to work,
then sure, you could jump right into a comp as soon as you're done. However,
I don't think most people do. At lower levels of competition though, the
real formal tail suit and ballgown dress isn't required and you can just
wear dress clothes (black dress slacks, white button shirt, tie). It's more
probable that people have to go to work in suits or semi-formal wear (or
whatever you'd call that type of dress), so then you could wear your work
clothes right to a comp the same evening. Personally, I don't think I'd
*want* to wear my work clothes to a comp; I like to put on clean clothes
before going dancing. :) However, if for some reason I was going to be
extremely pressed for time before going to a ballroom comp, I could
definitely see wearing dress clothes here to school/work in order to avoid
wasting time changing clothes when I got the to a comp. It would look a
bit out of place since people around here don't normally dress like that,
but that's OK. :)
>I may well have competed in more serious competitions in the same clothes I
>wore to work, too. Certainly I've worn tails to work ... and when the
>secretaries impose a 'casual day' at work, I of course comply by wearing my
>'informal' outfit, meaning black tie, an outfit in which I've certainly
>competed. Whether I've done so on the same day as a competition, I'm not sure
>- usually competitions are on weekend days when I can choose not to work.
I can't really imagine someone showing up to work in a tail suit or ballgown.
It must be an interesting sight. :) Of course, if you wear tails to work
regularly, then black tie formal wear would be considered "casual" I
suppose. :) Oh, and that's a good point about the comps -- normally they
are on weekends and not everyone works on weekends.
Psychohist
I can't really imagine someone showing up to work in a
tail suit or ballgown. It must be an interesting sight.
:)
One time my then partner and I did a lunch time show near my work place. As we
walked through downtown Boston in tails and ballgown, we overheard:
"Oh, people in Boston dress like that all the time."
Warren Dew
George Deliz
> regularly, then black tie formal wear would be considered "casual" I
> suppose. :) Oh, and that's a good point about the comps -- normally they
> are on weekends and not everyone works on weekends.
The tailsuits and feathered ballgowns are indicative of the schizoid
nature of modern ballroom dancing. We claim it to be an athletic sport
but cling to an image of genteel opulence and luxury, not surprisingly
since the dance students who spend the most bucks on lessons and
competitions are middle aged (and older) folks buying a fantasy instead
of young athletic kids.
If the objective in competition is to determine the best dancers then so
much of the dancer's body should not be hidden underneath multiple
layers of cloth. Something more akin to the jumpsuits worn by male
gymnasts (with a shirt underneath )would be more appropriate for both
partners, although relatively simple dresses would allow the ladies'
dancing skills to be seen without obstruction and still provide a
visually appealing swirling motion.
Ditching the tailsuits and gowns would also go a long way towards
getting people to take ballroom dancing seriously as a sport.
George Deliz
Just trollin' along...
Stephen Zisk
>> I agree that the clothing matches "functional" wear for horseback...
>
> Oh? So what's this trend of guys wearing confederate style shirts?
Remember my next paragraph. What you are seeing is a costume, evocative
of a certain working style but not necessarily faithful. Like most
fashions, that costume is going to vary in the details over time. Once
you start trying to follow individual short-term trends in dance
clothing you are out of the realm of general ethos and into the realm of
fad.
I don't know where the "confederate" idea comes from, in fact, I'm not
sure I could identify a "confederate style shirt", but I would bet that
interesting and trendy details come and go in CW styles at the same rate
and for the same reasons as in everyday wear. "Confederate" might be
evocative of "Civil War" in general, might be meant to look like
"Cavalry" wear, or might simply be a Southern influence overlaid on
Western wear.
International Standard seems to have much less variation for the men's
styles, but does have a great deal of "trendiness" in women's ball
gowns. There was a while when the gowns were short, tight-fitting, and
very bouffant, then a while when everything had to be long and silky,
with feathered hems. International Latin has a lot of variations in
style for both men and women, and seems to change every year. I'll bet
the dress designers are making a mint!
Stephen Zisk
James Marshall
>James Marshall posts, in part:
>
> tail suit or ballgown. It must be an interesting sight.
> :)
>One time my then partner and I did a lunch time show near my work place. As we
>walked through downtown Boston in tails and ballgown, we overheard:
>
>"Oh, people in Boston dress like that all the time."
Do they? Or does it just happen often enough that it's not really a
surprising thing to see? :)