sooooooo......

Telemark,

An honest question...(and I'm not complaining about my training, I'm just a little surprised)

So I can show up to one of these medal tests and show the basic steps with none of the hip movement, without paying attention to delayed hip actions, placement and interplay of my feet with the floor, and body tension designed to promote denial of gravity and still pass!! When does this matter?

I spent almost two hours today by myself in front of a mirror drilling chasses until they were silky. I'll be doing the same tomorrow and the next day and the next and if I don't my teacher is going to be horrified.

Was I crazy to assume this was integral to ballroom?

When does it matter that I have worked my technique until my toes bleed? That I get full extension of my leg from toe to hip socket with every step on my rumba, while hitting every step slightly prior to the beat to allow for the full expression and range of movement just as the full beat hits? Do you know how hard that is! Why aren't they measuring that? When do they measure that?

You can probably tell that where I'm dancing medals aren't pushed, technique and perfection of movement are.

Your questions are focused on Latin (and the original question was in relation to Ballroom, as were my comments).

The level descriptors for Latin, are slightly different. At Bronze 'it is not necessary to show a great variety of figures. What is required is a sound presentation of the dance which is within the capabilities of the candidate ... Correct footwoark, poise and timing should be evident.'

Moving on the Silver, 'a higher standard is required with the emphasis on better actions and style.'

At Gold, 'variations used should be selected to show the character of the dance and should never be above the ability of the candidate to dance them easily with good taste and style.'

Incidentally, Gold is the first level at which Rumba is prescribed at all, but its inclusion is encouraged (along with Samba) at the lowest level possible - and for obvious reasons.

It shouldn't be a matter for disappointment that the levels are more modest than you had previously assumed, just of misunderstanding.

By the sound of your own practise routine, and unless you are completely deluding yourself as to what you achieve by it, your dancing should obviously be WAY beyond the standard actually required for success in the lower level medals. Most dancers would not use their toes (or any part of their foot) to the point of even mild discomfort - EVER! If you take your dancing seriously (and it is obvious that you do) then you would probably be horrified at the degree to which others just want to get around the floor in an undemanding social setting, and would have no idea at all about what you are trying to achieve. Their bafflement would be complete: don't mistake the ability to pass tests that arguably have rather more to do with keeping dance teachers and examiners in remunerative employment, with wanting to really develop as a dancer.

No one ever learned ANYTHING because they took a medal test. Most people with any aptitude for dance at a reasonable standard very soon stops taking them (and it is very common to stop after Gold, or Gold Bar), simply because the tests have to be taken in strict order (ie you can't pick a level that suits your current standard, you have to prepare, and pay for each one in sequence). If your studio can only offer tests twice a year, you will spend ten years just getting through them. If you can dance, they may actually hold you back. And what's the point anyway? You can either dance or you can't. I know of a couple who have IDTA 3rd Gold Bar, and a very nice little trophy, but if you saw them dance, you would just laugh out loud, they are so bad. And I do mean BAD. The examiner had to actually have a word with the teacher after their last test to say that it was just embarrassing to have entered such unsuitable candidates, and would the teacher please not enter them again!

The original poster specifically mentioned Ballroom. If you trained in the UK (as you imply) you will know that here we have (and the teaching societies provide syllabi for) Ballroom (which the ISTD terms Modern Ballroom, but the IDTA, successor to IDMA, doesn't), Latin American & what is now known a Classical Sequence. We don't, by and large, dance American Smooth (or American-anything-else), and we certainly don't dance New Vogue (at least not in significant numbers).

If we want to know what is examined by the leading teaching societies, at any level, we only need to look at their syllabi. The ISTD's is online for all the world to see, but you have to buy the IDTA's (to cite the two largest and most influential societies).

The requirement for any level of medal test is clearly prescribed, and very few dancers indeed will aim to cover every possible figure that could have be incorporated in an extended routine. There would be no point (for the sake of the test), because as soon as the examiner has seen enough to provide some comments on a report and award a mark, the music is stopped, and you move on the the next dance, or the next couple.

If you took 48 weeks in a class to prepare for a Gold Medal Test many years ago - so what? I would hope that the instructor aimed to teach his subject properly, in depth, and was not merely teaching 'to the test'. The medal was just a bonus at the end, and not the purpose behind your efforts.

It is interesting that no one has chosen to comment, specifically, on my view that a 'Gold Medal' does not, in any useful sense, represent an advanced level of dancing. On reflection, I stand by by original view, that a committed dancer, under decent instruction, could reach that level, from scratch, in three to four weeks. I also stand by my view that very few amateur dancers could actually put in the concentrated hours suggested, for all sorts of fitness/stamina related issues: but that was not the question. If you didn't practise very much between your 48 weekly medal classes, then my imaginary dancer will have put in a great many more hours than you did all year, just in the first fortnight.

As for my age: you cannot possibly know how old I am, or really anything at all about me, and I can't see that your speculation (which is rather wide of the mark, as it happens) is of any value to anyone.

Wrong again .. i did a national congress lecture on Amer. style smooth three yrs ago, and it has been introduced on a wide scale, and being taught by many schools..

Where was I wrong before? If all you can do is snipe, I assume that you have nothing to say.

As for American Smooth, the place where you are most likely to see it in the UK is on 'Strictly Come Dancing'. As for dance schools, a few dabble a bit (largely as a commercial response to pupils seeing it on TV), but it is not much danced socially outside London (which is a melting pot of every style imaginable, as you would expect in a major City).

Just remind me - on which page of the Current IDTA Syllabus will I find the American Smooth syllabus? Someone new to dance might look at the Association's website, and be drawn to the page called "What styles of dance are there?", and be none the wiser.

There is an Examiner who travels regularly to the W country teaching Amer. style to teachers..there is also a well known Pro in the ldn area, who bases his Wedding dance program ,in some areas, on the Amer.style.. and, as I understand, there are syllabi in the works with the major Soc.

I still teach this standard to all my beginners ( the older generation are not interested in strict tempo )

And my apology.. I posted the WCS comment in the wrong place.. should have been the geezer


It is also included as a dance in the US championship ( Pro/Am ).

One examiner, and one London teacher (of wedding couples), hardly represents a wide scale. I'm sure there are others, but 'wide scale'? Honestly, I see no sign of it at all. "Wrong again"? I don't think so.

In response to my question, you forgot to confirm that American Smooth isn't even mentioned within the covers of the Pro or Amateur Syllabus of the UK Association of which you are a member; so that however keen an individual advocate of the style might be, you cannot be examined in it, either as a professional or as an amateur. The current online view of the Association (what styles are there?) is that it doesn't exist.

I did a google search on 'American Smooth' for just UK sites: the results were interesting (and few in number).

heres something you need to consider.. I spoke with the Gen. Scty, of the WDC, at length about 8/9 months ago.. he had just sent out 40 plus e mails ,to different countries advocating a Pro/ Am style comp. set up..as many of the countries already teach and use the Amer. style syl.

Last yr... there was a pro/am comp. held in Argentina ( 40 countries attended ) and.... apart from the U.S. many of them danced in the amer. style div.

So.. whether you like it or not, its not going away .. remember.. "they" said the same thing about Disco. !!

As I said.. syl. is in the proverbial works..

I have not said whether I liked the style, or not (and no one asked); whereas you have yet to make your case for me being "wrong again". You can hardly cite the competitive dance scene in Argentina in support of your theory - there are few places in the world further away, geographically, or culturally, now, are there?

To go back to the original topic: do YOU think that a dancer capable of a decent mark in an amateur gold medal test is, in any useful sense of the word, an "advanced" dancer?

Advanced is a relative term.. period..