Medals are pointless.

There either is drift in your feather or there isn't.

This has been mentioned before but is worth listening to. I have on a DVD a round in the Modern Waltz from the British at Blackpool. William Pino in the last thirteen bars of music did the same group of four bars, three times. This group incidently any average dancer could have done. Not so good of course . But done never the less

This depends largely on two factors.
The amount of time you can devote to practice and how far the instructor is willing to let you go. If you're studying with a large franchise, they follow a syllabus to monitor the student's progress. If you're looking to go into competition and advance quickly, the ratio is at least 7 to 1. That is: 7 hours practice for every hour of class.

Normally it starts with associate bronze, bronze, silver and gold level.

The great thing about dance is even when you reach gold level, you never "master" it. It's a tool that's constantly being sharpened :)

I wouldn't quibble with the suggested instruction/practise ratio, so a one hour a day session with a teacher, and the rest of the day working on acquiring muscle memory for standard figures would bear rapid fruit, if you could really commit that sort of time. However, do bear in mind that Gold is not, in any sense, an advanced level of dancing.

Look at the current IDTA Syllabus in Ballroom, & the level descriptors that relate to the twenty levels of medal test (yes, twenty - of which Gold is third). A standard of technique showing good poise, deportment and characterisation is not required until the (five) Gold Stars (starting four levels above Gold); continuity, fluidity of movement and musical interpretation are not expected until the (four) President's Awards (starting nine levels above Gold).

At Gold, the examiner is looking, principally, for evidence that the dancer can dance at least six different figures, to a higher standard than Silver, and has paid the fee.

This thread seems crazy to me. Clearly close to offensive after the years and hours and work I've put into ballroom. The very idea that you could actually be at a gold level standard in what amounts to a month?

Okay maybe you can flash and trash and do the Dancing with the Stars, hide your inadequacy gold level dancing. You can't truly dance anything more than the basic foot patterns.

Think about the time it takes to learn true balance, true hip movement and leg alignment. It took me almost a year to build up the strength it takes to do a proper rumba. A human body can only change and strengthen as quickly as anatomy allows.

No matter how gifted you are YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY learn this art form in a few weeks time even if you did it 24-hours a day.

Hi there drscience. Now, back to your question which raises a question. Are you talking about one specific dance? for example waltz? or are you talking about "all" the ballroom dances. Are you talking about one discipline beginner to Gold (which you failed to mention exactly what it is you've been doing at the studio for two months). Ultimately, every person is an individual and how they with their teachers approach their dance goals does vary with ability, practice, etc etc etc. Much like the above posters have basically pointed out in their respective own way. Dance is a progressive thing. Bottom line, it's one thing to learn how to dance, it's another thing to....dance.

Not meant to be. This is a discussion forum, and my contribution has prompted discussion. I am waiting for ANYONE to make any sort of case that the standard of an amateur Gold medal is anything other than very basic.



Almost no one who has ever appeared on DWTS would have failed a Gold Medal on their debut appearance. Only basic patterns are required, and with no more than correct poise, footwork & timing. Read the syllabus: you might be suprised.



These things are not required in any developed way at this level.



Agree 100%.

Telemark,

How disappointing. I guess I had these imaginary standards of excellence.

All they want is footwork and timing? Then why have the measurement at all? It doesn't mean anything if that's all that's being measured.

Well I suppose it doesn't matter because I am certainly not going to stop pushing toward excellence.

Good heavens....I mean how hard is it to learn footwork and timing? I can pull the footwork for 6-8 new figures in 15-30 minutes. I can have proper timing in place if not paying attention to technique within 2 hours. It's a whole different ballgame if we're actually talking about dancing properly. That takes months and frustration and tears and sweat and cursing and then jubilation when it finally works and looks right. So none of that actually matters.

I'm mildly disgusted...

I,m with you !!!!!

Well, yes - that's my point! So can I.

It's not really a matter for 'disgust', surely, but perhaps a misunderstanding about what is required at different levels. Medals are not nearly as popular as they used to be (at least not here in the UK).

A lot of dance schools used to organise their classes around a medal test for the majority at the end of a run of classes (perhaps six-monthly, but often annually). Once the pupils had moved on from completely basic beginner stuff, and were capable of putting together simple amalgamations, the teaching strategy was often to teach figures through their incorporation in a routine suitable for medal tests.

To take a simple example: Waltz. Typically we learn closed changes first, and then we might learn the natural turn. Used twice at a corner, with closed changes along the sides of the room, we have our first 'routine', and it would be enough for a 'Social Dance Award', the first level in the adult test regime. In the current syllabus we read:

"to encourage pupils who have attended a few classes ... Only two or three figures are required ... Little attention is paid to footwork, rise & fall etc. Candidates should give the impression that they have sufficiently mastered the minimum requirements in the chosen dances to be able to dance them socially."

Now, we are testing a beginner after a "few classes", and want them to have something to measure some progress towards being able to dance. We don't require much, and don't expect much. This is just as it should be.

Moving on: after around six months of weekly classes, nearly everyone who continued to turn up should have added the reverse turn to their waltz, and be able to dance the basic six bar amalgamation of natural and reverse turns separated by closed changes. If they can do that with sound basic footwork, maintain the correct alignments and timing, then as soon as they have added a suitable corner figure (and it's nearly always the natural spin turn), they have a Bronze Medal routine (five figures only required), and they should do well.

They may not be able to identify the components of their dance skills, but they have learned the elements of dancing inside and outside turns, they may be beginning to develop a rudimentary use of rise and fall, CBM and sway (but maybe not - these things are really for later), but if they can dance a spin turn even half-decently, they have also learned the rudiments of pivoting. Once they move on to add a whisk & chasse from promenade position (and I would use these two figures at bronze as a matter of course), then they are also demonstrating the ability to dance into and out of PP, and to use syncopated rhythms (12&3) on the chasse. Knowledge creeps up on you. Even in the 7 simple basic figures that I have mentioned, most of the basic ballroom 'actions' are present. Learned properly, they tell you about 80% of everything you will ever need to know in Waltz.

In my experience, an average dancer who only attends one weekly class will take two years to reach a secure 'Highly Commended' standard at Silver. If they switch to weekly private lessons after Bronze, then I would expect them to reach the same mark at Gold in the same time.

I have been writing about the IDTA syllabus, which no longer prescribes particular figures at any level, but the ISDT stil does (as do others). It is well worth noting that the syllabi that do prescribe figures almost always (and the IDTA's used to) have a direct correlation between the syllabus figures at Bronze, Silver & Gold with the figures required in professional exams at Associate, Licentiate & Fellow. Is that to say that the knowledge, understanding and proficiency of a Bronze Medalist is equal to that of someone who has gained Associate membership of a teaching society - or, for that matter, that anyone who has passed (and 'pass' is BAD) a Gold Medal can consider themselves the 'equal' of a professional of many years standing holding a Fellowship qualification? They're the same figures, and if not, why not? - Well of course not (but that's another topic).

I would say that having a good mark (Highly Commended or Honours) at Gold, marks the end of the Beginner phase, and moves the dancer on into Intermediate territory. Others would no doubt disagree, but do remember (IDTA syllabus again) that 'good poise, deportment and characterisation' lie many levels onwards, and 'continuity, fluidity of movement and musical interpretation' are still further off. These are the things that make the dancer, and they are just not required (or expected) at Gold level.

Judging by comments made in response to my observations, I might be alone in holding the views that I do: but talk to an examiner. If Terence is disgusted too, might I ask at what?