[This is prompted by the "Which is Correct" thread--and not wanting to hijack said thread.
I think there is a deeper philosophical issue in that discussion that merits further discussion: the "changes", or "advances" if you will, in prescribed technique.]

ARGUABLY, today's elite and semi-elite ballroom dancer is much more athletic than those from Alex Moore's day (or even as recent as 10 years ago).
Again ARGUABLY, the kind of movement this new generation of dancers are capable of is substantially more powerful and expressive than their predecessors.
This has led to the exploration and use of steps/technique that depart(sometimes very radically) from those prescribed in that revered (or-- depending where you stand--reviled) gray book.
An often point of contention--in a number of forums such as this--is the mechanics specific to the 4th step of a Natural Turn or a Natural Spin Turn.
But that is a particular detail only.

The bigger issue, IMO, is the direction that ballroom is taking (technique-wise) relevant to the level expressiveness or artistry that the modern dancer is now clearly capable of.

It seems that the more expressive and artistic the execution of a figure is, the more that the rules/technique that have guided the formation of such artistry is stretched.
Often to a point of departure--that we can effectively say that a new step or figure is created to supplant its place.

This is not so different from the issues that the impressionist painters (or even cubists) brought on.

My starting question is,
Do you think there will be a point when "classical" ballroom will differ strongly from the more "expressive" if not flamboyant style?
How will that affect judging at competitions?



m

It already does differ -- I've heard commentators go on about how a certain couple has a "classical" ballroom style, while otheres are more energetic and athletic. As to how if affects the juging -- it all depends on who is judging and what they prefer.

Over time, it might be the case that all the proponents of the "classical" style will retire from judging and coaching, and competitors who follow that style won't be marked well, and the newer more athletic style will take over in the end.

Of course, the pendulum might eventually swing back the other way. Hopefully that will happen while some of the best of the classicists are still around to train people who want to learn that style.

It would help if we could get a definition of what is the Classic Style. I think when comentators say this is the Classic Style. It is what they are doing In Waltz which would be Spins and Pivots instead of Chasses and passing steps. I don't think there will ever be any major changes in the footwork or the use of rise and fall including CBM and CBMP Poise will remain the same. The lady in todays dancers are far more showy than their more Classical opponents. Calling the todays dancer as being none classical. I think the none classical, especially in the Foxtrot, use a much more flexed knees than their opposite numbers. Latin is very easy. I doubt that the word classical is ever used. Old fashioned maybe but never classical.

For the purposes of this discussion, perhaps we can agree on the following definition of the Classic Style:

The performance of a set of standard steps/figures with a reasonably high degree of conformity to the original specifications of said steps/figures.
Such specifications include, but is not limited to, footwork, rise and fall, sway, timing, direction, alignment, body contact, hold, frame, topline, etc.
Also, let's include "snippets" of such figures (eg 1-4 of the Nat Turn) that are used in variation or combination with other "snippets" from other figures--because they can present themselves with a reasonably good basis for a standard to conform to.

And let's say that the "Modern" style is the performance of the standard figures in a way that strongly departs from the prescribed standard.


Any other views, are of course, welcome as well.

m

I very much doubt that anybody even way back in the past danced in the classical style. Is there anyone who didn't curve the 4th step as man on a Reverse Turn slightly towards the middle, and shaped the foot also. Felt but not seen was the key word used at that time. Maybe Victor Silvester did not, but he had the lady stuck right in front of him knee capping each other. I really don't see how anyone could now or then dance according to the book. But as written elswhere, it was never supposed to be read and performed with a Parrot like mentality.I think in all sports they have moved foward to bigger and better things. If we take tennis, the way it was taught even twenty years ago bears little resemblence to the way it is taught today. Except for the service action. Time moves in one direction doesn't it.

It is true that time moves in one direction.
I also understand people's impatience (and sometimes even arrogance) with others who wish to religiously conform to the tenets of the standard technique--with a higher degree of proficiency.


I DO have to wonder though...
It is notable that those who indeed are capable of following such technique with the required proficiency, seem to demonstrate further superiority in expressiveness and capability than their peers who are patently incapable of conforming to such technique.
To me, their dancing is more beautiful, more subtle, and exhibit greater freedom and control.


Now ARGUABLY, the writers of the standard figures were perceptive and thoughtful people--they represented the best of that time.
They understood the principles of movement very well--indeed well enough that most figures have stood the test of time.
They also understood that movement--by any measure--will not change because it is based on the capabilities of a permanent standard: the HUMAN BODY.
Thus whether one takes a long or short version of a movement (such as a step), the principles supporting such a movement will always remain the same.


I think, whether people danced the Classical style or not (in the past) is less important.
More relevant (IMO) is this:
Is it possible to dance the classical style with today's athleticism and expressiveness?
Personally, I don't see why not--I simply see it as a more demanding choice than using variants that support compromises in movement to allow for less demanding technique.


m

Quickstep,
As to your point about curving the 4th step as man (for either the Natural or the Reverse turn...)

I REALLY WONDER, if we truly understood the movement correctly and could execute it correctly as specified in the book, would there even be a NEED to curve that step?
Even if danced with superior athleticism and expression?


m

"I REALLY WONDER, if we truly understood the movement correctly and could execute it correctly as specified in the book, would there even be a NEED to curve that step?
Even if danced with superior athleticism and expression?
"

I have a lot a suscpicion that a lot of the perceived need to curve the 4th step of the reverse/f.finish is a result of allowing the third step to drift towards the center. Much as with the natural turn in waltz, there must be a substantial change in the direction of progression, from diagonal center, to down LOD. If the third step is allowed to drift to center, it's likely to land in CBMP and block mutual progression directly down the LOD. If instead the third step is allowed to swing an inch or two back towards the wall after the feet pass, progression down the LOD will be much easier.

Also there may be an issue with improper reverse CBM on step 4. The offset in the hold requires that CBM be substantially developed in the hips before the upper body even begins to rotate. Many dancers are quite uncomfortable with this (as a result of no teacher ever insisting they practice it), but it it's not done the backwards partner will have to go much further than otherwise necessary out of their forward partner's way.

"I don't think there will ever be any major changes in the footwork or the use of rise and fall including CBM and CBMP Poise will remain the same."

You have for some time now been able to see drastic changes (to the point of complete ommission of some of these things) within the same final.

" I really don't see how anyone could now or then dance according to the book."

Exactly - you don't see how it is possible because you don't fully understand what is being requested. If you did, you would know that some competitors are extremely close to it, and some are almost totally revolutionary.