Hi to All,
During the past week, in the UK, I watched an episode of the TV programme, Dancing with the Stars. The rhythmic qualities shown by Mark, in relation to the music, in the Quickstep, was great to watch.

I remember the first time I became aware of this 'dancing to the melody' was many years ago watching a competition in the North of England'. Two amateur dancers stood out in the final round, Peter Eggleton and the other dancer was the late Michael Houseman. I remember the tune was 'The lady is a Tramp' Both dancers - unlike Mark who would have known and practised to his piece of music - these two dancers had to dance and respond there and then. The light and shade shown through their dancing, to this tune, was a joy to watch.

I don't believe that these two dancers were concerned about dancing in sequence. This has been something that's happened these last few years since the record companies realized that if the CD was in sequence, it was possible to almost double the sales to the millions of sequence dancers throughout the world.

John Wood (a past pupil of Michael's) calls it 'dancing in rhythm'. I and many others call it, 'robotic dancing' I've also heard it referred to as a room full of Zombies!

For me, and lots of other dancers, feel it is far better to respond to the melody and the mood of the music than to be concerned that a figure starts on a particular beat in a bar of music. On the other hand, if a dancer wants to be tied down to this form of dancing...

Very interesting " take " .

Knowing both of the people mentioned, and having the same teachers that taught them, I would tend to agree .

dance, in general, has become very stereotyped.
The individuality that was in the likes of Fryer, Scrivener , Irvine, et al. has all but disappeared .
The WHOLE point of dance ( my opinion ) is to interpret the music to the way I feel it, and not conform to a strict set of rules ( still retaining the fundamentals )

lluv2dance. In the Foxtrot unlike the Quickstep you must dance 1 2 3 4. and not 3 4 1 2. If you have any sense of rhythm and danced 3 4 1 2 you should be able to feel that something is not right. Mainly because there is more time at your disposal in the Foxtrot than there is in the Quickstep.If you would Google Richard and Natalie Perry on youtube and choose the third one down you will find you are looking at an early round in a professional competition, and it is the Foxtrot. The floor is packed and there are many avoiding knocks as well as some stoppages. If you can count the beats you will find they never lose the 1 2 3 4. They do not look like Zombies. And if you care to see there demonstration of the Waltz given in Japan they among all others are not robotic. Which includes myself who will dance on 1 2 3 4 and not 3 4 1 2.
Try this very simple test. Put your favourite Foxtrot or Quickstep on and tap your foot or strum your fingers to the beat. I'll guarantee you are striking on beat one and not beat 3. Then why would anybody dance differently. But if your chorographer has put your dance together wrongly . That is a different story.

Serendipidy,
I too would never dance a S/F or any other dance off time. Also there is a difference in choreographing a routine for a dem and when dancing in a comp. Read Terence's post again and sit and think about it. If you and the rest want to be sequence or New Vogue dancers, then so be it.

lluv2Dance. You are not off time or out of time. You would be in time but out of rhythm. That is different to being completely out of time. In the Foxtrot and the Quickstep the problem occurs on the introductory step. If I pick up the count of 1 2 3 4 and step into the preperation step on 1 2 I am going to be in time but out of rhythm.
Just to add something more to that. All of our top dancers use only one beat for the preperation step. That is one quick on beat 4 of the bar of music we are leaving. Which leaves us with 1 2 for the first of the Feather or if it is Quickstep the Quarter Turn.
Wouldn't it be better if all of this this was clearly spoken about very early in the teaching. It only took a few moments to type this. It would take less to explain and could be repeated repeatedly. If it had been we wouldn't be having this conversation.
If I learn a new group I try to keep them in eight bar groups. In most case I can turn the groups into any order I wish. Which is a lot difference to Sequence Dancing, who incidently are mostly out of rhythm but very much in phrase and in time.

Serendipity,
I know you keep bring this subject to the fore. If you didn't know it is nothing new. In the past decade I sat in a lecture given by Richard Gleave, in the Spanish Hall, Blackpool. He told the story of an upcoming young pro couple who had lessons with a Dutch coach. The young man - Richard said - was almost on the edge of a break-down because his dancing didn't conform to your statements. I remember Richard looking down at the floor and slowly shaking his head.

Since those days, someone wrote on this board, 'he now teaches the same.' I don't think for one moment that he's been converted, only that it's something else you can teach. Let's face it, it's easy money.

There again, it's a very difficult dance concept to deal with when dancing on a comp floor. Already one regular subscriber to this board mentions this.

Dancing four and 8 bar sequences is something else that is not new. In an Andrew Sinkinson lecture, he advocated counting the slow foxtrot in eight counts (two bars or measures) He said that's how he counts this dance.

After a four bar intro, he dances: Feather, Rev Turn, Three step. The later half of the Rev Turn starting on his first count of eight.

lluv2Dance. Always willing to learn. I'm not sure I follow this one that you wrote about. If I count 1234 2234 3234 4234 through to 8234. Nobody does a Natural Turn out of a Bronze Medal do they. So why write about something that is not used anymore. So lets make it an Open Imputus Turn. As I step out to the side I will be on 6234 Now the Reverse Weave finishes on the count of 8234.
If we do a Natural Turn why don't I from step four change the timing and make it Q Q S . That gives me bar seven on my RF which I can easily accomadate with a type of a Natural Weave using the timing off 7234 8234 that would be SQQQQQQ. This could also be altered to suit.
This will probably go right over most heads . But I could do the Natural up to step four with the slow and do the rest on two quicks that gives me bar seven on my RF.. This is just a slight change from the above.
Lets be perfectly honest about this. In your day to play around with the timing was unheard of. Today we are no longer driving a T. Model Ford either are we.













This is what is meant by arranging your choreography.
If something is being put together you must arrange the timing to fit the music as well as the steps.

Serendipidy wrote:

/* lluv2Dance. I'm not sure I follow this one that you wrote about. If I count 1234 2234 3234 4234 through to 8234. Nobody does a Natural Turn out of a Bronze Medal do they. So why write about something that is not used anymore.*/

I know it's only 5.13am in the UK, but I can't remember writing about the Natural Turn!

lluv2Dance. I still don't understand how one can start the later half of a Reverse Turn on the first count of eight. Surely it is the third bar. Even if he was counting steps only it wouldn't make sense...So there has to be some other explanation. As a point of interest I've heard it counted in threes. Three for the Feather Six for the Reverse and Three the Three Step. Even then it is necassary to know which are Slows and which are Quicks.

The whole dance is predicated on 3.