I'm having trouble with the counting in my (basic) ballroom dancing class. In my music class, I was taught to count "one" when the music starts. But in dancing, it seems I'm suppose to pickup my left foot when the music starts then wait to count one until I put that foot back down. Is this a real difference or am I just missing something? If it is real, can you tell me why they do such a (confusing for me) thing?

Most music suitable for dancing has an introduction of a few bars (often 4 or 8), and you should use that time to listen for the accented beats and the musical phrasing. Counting won't really help - you have to hear the music, and it will tell you the moment to start dancing.

In most of the dances, the man can choose which foot he leads of on: left or right. He needs to let his partner feel his weight distribution, and ideally, if he uses the introduction to shift weight from one foot to the other (with very little actual body movement, the lady should feel the shift) and will respond by changing her weight too. A useful tip would be to make those weight changes correspond with the accented beats in the music, so that both of you are already moving in time with the music (although probably not enough for anyone else to see).

When you move off, swing the leg so that the foot is placed on the floor on the beat, and allowing for musical interpretation that might then depart from strict rhythm (particualrly as you become more advanced), each step will fall on a beat, or if you are dancing a syncopated pattern, on an identifiable fraction of a beat.

Stop counting as soon as you can: listen to the music instead, and dance in response to it.

Telemark is making very good points. I totally agree with him.

Just to add a few of my own thoughts based on what I think may be part of the underlying problem...

Counting in Ballroom is not like counting in music, unless you are looking toward more complex arrangements and musical interpretation.

In dancing, after you have picked up the beat, (because most music does indeed have an introduction which you should know) you will pick up the rhythm.

As a beginner, one beat, one footstep (weight change) and typically one movement. As you advance you will find that this is not the case. Really if you haven't changed weight the movement doesn't really get counted even if it is a lot of movement. You can do many things in that moment and if you don't get in the habit of not calling it a "foot replacement" you start counting things that honestly hate to say it don't count (I think I said that right). So they are trying to teach you that when you've replaced weight then you have completed a movement and you can go on to the next. It's just a better habit.

Right now it makes no sense, later when you are more advanced you will see that they were actually laying the groundwork for better technique.

The other piece is that as you get better your timing will change and you will try and place and complete your movement at different points within a beat. You can hit at the beginning, right in the middle or at the end and it gives your dancing flavor. That only comes with being able to exactly pick out what movement, where and how and with ballroom that won't be the same from dance to dance or even within a single dance. The counting becomes more complex but it is a framework on which you can develop a masterpiece.

Belleofyourball. Have i read you correctly that you dont count. Why do you think that on any DVD you may buy on Ballroom Dancing the presenter counts Slow Quick Quick Slow or depending on which dance is being taught it could be 2 3 4 1 if it were Rumba. You must count . Maybe you dont realize that if you are listening to the music you must be aware of wether it is 3/4 or 4/4 Tempo. Or what speed the music is being played at. What about the four bar introduction , suely you must be in tune with that. I hope you are not one of those who could do a Polka to a Waltz.

No Three wise,

I absolutely count. I didn't when I first started (many moons ago) but I do now.

You should have started dancing before the instructors found so many ways to make it really hard to learn to dance.

Back in the old days, we counted one when the first foot hit the floor.

New dancers picked this up quickly. If you have studied music, you might ask why dancers now split measures in their Cha

Again, that is a fairly new thing. Fifty years ago, people danced their figures within a measure.

Believe it or not, almost everyone was able to count, "one, two, three and four". Of course, back then most folks learned to dance from friends and family. The purpose of teaching dance was to get new dancers.

At as much as $150, for a short hour of lessons, one could question the motives of some of the new teachers. (The more difficult you can make it, the longer your student must keep paying your rent.)

I do question why the folks who Choreographed the music, put those little bars around groups of four beats. Could it be that those bars meant something?

Of course, the International people will tell you that they copied what they do from the original dancers who danced in bars in South America.

I do not buy it. My guess is that the original dancers were either prostitutes, (Believe it or not, there was a time when ladies were not allowed in bars.), or they were low skilled workman who had just been paid.

I have been in bars that had dirt floors. I can assure you that people who were drinking, and dancing on crowded dirt floors, did not do anything like what modern ballroom competitors do.

Michael

And exactly WHEN, were " back in the old days ?"...

And the only ones I know of in my profession commanding $ 150 per, are world class coaches..in fact, in pretty much all amer. US cities, one can find excellent instruction from anywhere between $ 50 and 75 an hr.

AS to " splitting " bars, rhythms etc.. its called interpretation . Not everything is packaged in a neat bundle of four..and specificially in latin ,when there are clave changes in rhythm ..

I gather from most of your posts, that you are quite " jaded " with my profession ( I know its not perfect ) but.. if you have a better system.. please do tell ?

And.. comparing Comp. style dance, has little to do with the premise .

Apples and Oranges in the popularity "stakes ".Its a fair bet, that 95% of students NEVER get involved in the Comp. world..and "they" do turn out some pretty good dancers at social levels ..

terence,

World class coaches and Fred Astaire Dance Instructors (trained and untrained) hmmmmm....something's wrong with the picture.....

Know what ya mean.... was D.D. for several yrs with them ( and A/M ).. you should have seen it then !! ( with some exceptions )..

They did , however produce 2 world class dancers ( whom I had the privilege to intially train ) and subsequently ,numerous others, from the late Bobbie Medieros and Vernon Brock ( and partners ) to Rufus Dustin( still coaching ) and the many European comp. dancers that are now employed by them.

The smaller schools, as in all cases, do tend to suffer much more from lack of continuing dance education on a regular basis..but,, we could say that about most dance schools outside of Metro areas..

"Again, that is a fairly new thing. Fifty years ago, people danced their figures within a measure."

Suggest you examine some technique books of that era and count how many of the given figures, especially basic ones, are a integral number of measures long, and how many aren't...

You will of course have to account for the overlap cases, but even afterwards your claim will be shown untrue for the foxtrot, quickstep, swing, and tango. It will probably hold for the fast and slow waltzes, rumba, and chacha however.