Hello, guest.

Log In or
Return to Forum
Are Americans Ruining Smooth?
Posted by Independent Thinker
7/11/2003  10:02:00 AM
Are Americans Ruining Smooth?

As a standard dancer who was trained in smooth as a second style by other standard dancers, I've lately been finding myself in a lot of technical disagreement with local mid-level smooth teachers and competitors. In trying to understand the reasons for this conflict, I'm gradually coming to the conclusion that the dominant institutions of American dancing - the chain studios and their alumni - do not really understand smooth. A handful of their teachers may be able to dance it quite well, but they lack the understanding to efficiently pass on what they actually do to their students.

But this should not actually be that surprising. We need look no further than the abysmal placings of American standard couples overseas to see that trademark approaches of these American institutions have completely failed in teaching standard. The few Americans who do manage reasonable showings internationally have done extensive work with English coaches, and even here at home are likely to work with coaches whose allegiance is more to their own English training than to anything domestic. The chain studio approach does a tolerable job of cranking out mediocre social dancers - but their magic formula cannot not produce standard champions.

Neither, I'm belatedly realizing, can it produce smooth ones.

To understand why, watch an attentive, obedient competition student from a chain studio try to lead bronze American foxtrot. What you see is a perfect reproduction of how his teacher explained a basic walking action - compress into the standing leg, develop the knee forward of the toe, transition between the feet by way of split weight, pull onto the forward foot, collect, repeat. It's grounded, it's accurate, it's powerful, and it's about as interesting as watching paint dry. Not only are sway and shape completely absent, but the smooth gliding motion of foxtrot is replaced by a pronounced bounce arising from the overemphasized foot action. This look is so established in the community that we often see less developed students who execute an artificial little bounce without any underlying power to their walking action. That is not to say that walking actions are not critically important to all of the standard and smooth dances. But in my opinion, it is a mistake to try to pass off a pure walking exercises as a dance.

Or look at bronze American waltz. Here we have dance that has the same foot closure as international waltz, yet tends to be taught without the sway and shape that standard uses to make that action natural. With proper international-style waltz motion, foot closure is automatic, and a powerful lowering action, while still taking practice to develop, at least seems to make sense. But try to do the dance standing absolutely vertical, and all of the technique that the teacher is trying to drill feels very unnatural. Without the associated sway and shape, textbook footwork is fundamentally at odds with body mechanics.

Should our student somehow survive to silver, continuity footwork will be introduced. But if the teacher does not really understand the definitive foot passing dance (and we just established that Americans do not as a general rule understand international foxtrot), what ends up being taught is not actually continuity at all, but rather a
slightly passing version of the stilted bronze action. There is nothing more ironic than watching an "advanced" smooth dancer take two beautiful gliding steps by rolling through the entire foot, then come to a crashing halt by placing the third step almost directly under their body. The explanation though is simple - they are not dancing smooth, but rather a traveling version of latin, where it is essential to always be grounded and vertical. Without adopting the sway, poise, and footwork of standard, it is impossible to complete passing foot actions without introducing distortions that would preclude closed hold dancing. Hence many smooth dancers avoid the awkward closed positions and stick to open work, where their underdeveloped actions simply look (but not longer feel) stilted.

Even prominent pedagological materials are wrong - a quick glance at the DVIDA Smooth syllabus shows several positions being incorrectly demonstrated. In a picture labeled "feather finish" the woman is standing split weight between her toes - a position never reached in a proper feather finish, and actually inconsistent with the T, TH, TH footwork this syllabus gives for a continuity finish from promenade. The pictures of closed hold promenade positions show the leader's left side disgustingly open from his partner, and a complete absence of the left sway specified in the included description of the figures.

Fortunately though, there do seem to be a handful of smooth dancers and teachers who do understand what they are doing. Primarily, these are those with high level international training. When such examples are not available, my approach has been to study technique with international teachers, and get choreography from smooth teachers. Though it's often a challenge to minimize the time wasted trying to satisfy someone's artifical concept of smooth technique to the point where they are willing to work on what we sought them out for.
re: Are Americans Ruining Smooth?
Posted by Independent Thinker
7/11/2003  10:43:00 AM
Just to correct the more outrageous of many typos, I'm obviously misquoting DVIDA on the first step of the continuity finish footwork. The point I was trying to make is that even though they list TH for the right foot (same as the ISTD would have for a feather) the woman is shown pushing off of her right toe rather than her heel.
re: Are Americans Ruining Smooth?
Posted by MSC
7/11/2003  11:08:00 AM
Smooth has always had those characteristics. You forgot the "popping" through the ankles to rise and the crashing on lowering (going directly from toe to heel rather than rolling through the foot.) Smooth technique often repeats the mantra that "all three blocks remain on top of each other" ... ah well, who needs metronome swing anyway?
re: Are Americans Ruining Smooth?
Posted by twnkltoz
7/11/2003  4:05:00 PM
Typical...a few bad apples mean that all American teachers are the same, right?

I've been dancing for eight years, both international and smooth. I teach bronze level smooth and rhythm. My smooth coaches teach the same technique for smooth as they do for standard...sway, swing (yes, even metronomic), and all. And no, we don't teach swing and sway from the very beginning at our studio. We want our beginning students to relax and enjoy themselves, something they can do with a minimum of technique (ie, lead and follow, correct positioning and footwork), so they don't become discouraged. We want them to actually learn how to social dance, if that's what they came for, which doesn't have to include all-out competitive styling. I watch people dance on Saturday night...they're not great, and they know it, but they're having a good time. So, is it necessary to insult them? As our dancers progress, we introduce various pieces of technique. Dancers who want to compete obviously take private lessons and learn more technique much more quickly.

And MSC, anyone who tells you to go from a true toe to a heel is flat out wrong. That is incorrect in anyone's syllabus. As for "popping" through the ankles, I've never heard of that either.
re: Are Americans Ruining Smooth?
Posted by Jonathan Atkinson
7/11/2003  9:03:00 PM
These sound like the rants of someone whose exposure to American style is limited to certain chain schools with sub-par training. Those of us in the upper ranks of the American Smooth know that as of about the last 5 years or so, you can't get very far in the professional competition scene without a comprehesive understanding of Standard technique.

That is not to say that Standard technique is the end-all criteria for judging American style. If it were, there would be no reason for having an American style separate from Int'l style. Dancing should be judged on all of its aspects, and since American Smooth incorporates a good deal of open work, including many Latin techniques such as weight connection, inner body action, synchronization in side-by-side position, etc, these criteria should be taken into consideration when comparing couples.

What this means is that, while you may only be able to get so far without proper Standard technique, you may nonetheless sometimes see one couple place below another, even though the lower-placing couple actually has slightly better ballroom technique. But this should only happen when the higher-placing couple has other strengths which outweigh the difference in their ballroom technique.

This fact is often overlooked by many Standard-only judges and competitors, whose only frame of reference is ballroom technique. And this is where I think they fail as judges. They don't know (or more often, simply don't care) what they're looking at until the couple takes closed position hold, and use that as the sole consideration of placement. In my book, we call that a "cop-out". And I hope such judges aren't allowed to judge Latin.

Still, there is in the chain school scene a certain disregard for competitive technique. But this is less an "American Style" thing than it is a social-vs-competitive dancing thing. Chain schools focus on social dancing, as they should, and the technique and ideals for good social dancing are different than they are for competitive dancing. You can call it a shortcoming, but they're the ones laughing all the way to the bank. There's a lot of money to be made in social dancing, and that fact has not escaped the attention of Mr. Murray and Mr. Astaire.

Is this "ruining" American style? Actually, if it weren't for the chain schools, American style probably wouldn't exist as it does today. American style was born of social dancing. The competitive side of American style has the English style to thank for its technical influence, and as time goes on it will only get better. But I should hope that it will never become just another form of Int'l Standard. Thanks to the Americans, including all of those chain schools, we now have a beautiful style which is both unique and technically challenging.

In other words, Americans aren't ruining smooth. They're inventing it.

re: Are Americans Ruining Smooth?
Posted by Independent Thinker
7/11/2003  9:47:00 PM

Thanks for your comments. Part of the reason I chose your forum is that you have come across in the past as being someone who generally promotes the use of standard technique for the standard-like actions in smooth.

Certainly, there are many aspects to smooth that have nothing in common with standard - and those are the specific areas in which we try to seek out help from people who are specifically smooth coaches.

The problem I am finding though is the emergence of an indigenous 'smooth technique' of motion that is not based in standard traditions at all, but rather seems to come from a trivial extension of the very vertical social bronze taught in chain studios. Some of these people say that this is uniquely smooth technique (implying they would dance standard differently), wheras others actually claim that this is the proper way to do standard as well.

Obviously, the top smooth dancers do not suffer from this - and today some are probably approaching technical parity with our top indigenous standard dancers. But the problem is that they are being widely misquoted by numerous second-tier teachers and competitors, who reinterpret their ideas through the lens of the bronze studio traditions they do understand, rather than the foreign standard traditions they never really figured out.

Certainly smooth as synthesis of different dance techniques is an American invention. But smooth as an excuse to replace proven basic principals like standard technique just so that we can be uniquely American is precisely the mistake we cannot afford to make.
re: Are Americans Ruining Smooth?
Posted by Jonathan Atkinson
7/12/2003  12:44:00 AM
My experiences have not led me to encounter nearly the opposition you have. With all but one exception, I've never met anyone who disagrees with the concept that Smooth and Standard technique are nearly identical in all respects (exceptions noted below). I do recall one rather lengthy debate on rec.arts.dance with someone who insisted that American Waltz should be absent of sway, without the full swinging actions. But as I said, this was just one exception in my many years of teaching.

Any other time I've encountered someone with a misconception regarding smooth technique, it seems to me that it stems from a lack of understanding rather than a firm belief in an opposing idea, and they'll usually accept when I correct or inform them. Of course, most of my recent experiences which are currently springing to mind are related to an A.M. staff which I am currently training, and this particular group of kids is very respectful and eager to learn. So it's certainly possible that my experiences, especially of late, are not a good representation of the chain school community as a whole.

On the topic of technique which is exclusively American style in nature, one very notable example comes to mind. I've come to call it "inverted sway", although others may have another name for it. It applies to many 3-step turning figures, such as Open Side Lock, but also to "Flip-Flops" and similar figures which swicth back and forth between open PP and open CPP.

Normally when dancing a Twinkle, for example, I would sway left from 2-3 as man. But if I were to release the LH-RH connection and open the "V" to a wider angle (as in a Flip-Flop), I would be more likely to take just the opposite sway -- to the right. I would then switch to left sway for steps 5-6, as I flip-flop to CPP.

This type of sway would be terrible if you keep a traditional closed position hold, but the open promenade position affords you the space you need to sway right and still maintain a positive direction as you step into PP.

I could probably think up more examples, but the main point is that if there are techniques which are uniquely American, it's not necessarily because they were invented by Americans, or because they were patented by Fred Astaire, but because the open positions of American style allow for a greater variety of techniques.

So there are indeed times when the open position creates a difference in the technique. But these are generally the exception, not the rule, and it usually applies to very specific movements or figures, not the mechanics of the basic building blocks such as a walking step, or of common figures such as the basic closed position turns, Twinkles, pivots, etc.

Anyone who would argue that Smooth technique is different than Standard had better have a sound, mechanical reason for it based on the difference in positioning. "Because Arthur Murray said so" is not going to hold water here, or in any competition for that matter (unless, I suppose, you have a judging panel which is predominantly A.M.).

If you do happen across anybody who would argue some technical difference, send 'em here. I'd love to pick their brain.

re: Are Americans Ruining Smooth?
Posted by Independent Thinker
7/12/2003  5:13:00 AM
Jonathan raises an interesting point about a special smooth action that may not appear in standard:

Normally when dancing a Twinkle, for example, I would sway left from 2-3 as man. But if I were to release the LH-RH connection and open the "V" to a wider angle (as in a Flip-Flop), I would be more likely to take just the opposite sway -- to the right. I would then switch to left sway for steps 5-6, as I flip-flop to CPP.

This type of sway would be terrible if you keep a traditional closed position hold, but the open promenade position affords you the space you need to sway right and still maintain a positive direction as you step into PP.

I think I generally agree with you about the execution of this action, however I feel that it is fairly consistent with the underlying rules that govern standard technique. Two specific comments:

1) I'm moving in opposition to my parnter on these (typically crossing eachother's paths) and that is going to change the relationship between the direction in which I'm leading her and the direction in which I'm taking my own body - even if we aren't touching or even both on the floor when I try it.

2) I think of these figures as somewhere between a feather with waltz rise and a closed telemark (and their mirror images). Both of those are outside partner figures, and because of that there is going to be some change in the sway that feels right to me. In standard, the ISTD gives a R sway for the feather, and though the book claims it should be straight I would guess I'm presently using a bit of R sway when I step outside partner in the closed hover telemark too.
re: Are Americans Ruining Smooth?
Posted by Independent Thinker
7/12/2003  5:17:00 AM
Oops, here I go again... Obviously the hover telemark is not an outside partner figure, but it sets up for one - and I'm already thinking about that.
re: Are Americans Ruining Smooth?
Posted by CampionDancesportKC
7/19/2003  9:51:00 PM
Dear Indy-

Of course American social schools are butchering smooth and smooth technique. A glance at the history of the American franchise dance schools will tell you that they have not historically been very concerned with turning out well educated dancers. The very reason the American styles were originally created was to enable American franchise schools to commercialize dancing here in the US for an adult social market.

When I began dancing many years ago I was trained at two major franchise schools...their technique and training programs were abysmal. However, their sales training was first class, and we typically devoted about twice as much time to sales training as to dance training. C'est la vie. After several years I was lucky enough to find qualified instructors who opened my eyes to many elements of dance I had NEVER EVEN HEARD OF in my original training.

The United States seems to be in a painful transition right now...trying to make the jump from the passe commercialized "American" styles taught by entrenched franchises, to International style dancing and the "new" American Smooth which proceeds quite naturally from an understanding of Int. Standard (Modern if you prefer).

The transition unfortunately leaves a large number of traditionally trained instructors wanting to butcher smmoth and arguing heatedly against it's natural relation to Standard. It is understandably a difficult change to make for those who have made a living teaching the old smooth for 20 years or more. They are not only concerned about changing their own dancing but are uncertain if the new techniques will sell well to social students. Have you noticed that Standard in the US is typically considered a style for "serious" or "dedicated" dancers only? It is often dismissed as too challenging for social students.

Besides, in many areas of the US it is still impossible (I'm not kidding) to find a reputable instructor of Standard and Latin! Even teachers and studios who want to change and grow in their dancing may not be able to do so.

Not to fear Indy, some chain schools can be relied upon to butcher not only Smooth but also Rhythm and Latin. Yet Latin competition has been steadily improving in the US of late. The US Junior Dancesport competitors are dragging us out of the dark ages Slowly but surely the US will have to _sway_ into compliance with the rest of the world, if we ever hope to create competent dancers.
re: Are Americans Ruining Smooth?
Posted by OldHag
7/20/2003  8:18:00 AM
Are Americans ruining smooth?

This question is wrongheaded. Smooth is an american style of dance. It is not Standard. The two styles do not serve the same purpose. Standard is by and large a competitive activity and, in Europe, for example, is taken up at a young age when a person is willing or forced to spend long hours learning and physically mastering to one degree or another the basic priciples of movement (that of the body weight/mass, in particular). Smooth was originally conceived of as an artifice to get americans dancing who generally take up the activity in adulthood and are not going to be willing to start at square one learning basic principles of quality movement, etc. That is still the case. What then happens, however, is that at the competitive level in the u.s., and i'll confine my remarks to the professional ranks, there is a pretense of infusing Smooth with Standard. I say this is a pretense because at this moment in time very few american Smooth competitors possess the sort of physical skills associated with quality Standard dancing, because they too began ballroom dancing as young adults. There's a lot of mostly ill-informed yakking about technical details (footwork, swing/sway, etc.) memorized from "The Ballroom Technique" and/or imperfectly recalled through the haze of mostly scatter-shot coachings with, at best, qualified European/Asian Standard professionals and, at worst, americans who, with a handful of exceptions, masquerade as Standard coaches, but no deeper understanding of WHY these details are prescribed and certainly no physical ability to put them into practice.

And this conversation about franchises vs independent is also based in misconception. Franchises have started almost every american professional born in the united states. What you are confusing is quality competitive instructors/coaches (also few and far between) and franchise instructors. Apples and oranges. I have worked all over this country as an instructor. I have been in franchises and independents. My experience has been that bad instruction is everywhere (independent and franchise). What most people miss is that the best instructors are independent because franchises are not built by paying their instructors a decent wage. So economics drive the top level of competitive instructors to be independent. But that doesn't mean all independent instructors are better than their franchise counterparts. In fact, quality instructors -especially those willing AND ABLE to train beginning dancers- are a very rare commodity, and americans readily conflate a competitor's competitive success with his/her ability to teach dancing; they're not mutally exclusive, but by no stretch of the imagination does one necessarily imply the other. It's known as star-f**king. And, finally, american dancers, especially the competitive ones, usually get what they deserve in coaching and training, because what they invariably want are bandaids to cover up some shortcoming in their dancing, not a look at the kind of unglamorous, serious work on fundamentals it's going to take to put some quality in their movement. Ask any European coach who comes over to this country and doesn't know where to begin and so provides the bandaids because it's the path of least resistance.
re: Are Americans Ruining Smooth?
Posted by MSC
7/20/2003  12:10:00 PM
And, finally, american dancers, especially the competitive ones, usually get what they deserve in coaching and training, because what they invariably want are bandaids to cover up some shortcoming in their dancing, not a look at the kind of unglamorous, serious work on fundamentals it's going to take to put some quality in their movement. Ask any European coach who comes over to this country and doesn't know where to begin and so provides the bandaids because it's the path of least resistance.

I guess this sort of sums up my feelings towards smooth. It appears the emphasis is on variety of movement, expressiveness, etc., but not on quality of movement, or heck even being on time in some dances, particularly VW. Of course, there are similar problems in the other styles, but it seems exacerbated in smooth.
re: Are Americans Ruining Smooth?
Posted by ninedancer
7/20/2003  1:42:00 PM
Originally posted by MSC:
It appears the emphasis is on variety of movement, expressiveness, etc., but not on quality of movement, or heck even being on time in some dances, particularly VW.

You must be referring to individual dancers you've noticed dancing off time, not instructors teaching the moves wrong on purpose, right? Timing is one of the elements for which a competitor is judged on - an important one at that.

Deejays are supposed to play American Style Viennese Waltz a few beats slower than International Style to accommodate for the open and fuller movements of the Smooth figures and choreography. I can speak from personal experience, that some/many of the songs I've danced to in competition are played at full INTERNATIONAL speed, which is very hard to dance advance Smooth choreography to. I try to compensate by keeping my steps and shapes smaller, as to not sacrifice the timing, but Smooth dancers should not be finding themselves in this predicament as often as we do. I know for a fact that an International Style dancer would be struggling to dance Samba at the [faster] American Style speed.

So, keep in mind that you may have noticed some timing issues with American Style Viennese Waltz, but this probably has more to do with the level of dancing you're watching and/or the occasional inappropriate music choice of a ballroom Deejay.

No DanceSport style incorporates poor timing in its syllabus or discipline, so I think some of the broad [negative] statements here have been based on either not having enough exposure to high-quality American Style coaching or not getting to see enough championship-level exhibitions of American Style.
Re: re: Are Americans Ruining Smooth?
Posted by Bryan M
1/12/2014  5:18:00 AM
Interesting, and misguided subject line "Are Americans ruining Smooth". You all seem to forget why 99% of American adults, who want to learn to dance, take lessons. It is to have a social activity/ hobby and spend time with their significant other, have some fun, and learn to dance socially. Are they ever going to meet your high standard of judgement? No. Taking lessons and practicing 3-4 hours a week will not get these students (including myself and my wife) to the critical acclaim some of you seem to want us to be. If I wanted to be a professional dancer, I would take a much different path to meet that end and do what any pro would- find instruction that teaches the styles that would please a majority of judges, whether it be International or American.
American adults who want to dance do so for fun, and to have a social hobby that non-dancers do not enjoy- whether it be a night out on the town, A wedding reception or just having a fun activity on a Tuesday night instead of another evening in front of the TV.
Re: re: Are Americans Ruining Smooth?
Posted by O.K.
1/24/2014  11:22:00 AM
Reading all the comments, and being neutral. I don't do American Smooth. I would say that Are Americans ruining Smooth is the winner, judging from the comments made in this column
Re: re: Are Americans Ruining Smooth?
Posted by terence2
1/29/2014  3:59:00 AM

First.... the comments are over TEN years old .. I wonder if any past posters, have re-evaluated the purpose of Amer. smooths existence ?..
It is, as someone stated, a "social " animal only in the lower divisions,( altho it did creep into the Comp. arena ) and, this is where the problems lie.

Sadly, the technique for dance at these levels, is often commonly overlooked, for expediency .

When one does apply standarised technique to a genre, it needs to fit the purpose . The majority of social students, are more interested in variety than accuracy. And, this has been perpetuated by the " chains" in many cases ( NOT all ).

Many small studios, are woefully lacking in training.
So.. the style does meet a need, and to para-phrase Alex Moore
" I realised after teaching for one year that, not everyone wanted to be a world champion ". read into that what you will.

I am not sanctioning poor technique, at any level or genre, just pointing out the facts of dance " life " .
Re: Are Americans Ruining Smooth?
Posted by terence2
1/29/2014  4:12:00 AM
I do not know if you are still reading posts here, but.... A major correction to one of your insertions, that being.. there is no way Amer. studios ( chains particularly ) can turn out top level Intern. style dancers.. well.. heres a few for your consideration..

Joe/ Nancy Jenkins.. 3rd in the world 1972/3 Blackpool finalist .. Standard

Larry/ Betty Silvers.. eighth in the world.. Intern. Latin 19 70s

Bobby Medieros.. coached numerous latin european couples in the 70/80s ( a former F.Astaire teacher ).. I could go on.

but, I do think you may need to re-think your post.

P.S. I was one of the 1st coaches for Larry and Joe,among many others, both from F.A. in D.C,( 1964 ) and yes, they did go to the UK for training. doesnt everyone ???
Re: Are Americans Ruining Smooth?
Posted by phutch
1/31/2014  6:57:00 AM
This is an old post and the original author may have converted. I have always appreciated Terence2's outlook. I was wondering what your take is on how much responsibility the universities must share with the social arena as you cited in your 1/29/14 post.
Re: Are Americans Ruining Smooth?
Posted by terence2
1/31/2014  8:06:00 AM

I know that, the USA Univs. contribute a great deal to the Amat. and some times, Prof ranks ( Ronnie Montez for one e.g. and there are others ).

Pretty much most of them ,bring in outside coaches..... I for e.g. , had that pleasure ( with the U.Ga).

BYUs dance program ,is 2nd to none, and their formation team ,as i re-call, won "Blackpool" on several occasions . And I do know that, there were those that came into the dance teaching profession, well trained and coached .

Copyright © 1997-2017 BallroomDancers.com