I will listen to any reasonable explanation but for the life of me in the U.S. what advantage is there to count BPM as beats per minute and not Bars of Music per Minute. I would find it easier to count 28 bars per minute than 112 beats. Not that i would count 28 bars . Instead i would count bars for 15 seconds and times it by four. I would expect the music to be played at the tempo of seven bars in 15 seconds by counting 123 223 323 and so on for the 15 seconds. Foxtrot or Quickstep would be 1234. 2234. 3234 and so on. Maybe somebody can explain.

I'll be happy to explain.

Actually, I'll do you one better. I'll start with a question: Which do you think is faster: a Foxtrot at 30 bars per minute, or a Waltz at 40 bars per minute?

If you said "Waltz", you'd be wrong. They're exactly the same speed.

The above example is a perfect illustration of the problems that arise when we use bars instead of beats to measure tempo. For a more detailed explanation, see the following topic:

https://www.ballroomdancers.com/Message_Board/view_messages.asp?Topic=20515

Regards,
Jonathan Atkinson
www.ballroomdancers.com

Fine I will have a look at that. But how come the rest of the world it would appear including those who produce discs count in bars. I will copy Japanese Orchestra Best Selection Ballroom Dancing Hiao Sudou. Sherazade 30 BPM. German Disk called Ballroom Fantasy. Is it You
( Theme from Shrek ) 29 BPM. I dont want to appear argumentative but I would rather count 64 bars of music if I had to than a 192 or anywhere in between which I very much doubt anybody would do anyway. To some it must be confusing. Maybe I am old fashioned but I would still rather count a V Waltz 123 223 323 for eight bars and start again. Which has little to do with the timing but everything to do with phrasing which brings up another angle. My typist is getting impatient, have to go.

Here i am again. I read the article. But i must be odd. I've counted two Waltz' s and two Foxtrots and got exactly the same number that is on the disk each time. I also tried dancing a Foxtrot to a Waltz to the theme from Pearl Harbour with the music counting in threes. I found it necessary to drive that first step otherwise the steps fit into the count of three perfectly .Six steps in a Reverse Turn Or twelve in a Feather Three Step and Natural Turn which all fit into the steps with beats. This wasn' t wholly my idea. I remember being told that a guy who is still one of the leading teachers in the world today, had this pupil doing a Foxtrot to a Waltz. Intersting. Everything was called in threes.

Hi Anna
I'm in Europe and so always measure tempo as Bars-per-minute. Jonathan's point is very valid, so it's all down to convention. I believe that in the US they still measure in feet and inches!!
As for dancing fox-trot to waltz music - you just have to dance the slows a little quicker (as, for example in a feather step). Dancing waltz to fox-trot music is equally simple - in fact i often do this at social dances where ther's not enough space for a real fox-trot. Instead i practice slow waltz natural and reverse turns with the normal '1' occupying two beats of the foxtrot music. I'm sure you're aware of all this.
On a good night i just do the 3 steps to the 4 beats.

Phil. What needs to be pointed out is that a thorough understanding of the steps plus listening to the beat. Those who believe they can dance without being aware of the beats should try this as part of there training.

hi i want to see a vedeo of it not messages sorry if there is one...

You seem to be confusing the measuring of tempo (speed) with the quantitative counting of music (for the purpose of determining rhythm, phrasing, total length of song, etc).

When counting music, there is no right or wrong... you can use whatever method is comfortable for you. Some people like slows and quicks, some beats and bars, etc. There are dozens of counting methods -- the one you use will depend partly on what you're accustomed to, and partly on what's appropriate for the situation.

On the other hand, when we're talking about tempo, we're simply describing the speed of the music. Counting really has nothing to do with it. So regardless of how one may choose to count his music, the tempo should be described in a way that is correct and accurate. To this end, beats are suporior to bars for reasons I described prevously.

Think about situations where you would see a description of tempo. The back of an album. A website. Sheet music. What is the purpose? To give an accurate representation of the speed. Perhaps to compare it to the speed of other songs for the sake of context. It's not there to help you count. It's there to give you a numerical representation of speed.

Numbers are ideal for describing tempo precicely because they are absolute. 2 is fater than 1. 8 is slower than 9. Period. It's immediately recognizable... there are no conditions or qualifiers. Everything is absolute. Nothing is relative or subjective.

When you use bars, you can honestly say that 20 is faster than 25. I know it sounds wrong, but it's true. When you use bars, you introduce the concept of time signature, which adds relativity. Now in order to know the true speed, you need to know not only the number of bars but also the time signature, and then you need to do some math to come to a final conclusion. 25 mpm is only faster than 20 if both are in the same time signature. If 20 is in 4/4 and 25 is in 3/4, then 20 is faster than 25. How many dancers do you know that would realize a Foxtrot at 20 mpm is faster than a Waltz at 25?

Have you ever looked at a metronome? A metronome is an instrument whose sole purpose is letting you hear the tempo. Every metronome ever produced has always used beats per minute as its unit of measure. If there was ever a metronome that used bars, it would have to also have an additional switch for time signature. Slide the little slider to 30 and flip the switch to 4/4, and the clicks would sound 2 per second (120 bpm). Now leave the slider on 30 but flip the switch to 3/4, and the clicks would suddenly slow way down. The tempo is still 30, but because the time signature changed to 3/4, the clicks are only sounding 3 every 2 seconds (90 bpm).

Of course, there's no such metronome. Because only dancers measure tempo in bars per minute, and dancers don't use metronomes. But the truth is, the only reason they don't switch to beats is not because it's better or worse, but simply because of convention. Much in the same way Americans to this day have not switched to the metric system. It's obviously superior, but when you've spent your life talking about inches, feet and yards, it's very difficult to retrain yourself to think any other way. You might even trick yourself into thinking inches and yards are better. But those with experience in both units of measure know better. The same goes for tempo. Any dancer/musician will tell you the same.

Your concerns about the theme to Pearl Harbour, Feathers and Three Steps and drivinga actions are not relevant to the discussion of how to measure tempo. No matter how the music makes you feel, tempo is an absolute, and should be measured absolutely.

Regards,
Jonathan Atkinson
www.ballroomdancers.com

Jonathon. Thanks for the information. I find for my use Bars per minute are far more convenient to count than beats per minute. Plus the phrasing. Which in music suitable to dance to is eight bar phrased. If I think the music is too fast or too slow i will count the bars for 10 seconds and muliply by six or count fifteen second and multiply by four.I know through experience i am looking for 7 bars in fifteen seconds. Then there is phrasing. Once upon a time dancing out of phrase wasn't even thought about. But todays chorography is seems is taught in blocks of eight bars, this includes Latin even the Jive. I wonder if you have any comments on this. I was watching a Pro/Am Samba. This former international, through his partner missed the start. He stood still till the end of the phrase before he started dancing. I have on tape a IDSF Waltz final. The musical introduction was awfull to say the least. Not one of those six finalists moved untill they picked up the phrasing, which was well into the tune.
To Shanoah.
If you look to the left side of your screen you will find both Learning Centre and Learn the Dances click on the later and there you have your choices. Go for it.

"Actually, I'll do you one better. I'll start with a question: Which do you think is faster: a Foxtrot at 30 bars per minute, or a Waltz at 40 bars per minute?

If you said "Waltz", you'd be wrong. They're exactly the same speed."

Jonathan, that's an amazingly ignorant mistake for a dancer of your experience. We might expect this kind of answer from a musician without dance experience, but never from a DANCER.

As every dancer knows, the valid comparison between waltz and foxtrot is not between beats, but between actions. An action that is danced 123 in waltz will almost always be danced SQQ in foxtrot. That means that a foxtrot at 30 mpm is EXACTLY THE SAME SPEED of a dance as a waltz at 30 mpm.

And a waltz at 40 mpm is most definitely faster!