Anonymous. So. It doesn't matter what music is being played in the background Are you one of those that can do a Tango to a Polka.

"Anonymous. So. It doesn't matter what music is being played in the background Are you one of those that can do a Tango to a Polka."

If nice music is being played it makes sense to incoprorate that as part of your dancing.

But if no music is being played, good dancing would be its own music.

Dancing to or in ignorance of incompatible music is a reality skill for anyone who practices on a shared floor. It is rarely done by choice, but it is possible for some combinations to reflect the music while also doing the chosen dance. And if one did not have preconcieved ideas about the dance (in other words if you were just fooling around) some quite inventive combinations may be possible.

Anonymous. Untill the music plays you have no idea if you would be in time to music that isn't playing. You obviously do not dance the Rumba.

"Anonymous. Untill the music plays you have no idea if you would be in time to music that isn't playing. You obviously do not dance the Rumba."

If there is no sound in the room, then there is the music in your head. Be in time to that - if you are a good dancer, the music in your head will be at a good and steady tempo.

As for rumba... one of my teachers likes to turn the music off in the middle of a drill and let you keep going, then turn it back on...

Anonymous. I you had a class and they all did a Waltz or a Foxtrot routine without music. Do you think they would all be exactly on the same step. If you say yes you are not in the real world, but in a world of your own imagination.

"Anonymous. I you had a class and they all did a Waltz or a Foxtrot routine without music. Do you think they would all be exactly on the same step. If you say yes you are not in the real world, but in a world of your own imagination."

Actually it is likely that they would match each other to a suprising degree, because there are a lot of incidental cues to pick up on.

But let's assume that each couple did it's own thing. Would they be off time? Well, some would be off time because there movement was too erratic - nothing resembling what we think of as a waltz or a foxtrot could fit it. But others would be on time - you could easily compose a piece of characteristic music in response to their dancing.

One thing that this whole argument brings out is the two ways or relating to music. I'm going to borrow some engineering methods for these: sythensise of movement by discretely clocked samples, vs. phase locking.

The method you and some others here are advocating is the former - synthesis by samples. Because you lack an internal feel for the movements, your only recourse is to excute them piece by piece, as a discrete set of actions clocked out by the fractions of musical beats. In the case where you have nothing else to go on, this is not a bad way to start out approaching the problem. But it is crude and mechanical - and as was the case for the waltz rise, if you don't pay carefull attention to the exact meanings of the terms in your textbook, you can fill your table of what to do on what beat fraction with mistaken entries.

So advancing dancers get to the more sophisticated way of relating to the music: phase locking. Here the dancer/couple must already have a very good idea of what a unit of the dance feels like and be able to dance it with quite nicely "musical" timing without any external music. Add the music, and they do not listen to the beats. Instead, they listen to the trend of progession - approximately the measure level. Instead of worrying about the beats, what they do is match the trend of their dancing - the rise and fall cycle for example - to the trend of the music, as represented by measures. To put it crudely, they adjust until their drive is precisly in phase with that of the music - because that, and not lockstep robotocisms - is what the eye appreciates as flowing, musical movement.

Anonymous. I can tell you without fear of contadiction that a dancer does listen to the beats. If they don't they should and that goes for the lady as well.
Did your write all of that to try to prove that you don't need music to dance to. Again . Without music there is no dance spoken by Gene Kelly.

"Anonymous. I can tell you without fear of contadiction that a dancer does listen to the beats. If they don't they should and that goes for the lady as well."

They do not listen to the individual beats, only to the shapes and trends. That goes doubly so for the musicians - if they actually listened to the beats, they would fall hopelessly behind.

"Did your write all of that to try to prove that you don't need music to dance to. Again . Without music there is no dance spoken by Gene Kelly."

Quotes for public consumption, quite far from the truth. Try watching him without sound and you might realize the truth.

Anonymous. I'm gathering from your writting that you are one of those who thinks they can dance to the melody and don't have to count the beats. Calling the steps slows and quicks is counting beats also.
What springs to mind is Big Louie who to play dice with Frank Sinatra brings out his own dice with no spots on, and announcd he knows where they used to be. " Guys and Dolls ". is the name of the film and show.
I've had a lot of lessons from a lot of people over a long period of time. I have never met one who didn't count the timing.In our classes anyone of us can be called upon to dance to music and count the beats.Even in the junior classes they have to count and lead the class. The eldest is twelve the youngest is ten.If they or any of us get it wrong we do it again. Tough, but there is no other way.

"Anonymous. I'm gathering from your writting that you are one of those who thinks they can dance to the melody"

No, one dances to the pattern of the rhythm - but not to its invidual details.

"and don't have to count the beats."

Any music teacher will strongly advise you against counting the beats, except when initially figuring something out. Counting is almost guaranteed to put you off time, and impede you ability to respond to expressive changes by the other musicians. And as a dancer, you are one of the musicians - merely playing your body as your instrument, so the same cautions absolutely apply.

"I've had a lot of lessons from a lot of people over a long period of time. I have never met one who didn't count the timing.In our classes anyone of us can be called upon to dance to music and count the beats."

You need to know it, yes, because it is an important skill for puzzling out new things. But it is incompatible with dancing artistically - at some point you have to switch over to dancing the trends, otherwise you will never by anything more than a robot lagging pathetically behind the beat. To actually be on time, you have to generate your internal timing, and synchronize it's major features (barlines approximately) to the music. If you try to match the beats, you are guaranteed to be off time.

You must outgrow depending on counting for actually dancing, but you will never outgrow making use of it as a learning tool when attacking a challenging problem.