Mmmm... nope.

Tempo is not a measure of the number of steps you take, or how fast your body is moving. If it were, we might describe it as steps per minute (SPM) or perhaps inches per minute (IPM).

A Waltz and a Foxtrot may *feel* like they're the same speed to you, but that's because you're in Foxtrot you're dancing slower than the music, not because the music is slower.

You can dance 7 hesitations in a row... It doesn't make the music slower. It makes YOU slower. There's a huge difference. We don't measure tempo by the rhythms we choose to dance (or for that matter, the rhythms any one particular musician happens to be playing). Tempo is a measure of the speed of the underlying pulse of the music, not of the rhythms.

Regards,
Jonathan

"Mmmm... nope.

Tempo is not a measure of the number of steps you take, or how fast your body is moving. If it were, we might describe it as steps per minute (SPM) or perhaps inches per minute (IPM)."

Do you see the word "tempo" in the passage of yours I called erronous:

"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."

I don't. You statement was not about the tempo, it was about the speed. And we here are DANCERS first and foremost, even is some of us are also musicians.

"A Waltz and a Foxtrot may *feel* like they're the same speed to you, but that's because you're in Foxtrot you're dancing slower than the music, not because the music is slower."

No, it is because we are dancing the important unit of the music in each case, and in each case that important unit is arriving at the same pace. In waltz, the fundamental unit, which determines all of the important characteristics - most prominently the swing - is the measure. In foxtrot, it is the SQQ unit, which also happens to be the measure.

"Tempo is a measure of the speed of the underlying pulse of the music, not of the rhythms."

Which is to say, that tempo is NOT an applicable measure of the speed of a dance. Speed of actions is - and for a waltz and a foxtrot at the same number of measures per minute, the speed will be the same.

That is why DANCERS often prefer measures per minute - because this gives the APPLICABLE SPEED OF THE DANCE. MUSICIANS are welcome to their beats per minute metronomes (though they often set them to a unit other than the written beat anyway)

Lets turn our attention to phrasing. In the Samba we have no choice. We have got to be in phrase with the music. So does this also apply to the W. F. Q. and Tango. Leave the V Waltz out of this. It has its own problem, which is it is impossible to dance in phrase all of the time.
The last question i would ask is. If we are not aware of the bars per minute how would we know what eight bars is within the music. And how to dance those eight bars with our steps.

"The last question i would ask is. If we are not aware of the bars per minute how would we know what eight bars is within the music. And how to dance those eight bars with our steps."

By listening to the music.

The nature of the progression through the phrase, and where you are in it, is independent from the speed of the progression.

You don't have to count to know where you are. In fact, in interesting music, counting is a liability, because if you are counting you are making assumption which may be invalid; wheras if you are listening you are responding to clues in the music - ie, a ii or IV chord goes to a V chord which then starts over a new phrase on a I chord. It's that pattern of stress, rather than the number of measures or beats which have elapsed, which actually tells the astute listener where he or she is.

I dont agree. You may not be counting 1 2 3 4 or S. Q. Q. But something inside you is ticking over. How can there not be. You must have seen Richard Gleave's tape on which he says to both count aloud. And to split the beats into six half beats and count 1 and 2 and 3 and. Why would he say that if counting isn't the right thing to do

"I dont agree. You may not be counting 1 2 3 4 or S. Q. Q. But something inside you is ticking over. How can there not be."

This is unecessary for phrasing.

Phrasing is not a division into a time units, instead it is a progression of different "colors" in the music, which are linked according to rules of precedence.

Given this, you a skilled listener can hear only a short fragment, and already know where they are in the phrase.

Wheras a "counter" must wait until the start of a phrase and then count forward from there, in order to know where they are.

Why do both Ricard Gleave and John Wood
count aloud whilst they were demonstrating steps both dancing to the music.

"Why do both Ricard Gleave and John Wood
count aloud whilst they were demonstrating steps both dancing to the music."

Because they are teaching details of dance actions, not musicality.

Think about it this way. If you are going to count the music, how do you know when to start counting? How do your know if your count has gotten off from the music???

If you can't hear the details in the music, you can't know when to start, or if your count is still accurate. If you can hear the details, counting becomes a wasted effort.

Only in the situation where you have the skills to hear some points in the musical pattern some of the time, but not yet the subconscious ability to always reliably hear where you are in the music, will counting the music be of any use. In that situation, you use counting to bridge the gaps between the reference points you are able to notice.

In reality though, when most dancers count, it is so that they can IGNORE THE MUSIC, by replacing it with their own verbal metronome.

Richard Gleave said that whilst practising they counted to make sure they were both dancing the same timing. If he were to dance his way and she hers, as it would be for somebody not capable of hearing those beats. Need i go on.

"Richard Gleave said that whilst practising they counted to make sure they were both dancing the same timing. If he were to dance his way and she hers, as it would be for somebody not capable of hearing those beats. Need i go on."

Gosh, you make it sound as if they were not only deaf, but also completely insensitive to the feeling of where the other body was or what it was up to!

Counting is a crutch - it's a habit we develop early on to bridge gaps in our perception, but as likely as not it will serve to BLIND us to the real details of what is happening, as we enslave ourself to our OPINION (verbalized count) of what should be happening, rather than what our senses are telling us about the REALITY of what actually is happening.

It makes us slaves to habit - unresponsive, and often blissfully unaware of our lack of perception.

Yes, it is a tool that can have some uses. But most are unaware how it blinds them... like a man in the forest with a flashlight, will conceal far more than it shows.