Can you honestly say that you could change the timing in a Natural Turn in the Foxtrot without being aware of the beats. Could you do a Fallaway Slip Pivot all quicks and a Change of Direction into a Contre Check. Open into Promenade with a Feather Finish and come out on the correct beat without being aware of the beats.

Someone who did not identify himself wrote:Tempo is a measure of speed, so that statement by itself, without further explanation, is self-contradictory. If you were to have elaborated to say "It was not about tempo, it was about the speed of the dancer's body" (as opposed to the speed of the music, which is the very definition of tempo), that at least would have made more sense. Of course it would also have been entirely untrue. I never said anything of the sort. If you think I did, you should go back and re-read, because you've missed my entire point... that tempo should not be confused with anything having to do with rhythm, no matter whose rhythm we're talking about.. dancer's or musician's.

Exactly. That's to be decided by the dancer, and it can and does vary throughout the dance. Foxtrot in particular is specifically characterized by variety of rhythms. Dancing a weave (mostly quicks) followed by a change of direction (all slows) doesn't make the dancer change tempo... It means he's changed rhythm. The tempo has remained constant. The very statement "the dancer changes tempo" is silly... The word tempo is something we use to describe the quality of the music, not the quality of a dancer. "Oh, yes, Fred... He has great tempo!"

Which depends entirely on the rhythm, something your methodology unfortunately can't seem to separate from tempo. "Applicable speed of the dance" can change constantly, because the rhythm can change constantly, but this has no bearing on tempo.

And defining tempo as "applicable speed of the dance" (a definition I have yet to encounter in any dictionary I've read) is inaccurate even if you predetermine the rhythm of the dance ahead of time and never stray from it. Take the example of American style Rumba and Cha Cha, which happen to be of very similar, if not identical, tempi. How does MPM do a better job than BPM of telling you that Cha Cha "feels" faster than Rumba when a person dances to the prescribed rhythm? Either way, the numerical value tells you that the tempo is the same (Both dances are 31 MPM or 124 BPM). So that shoots a hole in your theory that MPM is somehow a more accurate measure of perceived speed than BPM. It's only true some of the time, and only if you subscribe to the preposterous theory that rhythm is as pre-defined and constant as tempo.

"Applicable speed of the dance" is your own definition. So tell us, what have you determined should be the defining quality of this "applicable speed"? Should this refer to the feet... The more steps you take in a measure, the faster the tempo? Or perhaps the speed of the whole body... The faster you fly through space, the faster the tempo? Or is it a combination of both? And if so, who has a faster tempo: The dancer who travels 6 feet and takes 3 steps, or the dancer who takes 6 steps and travels 3 feet? And what happens when you're holding your position? Has your tempo ceased to exist? Or does it shift to somewhere else... your arms perhaps?

Of course, these are all silly questions, but that's because they stem from a silly definition of tempo. Such silliness can be avoided by understanding that tempo is simply a measure of the speed of the music. Rhythm is something a dancer or musician superimposes on top, affecting the speed of his feet or any part of his body, but having no bearing on the tempo.

Regards,
Jonathan

"Tempo is a measure of speed, so that statement by itself, without further explanation, is self-contradictory."

Tempo is a measure of RATE, not of speed. But the important point is that tempo is not a measure of a dance - it's a measure of paramater of the music.

"Foxtrot in particular is specifically characterized by variety of rhythms."

Yes, but there's one fundamental default rhythm. Call it potential swings per minute or something - it's the same for a waltz and a foxtrot at the same number of measures per minute, even though the tempo of beats (which are quite unimportant) are different.

"You can substitute Dancing a weave (mostly quicks) followed by a change of direction (all slows) doesn't make the dancer change tempo..."

None of which are swing figures. What you've done is basically stepped outside the pace of the dance by substituting something else. Which is a fine thing to do, but the pace of potential swing figures (SQQ in foxtrot, 123) in waltz is still there in the music, even if you've chosen to briefly substitute something with a different rhythm.

"That is why DANCERS often prefer measures per minute - because this gives the APPLICABLE SPEED OF THE DANCE.

Which depends entirely on the rhythm, something your methodology unfortunately can't seem to separate from tempo. "Applicable speed of the dance" can change constantly, because the rhythm can change constantly, but this has no bearing on tempo."

No, the applicable speed stays the same. Syncopation does not make the dance faster, it merely makes it more complicated.

"And defining tempo as "applicable speed of the dance" (a definition I have yet to encounter in any dictionary I've read) is inaccurate"

Read again, the passage of mine you quoted: "Which is to say, that tempo is NOT an applicable measure of the speed of a dance" See, I didn't define TEMPO as the applicable speed of the dance. I said that what was important was the applicable speed of the dance, of which TEMPO IS NOT A MEASUREMENT. On the other hand, at least when comparing waltz and foxtrot, the number of measures per minute IS an applicable measurment.

"Take the example of American style Rumba and Cha Cha, which happen to be of very similar, if not identical, tempi. How does MPM do a better job than BPM of telling you that Cha Cha "feels" faster than Rumba when a person dances to the prescribed rhythm? Either way, the numerical value tells you that the tempo is the same (Both dances are 31 MPM or 124 BPM). So that shoots a hole in your theory that MPM is somehow a more accurate measure of perceived speed than BPM."

Okay, in latin syncopoation changes the pace. But latin tends to be unduly preocupied with such noise anyway

Take a look at Continuity Smooth, a subject with which I'm sure you are familiar. We can come up with a classic sequence of open natural and reverse turns that is equally characertistic for both waltz and foxtrot. Dancing it at your proposed 30 mpm foxtrot and 40 mpm waltz, are you going to try to tell me with a straight face that the waltz isn't faster? Of course it is - because it is the number of characteristic swing actions per minute, not the number of beats per minute, which determines the applicable speed of these dances.

"So tell us, what have you determined should be the defining quality of this "applicable speed"?"

It referes to the characeristic action of the dance: in waltz and foxtrot, the swing over 123 or SQQ (actually, over 3-12 or Q-SQ, but that's another story).
In latin it would probably be the half-basic.

"Of course, these are all silly questions, but that's because they stem from a silly definition of tempo."

It is NOT A DEFINITION OF TEMPO!

It is a definition of SPEED. 35 mpm is too fast to be comfortable in swing foxtrot, and it is too fast to be comfortable in waltz - because it is the same speed of action in both cases.

"Such silliness can be avoided by understanding that tempo is simply a measure of the speed of the music, while rhythm is something a dancer or musician simply superimposes on top."

Right, but missing the point. The speed of the dance is not it's rhythm, it is the number of it's characteristic element occuring per unit time.

This is a reply to Anna
I think this discussion is about how we 'hear' the beats. I would agree with ananymous on this point - we don't have to actually count (verbally or in our heads) to recognise where we are.
And yes, it's not too difficult to dance a fallaway reverse with slip pivot to four quicks or to S, &,Q,Q rhythm without having to count out the 4 beats. Whether i'm good enough to lead my partner through this subtle change is another matter
On the Richard and Ann Gleave point - they are teaching, and of course when practising or working on new routines or just trying different things, everyone counts the beats here and there. You have to if you're doing something without music.
When working on putting together figures for a new rountine, i would of course count the bars to see how the figures fit into a 4-bar or 8-bar sequence, usually without the music. But when competing i just follow the music and recognise when the 4-or 8-bar sequence is about to start.I assume most competitors do this. I'd lose count if i were counting!

Phil . .You do most likely know the Rumba. And you do understand eight bar phrasing as you have written so. Can you to a Rumba do this eight bar sequence without counting and continue to in time and within the eight bars of music till the disk stops playing
One Rumba Walk starting with the LF
Two Cucarachas to the R and L
One Back Basic
Two Walks
Two Cucarachas to the L and R.
and start again on the LF
If you can do that for eight sequences and confidently be in time and in phrase at the end without counting. Your a better person than i am.
Have you noticed that to mention phrasing here brings on Maxwall Smart's cone of silence.

Hi Anna
I don't do any latin dancing - not seriously anyway. Only Ballroom standard.

"If you can do that for eight sequences and confidently be in time and in phrase at the end without counting. Your a better person than i am."

Why is your counting any less likely to get off phrase than your dancing????

If you can't hear if you are on phrase, you won't be able to keep your DANCING or your COUNTING on phrase!

Why is your counting any less likely to get off phrase than your dancing.
Lets tell you what happens in our studio. Young and old alike have a turn of counting the timing for any particular group taught. The class dance, the nominated one dances and calls the timing to music. This is first done solo. If a mistake is made we do it again.
Also as we start the disk might already be playing. (You must have a tape where the teacher calls
5 6 7 8 ). We would never be allowed to start straight in . This is typical . I pick up the counting to myself 1234 5678 maybe again, then out loud 5678 to start the class on 1234. Is that clear. We have 12 year olds doing this. I dont think there are any here who can' t tell which part of an eight bar phrase is being played, whether it be the fourth or the eighth. Maybe it might be fortunate that we have a style here called New Vogue. In it if you are not very familiar with phrasing and timing it wouldn't be possible to dance. Even in the Social scene nobody would dance off beat or out of phrase or both.
Test. Try Tango 4/4. Two Walk. Link. Closed Promenade. Back Corte. If you dont stand still for two beats you can' t do a Reverse Turn on the correct beat. Try that without counting . Just for the record i and my partner never dance out of time. I am always aware of my steps and the beats being played. And I can also see imediately if any couple are out of time. Its called being trained correctly from the beginning.

"Why is your counting any less likely to get off phrase than your dancing.
Lets tell you what happens in our studio. Young and old alike have a turn of counting the timing for any particular group taught. The class dance, the nominated one dances and calls the timing to music. This is first done solo. If a mistake is made we do it again.
Also as we start the disk might already be playing. (You must have a tape where the teacher calls
5 6 7 8 ). We would never be allowed to start straight in . This is typical . I pick up the counting to myself 1234 5678 maybe again, then out loud 5678 to start the class on 1234. Is that clear. We have 12 year olds doing this."

And if you check back in a bit into general practice, you will typically find one or more dancing to their count - which is out of synch with the music! Counting gets you in that classic error of believing that something is so because your lips said it was. I say "one" so it must be one... WRONG.

"I dont think there are any here who can' t tell which part of an eight bar phrase is being played, whether it be the fourth or the eighth."

Fine, then there's no need to puts words on it. If you can hear it, you can dance it - and dance it with a lot more feeling when you let the music speak directly to your soul, and not get detoured through your verbal centers first.

"Test. Try Tango 4/4. Two Walk. Link. Closed Promenade. Back Corte. If you dont stand still for two beats you can' t do a Reverse Turn on the correct beat. Try that without counting ."

If it feels wrong to do the figure in the wrong place in the music, you don't do it there. No need to worry about the counting theory of why it's wrong - it feels wrong so it is wrong.

But something a more advanced dancer than you would instantly point out is that if you chance the emphasis of the figure, it's no longer wrong to dance it in that position on the music, because now you are dancing it in a way that matches the music. There is no "correct beat" for a reverse turn, there is only a correct place for a given way of interpreting a reverse turn.

"Just for the record i and my partner never dance out of time. I am always aware of my steps and the beats being played. And I can also see imediately if any couple are out of time. Its called being trained correctly from the beginning."

Demonstrably wrong, as you've just made a beginner-level false claim about what it means to be in our out of time!

I dont think you are rightin the head.Give me the timing of a Reverse Turn in the Foxtrot.
Tell me when the music stops and those beats stop playing do you keep dancing. Dont tell me that you have a blanket thrown over you.
Maybe you should dance to beat less music. That will solve your problem.Putting jokes aside i have met people who say they dont need to count. I have never met one who danced in time with the music. What their trouble really is they are not capable of hearing the beat beat beat of the tom tom. A few years ago there were some special tracks on a dance disk where the beats only were featured. That would mean you wouldn' t be able to move. I wonder why they did that.