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!

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.