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.

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