"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

"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.