No, but spookily enough, we did that at an AT class a couple of weeks ago. Possibly all Tango-ers are big kids at heart.
There've been some interesting developments in the theory of "high achievers" over the past few years, which show, fairly conclusively, that "natural ability" is over-rated; what seems to be far more important is spending a good amount of time on practicing the relevant area.
The book "Outliers" is one of the best-known examples of this work - basically:
So it seems reasonable to say that, in the same way as "genius" is overrated, similar arguments apply at the "opposite end". That is, few or no people are genuinely incapable of progressing, given enough discipline and effort.Throughout the publication, Gladwell repeatedly mentions the "10,000-Hour Rule", claiming that the key to success in any field is, to a large extent, a matter of practicing a specific task for a total of around 10,000 hours.
That's not to say that "natural talent" is totally irrelevant - just that it's less relevant than hard work.
What is wrong, in the context of this discussion, is to think that anyone cannot learn musicality, in different aspects, given enough work and correctly-guided practice.
Or, don't give up hope.
Words to tremble by in any forum debates, those.
I agree that there's a lot of looking at the floor, but I'm not so sure about it being a shyness thing - I suspect it's more a "poor posture" issue, and possibly checking that you're not going to step on your partner's toes, which causes that.
I think it's probably a combination of poor posture, shyness and concern for your partner's feet. I did also add during the class that i will at times make a deliberate effort during a dance to look at the floor specifically at our feet if i was about to start some syncopations or footwork rhythms, again it is meant purely as visual assistance to the physical lead aspect of the dance
Malcom Gladwell never lets the facts get in the way of a good story. When he can teach a horse to do algebra*, I might start listening to him.
The actual research on performance - as oppose to pop psychology - is very different. But this probably isn't the place to debunk a second-rate pseudo-scientist (even one who is an excellent writer).
It most certainly has a beat. And a time signature. And a structure on top of that. It doesn't have any drumming, but the guitar is playing the baseline and both are tracking the beat. It is challenging, but I could do MJ to this (I have...).
As far as I'm aware, all music has a beat (there may be exceptions - but they aren't very likely to find their way onto a dancefloor, regardless of dance style).
When I've learnt blues, I've always been taught the basics as including the blues pulse. Not co-incidentally, another name for beat is pulse. I've not done a lot of blues, so I can't claim any expertise, but I'd be very surprised if it doesn't involve moving to the beat (I'd be surprised, because this is one of the most basic definitions of music). I've done a little more tango and, again, that's always about moving on the beat.
Where it varies more is the rhythm. This gets a bit fuzzier to track. Typically, you have the baseline defining the rhythm for the song (that's usually base and drums, but not always). The melody often has a similar rhythm, but not always. In more complex music, you'd expect a counterpoint. You could even have each instrument playing to a different rhythm. All of this occurs within the framework of the underlying beat and measure, but it's not the same thing. The base rhythm often defines the music style - cha, quickstep, jive, rock (ish), swing, etc, etc.
A great example of this is Mercy. Mercy's simple time (1 2 3 4), but the baseline played extends the 1 and plays on 2& (the intro is a little more complex). This changes the rhythm, but doesn't change the beat or the measure. It's definitely rock: an upbeat on the 1 and the downbeat on the 3.
I think, as taught, MJ is typically danced to the measure. But in practice, you see people dancing the baseline rhythm. Usually in 'MJ Music" (a loose term, if I've ever heard one) the base rhythm is close to the measure. In classical tango, there is a very distinctive base rhythm (slow, slow, quick quick, slow). What makes tango music interesting is there are often a lot of counterpoints. But in most tracks, each instrument is keeping a rhythm (or more than one, sometimes) - including the voice. When dancing, regardless of style, you can dance to any of those rhythms.
Understanding all of this is part of the technical aspects of musicality. Some people just feel it naturally - but it's all stuff that can be taught as well. If people struggle with musicality, then it's likely they don't 'just feel it' - so a more technical explanation may help. You will find that people with a natural aptitude for something tend to practice it more, thereby becoming better (nurture naturally nurtures nature... and vice versa). But everyone can learn to be better.
The most useful thing I do for my musicality is whenever I'm listening to music and don't have anything else on my mind, I try and find the beat and the rhythm/s in a track. Sometimes, I go looking for the counterpoints. Sometimes, I go looking for breaks. The point is that 'hearing' music can be learned.
Derrr.... I've just twigged who you are 'cos there was me thinking you were actually Martin Gold who is another dancer on the scene.. So let me set the record straight..
This is a total contradiction.. if the music described for a set is say S'Funk, as an example, how on earth can you try and please everyone in the room if they don't like Soul Funk?? A Djs job is to play what is advertised, but more importantly to dovetail with the DJs who have played before them and the style of music based on what you expect for DJ who is playing after them.
Again a total contradiction.. if a DJ has a particular style why would they deviate from it? The whole point of publishing a list of the DJs schedule is so that people who like a particluar DJ's style can see when that DJ is on. And in addition a lot of time and effort goes into creating the DJs schedule to create a total evenings music that comprises DJs of different styles - this means that there is always something for everyone rather than it being a total lottery. This is something I believe Ceroc do on their weekenders better than anyone else because firstly, all the DJs have worked together on numerous occasions and therefore know each other's style very well and secondly, all the DJs are not only great friends but also have a tremendous amount of professional respect for each others music. This means that the DJs don't play 'competitive' sets as everyone is pulling together as a team.
No you're not! You spent all of Saturday night moaning to anyone who would listen about my set on Sat night and telling them how much you hated it! And you complained directly to Mike Ellard. And not once did you come up to me and tell me to my face.. So let's cut the bullsh1t shall we..
If you had spoken to me directly I would have explained that I had listened and danced to the majority of all the 3 sets before mine and noted that they were Blues and Swing/Blues heavy - so my job was to create a balance by playing a set that was different to that. I can play Swing Blues and Blues sets until the cows come home, but that is NOT what my job is as a DJ on a weekender - my job, and this goes for all the DJs, is to create a balanced evening of music. If the set before mine had been WCS or funky I would have played something different, it's not rocket science! Does that mean that a set can be unpopular because one is adhering to set criterion? Yes, and that makes it even the more difficult for the DJ in question because it takes a while to encourage people back onto the floor when you have gone for a complete genre change.
We all know that you don't like certain kinds of music, and that's fine, you're dance ability just doesn't lend itself to being able to mix it up very well. But you should not project your insecurities as a dancer onto the DJ by claiming the music is rubbish when it's just simply not your cup of tea.
You need to remember, as difficult as it maybe for you, that the DJ's on the weekenders aren't hired just to please you!
I think I might have earned myself a nickname here....
I agree some of it can be taught but in reality, the people who'll gain the most out of the lessons, are the ones who may not already realise it but they do have an inherent sense of rhythm, they just need to be guided in what to look for and then it'll become unlocked!
I"m sticking to my guns, that some people just can count in time, the same as some people can't sing in tune! The can't hear it them selves but to anyone who can.. it stands out like a sore thumb
MODERATOR AT YOUR SERVICE
"If you're going to do something tonight, that you know you'll be sorry for in the morning, plan a lie in." Lorraine
Well... not really. Initially, you can and probably should walk to the beat of the double bass, but that's simply a starter. You're absolutely not supposed to mechanically listen to the beat and automatically move on it when you dance it. Yes, there is a structure and a beat, but the association between the beat and the movement in AT is less than in (say) other dances like MJ and salsa.
In other words:
Yes, that sounds right. Nicely put I think
I'd agree with this also.
As can moving to music of course.
I'd actually go further than that and say that hearing music can also be learned subliminally. I've been on entire 4 hour workshops in my beginning days that were organized around a flipchart explaining musical structure and to be honest I think they are a waste of time. When you are taught about bars, beats etc. etc. all it does is put an emphasis on counting and then your dancing goes down the pan because your brain can't cope with too many things at once.
All you need to know about music is that it HAS a structure and that means elements of a song generally repeat themselves. Intro, verse, bridge, chorus.. repeat... middle eight.. etc. etc. This therefore means that when you hear a stop in the music at a set point (after a chorus for example) it will generally be repeated. There are exceptions of course but we are talking about general principals here.
So how do you know what a piece of music is likely to do when it’s the first time you’ve heard it? The simple answer is to listen to as much music of varying genres as you can. What happens then is even if you are not aware of it your brain is picking up the subtleties of how the music is constructed. And this is also the case when you have music on in the background and are not aware of actually listening to it. Your brain in the course of a day picks up millions upon millions of pieces of information and screens the vast majority of it out (otherwise your head would explode!) BUT it’s not ignoring that information, it’s storing it away potentially for later use.
So the answer to musicality is simple... just have music of different genres playing as often as you can. When you do this for long enough something magical happens, out of nowhere you can lead your partner into a stop, a drop or whatever and suddenly found that you’ve hit a stop in the music without even consciously knowing it was going to be there! You’ll also find that you will start playing with your dancing more to fit the subtleties of a track, so may use a different foot pattern or attitude for the verse, another for the bridge and yet another for the chorus.
It really does work, but you do have to put the time in sourcing music to directly listen to or to have on in the background.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks