Talk:Ballroom dance

Intro

Removed this paragraph from List of dances in order to make it a simple alphabetical list of dances . This text, may or may not already be in this article. That text should, or maybe needs not be incorporated into the article. The part of the text which is a list of dances remains in List of dances. The accompanying text has been removed.  :Sfdan 06:05, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Modern Ballroom dances

• Foxtrot (later developed into Quickstep which is often seen instead today)
• Waltz (now in a couple of distict forms in their own right, notably flavors of
  Slow Waltz and Viennese Waltz)
• Tango (originally but no longer considered a Latin dance in its modern form while its origin,
  Tango Argentino (see also Tango), has been seeing a tremendous revival in its own right.)
• Polka (depending which part of the world one is in)

Is this page better off at Ballroom dancing?

---

Ballroom dancing is redirected to Ballroom dance. The question I posed in the first paragraph (14 Nov 2003), when I removed the text from another "inappropriate page" is still relevant. The question remains: Is there some text here that needs to be incorporated into the main article (i.e. Ballroom dance), or is there not? It appears to me that all (or most) of the information is already in the article, in one form or another. If somebody wants to check that out, and make a decision-- then we have answered the question. I did not want to throw out the text, without offering someone more interested in this article a chance to revive it (if needed). Sfdan 09:43, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I know that Ballroom dancing is redirected to Ballroom dance. But what I'm askign is should Ballroom dance redirect to Ballroom dancing instead. Mintguy (T) 11:08, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No. Mikkalai 18:01, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why not? The term "Ballroom dancing" is frequently used, whereas "Ballroom dance" isn't. Or is it? Mintguy (T) 08:47, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Like hell it most surely is. Hint: google is your best freund.Mikkalai 02:35, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"ballroom dance" 355,000 hits "ballroom dancing" 302,000 hits "ballroom dance club" 12,300 hits "ballroom dancing club" 6,100 hits "ballroom dance shoes" 27,500 "ballroom dancing shoes" 5,4600 I fail to see where people get the idea that there is no such word as "ballroom dance" (or "cha-cha-cha"). Mikkalai 02:35, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Mintguy; I think 'Ballroom Dancing' sounds better, as that is the correct social form. One could argue that a dance would be a ballroom dance, however, the accepted forms are 'ballroom' for the type of dance, like 'ballet' or 'modern', and 'Ball' for a charity dance.

However, I think dancesport people might prefer 'ballroom dance' as sounding more like competition. The article seems to have been expanded significantly, and eventually we may need two articles, one at 'Ballroom Dancing' and one at 'Dancesport'. How would that suit folks?

Quill 22:40, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Dancesport is already here. But there is more to competitive dancing than dancesport. The term was coined specifically in the quest towards Olympics. As a marketing trick it is used retrospectively: "The IDSF (formerly ICAD) was founded in 1957 to organize and improve DanceSport." Sheesh! Mikkalai 02:35, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

'Ballroom Dancing' is occupation. 'Ballroom Dance' is dance category. Mikkalai 02:35, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mikkalai on the Title issue- Ballroom Dancing, the act of the dance, Ballroom dance, the general category or grouping of dances. Like Modern Dance, even. On dancesport/ballroom dancing. We have both the articles. Perhaps Dancesport should be as much about the competitive aspects/run up to olympics as possible, and Ballroom dance specific information on Ballroom itself, without that focus? Lyellin 07:40, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

I am copying this section to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Dance#Naming conventions, since the issue is generic. Let's continue the discussion there. Mikkalai 16:36, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cha-cha-cha

No, no, NO! Unless it has been termed such in competitive dancing; in which case I can only deplore their choice. I will not revert this until someone confirms whether there is an official designation of 'Cha-cha-cha', which is musically incorrect; the dance should properly be called 'Cha-cha'. Quill 23:49, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

yes, yes, YES, *Y*E*S!

E.g., from IDSF rules: ab) in the Latin American dances (Samba, Cha-Cha-Cha, Rumba, Paso doble and Jive)

Quite contrary to your opinion, 'cha-cha' came from competitive folks, kind of trade slang, parlance of "initiated". And musicaly it is still cha-cha-cha. And the author of the dance called it cha-cha-cha. Mikkalai 02:44, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I know it did. Why is everybody so touchy? I know that Cha-cha is commonly called cha-cha-cha and was particularly called so in the 1950s and 1960s; I was asking if competitive folks now call it cha-cha-cha.

I'm referring to the count: 1-2-3-4-[and]-5-6-7-8-[and]. Cha-cha describes the split beat better; 'cha-cha-cha' suggests that the beats all have equal value, which they do not. I was only asking for the official line and I'm not willing to fight about it.

Quill 00:12, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The dance count is 2-3-cha-cha-CHA-2-3-cha-cha-CHA..(or 1-2-cha-cha-cha in Cowboy Cha-cha-cha). You are probably confused with voice cues: when used to cue steps, it is pronounced cha-cha-CHAAA. You should not confuse what is written and what is heard. What is more, Cha-cha is pronounces as CHA-cha, which is totally wrong it terms of rhythm.

Finally, the habit of some to count 1-2-3-cha-cha-1-2-3-cha-cha destroys the structure of the basic move: chachacha is a single action, although of three steps. And couting it as cha-cha-1 asks for temptation to break its smooth flow somehow.

<begin rant> A common mistake of beginners is when the see, e.g., 4-and-5, when learning steps, they pronounce them equally-timed, and caught in surprise when they sey "Five" when the music plays the 6th beat. <end rant>

As for who is touchy, who started shouting (no, no, NO!) and deploring here? While you describe me touchy, I was genuinely wondering why people ask questions without doing homework. We are working on encyclopedia here. This is not a leisury chat site. If one wants to contribute, this must be done with certain diligency. If one feels oneself as to decide the fate of the article (revert or not revert), please at least make sure that someone else would have hard time to find reasons to revert back. Mikkalai 01:33, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your writing (in general) suggests that you have a first language other than English? Certainly, even people who speak the same language natively can misunderstand one another in print. I was making a little joke--a play on words--in this case on the stress of the word: cha-cha-CHA->no, no, NO! I'm sorry you didn't take it as such. No, this isn't a 'leisury chat site' (sic), I agree, but neither is it a series of unilaterally-composed author-specific articles.

I did not take it upon myself to revert anything; I raised an issue on the talk page. Seems reasonable enough to me, and it would be a reasonable action even if I were totally and completely wrong.

I was talking about the musical beats, working on the assumption that a forward and back basic in social cha-cha takes 8 beats of music. That's all. No, I wasn't take about a voice cue. This: What is more, Cha-cha is pronounces as CHA-cha, which is totally wrong it terms of rhythm refers to syllabic stress, if I understand your meaning; it shouldn't affect the rhythm. As to your 'rant' (not meaning to insult--your word for it) again, I agree, but then, that's what dance teachers are for. This: Finally, the habit of some to count 1-2-3-cha-cha-1-2-3-cha-cha destroys the structure of the basic move: chachacha is a single action, although of three steps. And couting it as cha-cha-1 asks for temptation to break its smooth flow somehow is open to interpretation; I think I can guess as to your meaning, but I'd have to talk to you in person to be sure I didn't misunderstand you.

Perhaps you are unaware of my contributions to the article thus far, perhaps you are merely unimpressed. 'Without doing homework'? Hardly; I just look at it another way, and I'm sure you know that that's a large part of the social dance world. I think my modest input reflects my knowledge and affinity for ballroom danc(e)ing ;). Quill 22:06, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows "most common usage." So arguments from musical phrasing or what is printed in a rule book (that might be an archaic form) matters less than what people actually call it. At all of the local, national, and international competitions (and social dances) I've been to for more than four years, everyone calls it "cha-cha." This includes quite a few national champions and finalists, prominent judges, and teachers with decades of experience. (The only time I can remember it being called "Cha-cha-cha" was facetiously, enunciated very slowly with an posh, affected "Oxford accent.") If historically it was called "cha-cha-cha," if in certain parts of the world where it is danced apart from any relation to ballroom dancing or in some other context it is called "cha-cha-cha," I suggest the choice of name be decided on the basis of which sense it is being used in that particular sentence. Perhaps others who actively do ballroom dancing outside of the U.S./U.K./Canada have a different experience than I do, but if not, it is called "cha-cha" in the context of modern competitive and social dancing, and should be indicated as such in references to modern competitive or social dancing. -DoctorW 23:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Latin Swing

Could someone please confirm whether "Nostalgy Boogie" is spelled correctly? I did an internet search but was unable to find any mention of this dance. Also, I am not sure of the other details of the Latin Swing category. Lindy Hop is mentioned as belonging to both the Nightclub dance and Latin Swing categories-- is this true? Perhaps this section could be clarified. --Ben James Ben 19:54, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Attempt at clarification: "Latin Swing" is a category in which one can earn degrees from Bronze to Gold Star, just as in Standard/Latin (though in Standard/Latin, the degrees go up to Brillant). It was only recently introduced; the first time courses were held for it in Austria at all was last year (i.e. from October '03 until April/May '04). I assume that this category exists in the rest of the EU just as well (since, to my knowledge, the degrees are standardized across the EU), but I'll try to confirm that once the holidays are over and my dancing school's open again.

I can't really confirm whether Nostalgy Boogie would be its name in English, I can only speak for the German names; it is definitely correct, though, that Lindy Hop is a Latin Swing dance. Maybe confusion arises because you assume that these categories are mutually exclusive -- I assure you, they are not. I'd never even heard of Nightclub dances before reading this WikiArticle. Nightstallion 22:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay. It is just that there is no word spelled "nostalgy" in the English language. I'm not sure what English word was meant-- it could be "nostalgia" or "nostalgic". --Ben James Ben 04:27, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

Oh. Ahem. *nervouscough* Right. I knew that. *whistles* -- Seriously, though: You're right, of course. I occasionally have those austriacistic moments... anyway, neither "nostalgic boogie" nor "nostalgia boogie" really sound right in English, while "swing boogie" does, so for now, I'll assume "swing boogie" is the correct english term. Nightstallion 10:49, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NS,

Was I correct in assuming that Latin Swing is popularized in Europe? I didn't hear about it yet. Please add some prominent geography. Aslo, "recently" is bad word in wikipedia. Can you put the year in, please? Mikkalai 23:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I've said, I'll have to ask a few people at my dancing school for details, but what I can tell you now: I wouldn't say it's been "popularized", seeing as the category itself was only introduced last school year (i.e. October 2003). This is the second "dancing season" the category's existed. Without asking and verifying at my dancing school, I can only assure you that the category exists in Austria, and that I would assume it also does in the rest of the EU where dancing schools exist. More info after Jan 8th. Nightstallion 00:12, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nightstallion did not reply as promised. However, I did find site 1, site 2, and site 3: three Google-translated Austrian web pages. They all mention the Latin Swing category and list bronze, silver, and gold courses. The second site mentions that the category is for a "dance achievement badge" (English translation) from the Federation of Austrian Dance Teachers (Verband der Tanzlehrer Österreichs). I still have doubts about the officialness of the Latin Swing category. I would like to know whether any other EU governing body has adopted this category. --Ben James Ben 03:52, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying as promised; only explanation I can give is that a.) I was rather busy with school lately, end of term and last year and all, and b.) I forgot. Sorry. I'll ask today; it is at least official in Austria, though. Sorry again for the delay. UPDATE: Latin Swing only exists in Austria; the other Tanzleistungsabzeichen have similar counterparts in other European states, but also in other states of the world in general where the World Dance Federation is at work.Nightstallion 05:13, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

medal test vs. competition amended

I changed the first paragraph under "Strictly Ballroom." Hope no one minds my changes, explained here: I felt that "commonly accepted standards" and "conventional standards" was redundant, so I eliminated the former; I changed United States to North America, since we do the same in Canada, and left out "franchise studios," since here medal exams don't have to be held by a particular club. I think that classifying medal exam takers as simply social dancers is a bit limiting - someone who is serious but in the early stages of learning is not necessarily a social dancer. So I explained the difference in ability between competitive dancers and medal takers instead. Finally, "Novice" was listed between Gold and Pre-Champ, that can't be right.24.64.223.203 22:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The change that was made was to delete the portion that stated that medal examinations were for social dancers and that competitors would not dance at their tested level. This would be rarely true, and would indicate cheating in competitive events since they are typically entered by levels passed. --Dance Business 01:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That would depend on the system of competition. Where I dance, competition levels have nothing to do with medal tests. In my experience, people compete at levels based on how they have done in previous competitions, and someone competing at Bronze might very well have completed a gold medal. That's because in medal tests you are measuring up to a general standard to show you have completed the learning at a certain level; whereas in competition, your competitors have not simply passed, but mastered that level. It's not deceptive, but perhaps you are used to a different system.24.64.223.203 02:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Dance

Portal:Dance has been started. Please have a look. --Roland2 12:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

POV too?

In times past, ballroom dancing was "social dancing" of privileged classes, leaving "folk dancing" for the lower classes. Today ballroom dancing is much more democratic, and the boundaries between once-polarized ballroom and folk dances become blurred.

Yeah, that's not POV at all.

How do Wikipedians not recognize this as a completely personal evaluation of modern ballroom dancing? This is not encyclopedic information. <unsigned>

Oh yes, this is encyclopedic. Today I dance in the same hall with a millionaire and a truck driver. It was unimaginable 100 years ago. What kind of other evaluation do you want? Horse's? Alien's? Everything is "personal evaluation". What exactly is wrong in this section? mikka (t) 10:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, it's fine as it is. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 12:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think society has changed, rather than dance forms. There is a lot of stealing between forms of "folk" or "bar" dancing and ballroom forms. I think thats the meaning, and I think it is fine as it is. Removing the tag. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to check the reference to what was said in the phrase: "Dance historians usually mark the appearance of the twist in the early 1960s as the end of social partner dancing." This may be true in some contries, but would it be a global truth? I really don´t know and do not have any clue on where to find statistics to confirm or invalidate this statement. My perception (really really personal point of view) is that this statement is not true in Brazil, where I live. I believe this may also not true in many other countries. Is this phrase really important? Shouldn´t it be removed if there is no comprovation of this? --Fredguth (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

cleanup

This article does not define ballroom dancing, it regularly uses 'of course' which is POV, It uses phrases like C/W bars without explaining or wikilinking them, and I have no idea what ballroom dancing is after reading the article. I don't understand it at all. Usually Wikipedia is quite good at explaining things like this for me. How do I recognise whether a dance is a ballroom dance? Is it done in ballrooms? What's a ball? This articles raises more questions than it answers. In fact, it answers very few for me. It was probably written by someone assuming the reader would know what ballroom dancing is - well, I don't! Please clarify! Gerrit ^CUTEDH 20:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

For "ball" see "Ball (dance)" ;-) --Roland2 16:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of revert

User:DoctorW, Category:Ballroom dance is in two categories, Category:Partner dance and Category:Social dance, both of which are in Category:Dance. Since ballroom dance is in Category:Ballroom dance, it is also in all three categories I also mentioned; that's what's meant by "overcategorization". —Nightstallion (?) 07:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Online video demo of each dance

External links to online video demos of each dance were reverted twice (but not defended here by the editor who placed them on the article page). I think the video clips, or something similar, are very helpful (especially to those completely unfamiliar), and speak to the problem that Gerrit mentioned just above. How can someone understand what dance is about from a verbal explanation alone? Other sites like ballroomdancers.com have good online videos, but too detailed (broken down into figures) for a casual reader, who needs a very general snapshot of each dance, which is what that link provided. There may be other, better links, but something similar is very important to link to in my opinion. -DoctorW 23:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

We have to be careful about point 1 under WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking and points 3, 5, and 11 under WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. I'm not convinced that the link added meets all these (is Starlite TV connected with dancescientist.com? Doesn't look like it.). I'd be OK with linking to videos from an MIT collegiate competition (see [1], for example), as those are ad-free and the person running the site owns the copyright or at least a license to use the videos. Thoughts? --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 04:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think if one really wants to know what a dance looks like, they can easily find one via any of the numerous online video sites such as youtube. While taking advantage of the medium to show videos of each respective dance may seem like a good concept, then we embark on a slippery slope of how to portray them accurately--the links given did not portray the higher proficiencies of ballroom dancing, nor did it portray the lowest...furthermore most were American style yet did not caption them as such. How do we provide links that accurately convey to the reader what they're actually looking at? To me, to provide extraneous media that gives more questions than answers or worse, gives potentially misleading portrayals, is worse than providing no media at all. Tendancer 21:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Two years have passed since the discussion above. A huge number of videos have been added to the web during this time. I'm reverting the addition of an external link with videos, but I've come up with an alternative solution: linking to search results for each dance on YouTube. YouTube's own search algorithm determines which videos rise to the top of the search list, and this changes over time. This solution seems to draw on the democratic/Wikipedia/Google style approach. I believe this is a positive additional resource for this page. What do others think? I propose we keep it to the 8 most common dances I've included (it's only a sample after all); otherwise the list gets too long. -DoctorW 23:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. But I am not sure if point 1 of Wikipedia:EL#Restrictions_on_linking applies in case of You Tube. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It took me awhile to find appropriate searches, but take a look at the links now that they're done. None of them go to a particular YouTube video. -DoctorW 23:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ballroom Dance and Desires

I have always liked dancing and loved watching, so being able to find a website that gives a plethera of information for me and gets me excited is a plus. I am very pleased with the contributiions that people have made to make the Ballroom Dance page. I am currently taking a ballroom dance class at my school and I think it is the best time that I have had in a long time. It is a great way to get in shape and meet new people, especially if you take it by yourself. It forces you to speak to others that are also partnerless to talk. Thank you to tose who have made this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Channy22 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Olympics?

This is on page page right now: "For the 1st time in 2008, ballroom dancing will feature in the Olympics, with Jean-Marie Leveque and Francois Beauchemin expected to challenge for gold." I can't find any reference to ballroom dancing or dancesport in the olympics at all. Is it an exhibition or demonstration sport? Is this statement correct? --68.255.76.117 (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. `'Míkka>t 19:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

References

The Modern Ballroom Dancing by Victor Silvester (Ebury Press, 2008), part I - History refers "We gain our first authorative knowledge of the earliest ballroom dances towards the end of the sixteenth century from a priest, one Jehan Tabourot, who, under the nom the plume 'Thoinot-Arbeau', published in 1588 his 'Orchesographie'". Maybe this could be as the missing reference for the definitions and history part? Those who understand the French language could comment after reading for example the following link: [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.17.205.227 (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What's with the picture?

Why is the picture at that "arty" angle? Panzer V Panther (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess because diagonal gives a wider field. - 7-bubёn >t 00:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Impressive; you presented a legitimate reason. Alrighty. Panzer V Panther (talk) 05:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)