All partner dances translate over to Salsa fact or fiction?

[Offbeat]

The Angolan traditional dance is semba, not kizomba. (Semba is a style danced at a lot of kizomba parties, usually for only a few songs per party; personally I find it fun but extremely repetitive after a couple of songs.)

Kizomba dancing was created/refined in Europe, just as (linear) salsa dancing was created/refined in New York. So kizomba dancing, including what is termed "traditional", was created and refined in Europe. The urban kiz and tarraxo styles were then further developed in France and can be seen as standalone styles.

Kizomba is only fairly recently being danced more in Angola/Africa, due to the European influence. Most of the music we dance kizomba to does not come from Africa. For example in France we dance kizomba to a lot of "ghetto zouk" music. Ghetto zouk music has been around for a long time and has a ton of culture associated with it, so if culture is what you want, there it is

So Angolan kizomba is to kizomba dancing as Puerto Rico salsa is to (linear) salsa dancing: the relationship is a bit bidirectional, but it is the European kizomba that influenced Angolan kizomba much more than vice-versa, just as Puerto Ricans on the island were influenced by salsa dancing from New York, much more than vice versa.

As for "no culture/history" -- I fail to see how this serves as an argument for how enjoyable a dance is. It's not like most people dance salsa because of culture or history. Even those of us (myself included) who know a lot about the culture and history don't love dancing salsa mainly because of that, we mainly love dancing it because we love the music/dance itself.

Tango has a ton of history and culture, so by your reasoning we should all love tango too, for example, or we should love dancing to Romanian folkloric music which has thousands of years of history and culture!

Personally I always found link between Kizomba and Semba spurious. They are considerably different dances. To me it felt like artificially created linkage to give some heft to Kizomba being “Angolan” origin dance mystic. Nothing about Kizomba to me suggests it developed in Angola.

 

[TikiTaka]

Kizomba is only fairly recently being danced more in Angola/Africa, due to the European influence. Most of the music we dance kizomba to does not come from Africa.

This I am aware of. Hence why I said feels history-less. Urban Kiz might have been around longer than Angolan Kiz but when I hear it, that's not how it feels to me.

As for "no culture/history" -- I fail to see how this serves as an argument for how enjoyable a dance is.

Do I need an argument for how enjoyable a dance is to me? The music and dances I tend to enjoy have some characteristics but it is not necessarily based on some argument. Everybody has different tastes, obviously.

On the other hand you seem to believe everybody should love Kizomba just because you find it much more "playful and interesting" than other dances.

Tango has a ton of history and culture, so by your reasoning we should all love tango too, for example, or we should love dancing to Romanian folkloric music which has thousands of years of history and culture!

I tend not to enjoy music that feels culture and history-less, that does not mean I like all music with tons of culture or history. Just like I do not like bland food, but I don't love all spicy food.

 

[Dissonant Harmony]

I can’t think of many good techniques from other partner dances that you can’t learn from dancing Salsa.

If Salsa dancers learned to dance Salsa properly rather than get good at another dance, they’d be farther along in their Salsa.

Sure, if you can learn a skill in a different dance, and then apply it to Salsa, theoretically, a teacher could have taught you that skill through Salsa.

However, in reality different styles or a different or different scenes might be putting better emphasis on something, or teaching it better, so please don't unless you venture there, you will not be learning that or getting proper practice.

I.E, I have had many friends who, upon learning Zouk in privates, started getting excited about how: "In Zouk (as opposed to Salsa) you can do this, and you can go that...", and I had to tell them: "In Salsa too... It's just that your Salsa teachers never told you that it's important; so you heard this for the first time in Zouk".

 

[Sabrosura]

On the other hand you seem to believe everybody should love Kizomba just because you find it much more "playful and interesting" than other dances.

Just because you like it doesn't mean it's for everyone.

No, I never said "everybody should like it"

What I am saying is that there are a lot of salseros who condescendingly look down on kizomba without actually knowing much about it, thinking it's the same BS as BS.

So my point is that if they actually were to learn to dance kizomba, they'd see that yes, for those dancers who like playfulness and musicality and connection in their dancing (and many of us SFers tend to like those things ), kizomba is extremely enjoyable, and yes, a lot more so than salsa in those particular aspects -- playfulness, musicality expression, connection.

 

[bailar y tocar]

For people who wish to do free flow movements in their dancing... salsa is not that dance. Salsa is truly restricted as everything has to happen in 4 or 8 or 16 etc counts. Any movement, pattern or play on rhythm that breaks through that restriction is going to feel offbeat.

That said...

The speed of the songs in salsa is usually fairly fast compared to other genres. So dancers who can dance "sharp", can get a lot of movement, patterns and flow going in a very short time.

To continue the idea of the OP (are other dances useful to improve salsa)...

These genres are extremely helpful in improving movement, body control and improvisation within the rhythm phrasing (which will help with improvisation in salsa):
The Rumbas Yambu, Guaguanco, Columbia and the Orishas Yemaya and Chango. (Note: these are not partner dances per se as one is not connected to another dancer).

 

[David]

I feel there if someone is a "dancer" they will understand their body well, it will help them to be a good salsa dancer. Because salsa is not something that we narrowly define with rules that say salsa must be "this way", what people learn else where can be brought over someone. I think there is a ton of crossover between West Coast Swing and Salsa, but I would go so far as to say a good Waltz dancer will be able quickly pick up salsa.

 

[Offbeat]

For people who wish to do free flow movements in their dancing... salsa is not that dance. Salsa is truly restricted as everything has to happen in 4 or 8 or 16 etc counts. Any movement, pattern or play on rhythm that breaks through that restriction is going to feel offbeat.

Every dance other than contact improv and blues/fusion has a structure. You can break free from 4/8 counts in days if you have a right partner.

 

[Offbeat]

I feel there if someone is a "dancer" they will understand their body well, it will help them to be a good salsa dancer. Because salsa is not something that we narrowly define with rules that say salsa must be "this way", what people learn else where can be brought over someone. I think there is a ton of crossover between West Coast Swing and Salsa, but I would go so far as to say a good Waltz dancer will be able quickly pick up salsa.

The cross over between WCS and salsa is in the moves. The rhythm to which they are doing and the movement itself requires work. I have seen people struggle when they cross over because you can tell their rhythm and movement is off.

Why do you think a good waltz dancer will pick up salsa faster?

 

[MrR]

Speaking as someone who left Salsa largely behind and only dances it like once every other month:
Dancing and learning other dances has changed my Salsa a lot - but it has not made it worse.

In learning to dance we learn the "how" (to dance) and the "what" (to dance).
Learning a new dance (with out limited resources) will overwrite a lot of the "what" but often add on the "how" or give you new insights about similar things from a new angle.

Not having enough resources to fully keep up different dance styles, I Zouk my Salsa and Bachata a lot nowadays. Flowing moves - what was described as "always slightly behind" is a result of transferring the weight towards the end of the step, not at the beginning. The way of stepping most commonly used in Salsa feels hurried and backleading for me, when dancing in close hold.

And then every dance has it's specific rituals. Cultural knowledges not transitioned into technique.
Standard patterns and stylings for example, which require specific experience with them to not break the dance, when the partner does them. They are part of the "what". Many of them are dysfunctional if applied on a partner who doesn't specifically know them.
These largely get lost when you get out of the bubble of the dance.
The more a person focuses on one dance, the more the rituals are part of their dance. The more the person generalizes, the less those rituals are visible in their dance.

I have gotten to know Salsa as a very low technique dance (at least how it is commonly taught in Germany) with relatively many of these rituals.
So for someone deep into that culture it's yes, focusing a lot on other dances makes you a worse Salsa dancer.

Otherwise I'd say that a broader view of dancing, insight in other techniques, other ideas, other tastes has a higher chance to improve you as a dancer which can quickly increase you as a Salsa dancer, too.

Just you first would need a certain base level, a certain understanding. Beginners / low level dancers who are still struggling with real basic stuff (often unknowingly) can be overwhelmed too quickly.

 

[1derpalm]

Speaking as someone who left Salsa largely behind and only dances it like once every other month:
Dancing and learning other dances has changed my Salsa a lot - but it has not made it worse.

In learning to dance we learn the "how" (to dance) and the "what" (to dance).
Learning a new dance (with out limited resources) will overwrite a lot of the "what" but often add on the "how" or give you new insights about similar things from a new angle.

Not having enough resources to fully keep up different dance styles, I Zouk my Salsa and Bachata a lot nowadays. Flowing moves - what was described as "always slightly behind" is a result of transferring the weight towards the end of the step, not at the beginning. The way of stepping most commonly used in Salsa feels hurried and backleading for me, when dancing in close hold.

And then every dance has it's specific rituals. Cultural knowledges not transitioned into technique.
Standard patterns and stylings for example, which require specific experience with them to not break the dance, when the partner does them. They are part of the "what". Many of them are dysfunctional if applied on a partner who doesn't specifically know them.
These largely get lost when you get out of the bubble of the dance.
The more a person focuses on one dance, the more the rituals are part of their dance. The more the person generalizes, the less those rituals are visible in their dance.

I have gotten to know Salsa as a very low technique dance (at least how it is commonly taught in Germany) with relatively many of these rituals.
So for someone deep into that culture it's yes, focusing a lot on other dances makes you a worse Salsa dancer.

Otherwise I'd say that a broader view of dancing, insight in other techniques, other ideas, other tastes has a higher chance to improve you as a dancer which can quickly increase you as a Salsa dancer, too.

Just you first would need a certain base level, a certain understanding. Beginners / low level dancers who are still struggling with real basic stuff (often unknowingly) can be overwhelmed too quickly.

My old salsa teacher (a not unknown dancer in my closest bug city) has a habit of making fun of zouk styling in salsa.

 

[MrR]

My old salsa teacher (a not unknown dancer in my closest bug city) has a habit of making fun of zouk styling in salsa.

Mocking other dances is common in basically every dance. The only places they don't do it is where they are so close shut, they don't even know about the other dances.
The less people have insight in other dances and the more they think theirs is the real deal, the more they do it.

And as a side comment:
Salsa is the only dance where I have seen "professional teachers" (follows) not being able to transfer into a somewhat ok mid level dancer of other dances within minutes.

 

[noobster]

Not having enough resources to fully keep up different dance styles, I Zouk my Salsa and Bachata a lot nowadays. Flowing moves - what was described as "always slightly behind" is a result of transferring the weight towards the end of the step, not at the beginning.

Why would you ever transfer weight at the beginning of the step?? That forces you to fall onto your incoming foot and closes off any other movement possibility. Useful for sprinting quickly. Terrible for dancing.

 

[Dissonant Harmony]

Why would you ever transfer weight at the beginning of the step?? That forces you to fall onto your incoming foot and closes off any other movement possibility. Useful for sprinting quickly. Terrible for dancing.

Seems to me that you don't see the full context of such mechanics.

Using your kind of logic I can argue that sending a leg forward while applying pressure through the rear leg means you are spending time balancing on a foot that is actually placed behind your line of gravity, hence forced to pressing very hard to keep your balance through fiction, and now releasing that tension will result in a lunge forward.

 

[NPEADS]

I do feel like exposures to west coast, tango, kizomba made me better at musicality and lead follow techniques.

 

[Chris_Yannick]

So for someone deep into that culture it's yes, focusing a lot on other dances makes you a worse Salsa dancer

Yep. Also the ones who go on to learn other dances and come back to Salsa better than before usually had the intent to transfer over those skills to Salsa since that’s what they live and breath the most.

 

[noobster]

Seems to me that you don't see the full context of such mechanics.
Using your kind of logic I can argue that sending a leg forward while applying pressure through the rear leg means you are spending time balancing on a foot that is actually placed behind your line of gravity, hence forced to pressing very hard to keep your balance through fiction, and now releasing that tension will result in a lunge forward.

Only if you are throwing your center of gravity forward together with your moving foot. Same idea as transferring weight at the beginning of the step. Still a bad idea. Center over a stable foot/feet is the only way to achieve controlled motion. If your center is over a foot that has not landed you are out of control.

 

[Dissonant Harmony]

Only if you are throwing your center of gravity forward together with your moving foot. Same idea as transferring weight at the beginning of the step. Still a bad idea. Center over a stable foot/feet is the only way to achieve controlled motion. If your center is over a foot that has not landed you are out of control.

You see? Now you supported this technique by providing the right context.

Now let's go back to your claims, and try applying the same context: "Center over a stable foot is the only way to achieve controlled motion".

Why would you ever transfer weight at the beginning of the step?? That forces you to fall onto your incoming foot

Why do you assume that would be falling?
Who's to say the fore-foot is not stable?

and closes off any other movement possibility.

Again, you are assuming falling, and no control.

-----

What you have in mind is the idea of being balanced over your rear leg, and using that leg to send your center forward over the (now balanced) front leg.

But one can also do the very same with the front leg: Be balanced on it, and keep pushing it to rotate his pelvis - which will result in the other foot being prepared to be stepped on, then transfer his center over that one, so again, he spends the rest of the time pushing into the floor on a stable feet, that is in line with his center.

 

[noobster]

Why do you assume that would be falling?
Who's to say the fore-foot is not stable?

By definition if you are still at the beginning of the step you can't have already situated the moving foot.
You have to pick up the foot (beginning), move it (middle), and place it (end). Then you can do your weight shift. If you shift your weight prior to placing your moving foot you are overcommitted.

What you have in mind is the idea of being balanced over your rear leg, and using that leg to send your center forward over the (now balanced) front leg.

But one can also do the very same with the front leg: Be balanced on it, and keep pushing it to rotate his pelvis - which will result in the other foot being prepared to be stepped on, then transfer his center over that one, so again, he spends the rest of the time pushing into the floor on a stable feet, that is in line with his center.

You mean if you are stepping backwards? Sure, it's the reverse case of the forward step. This is trivial. You still don't want to put your weight on it until it's placed.

 

[TikiTaka]

The weight shift actually happens before and during the stepping action. Beginners tend to do it after, but end up doing an movement that goes in the opposite direction of "Latin movement"

Could also just be confusion because it is a difficult topic to describe over an internet forum.

However, in my opinion the focus should be not on the "stepping leg" while it is in the air but on the "standing leg". While the stepping leg is in the air it cannot really do much. The standing leg on the other hand pushes into the ground and creates the weight shift that both feels good and looks good. Once the "stepping leg" lands, you do a similar push with that leg as well.

if you want to look sexy anyway.

 

[Dissonant Harmony]

You mean if you are stepping backwards? Sure, it's the reverse case of the forward step. This is trivial. You still don't want to put your weight on it until it's placed.

The subject is that other technique you had criticized based on the assumption that it breaches certain principles and foundation. (where your 'first technique' doesn't).

I just told you that your principles and foundations can be applied to that other technique without being breached.

So why are we talking about the 'first'?

-----

I never suggested shifting weight onto an unstable foot.

What I am saying is:
If there is a 'sending leg', and a 'receiving leg':
Where the goal is to move your center from on top of the first -> to on top of the latter -

then already know you can do that by pushing with the sending foot.

However, one can do that by "pulling" with the receiving foot. (or, any mix of the two).

*Now, if your definition of shifting weight "too early" is: Before you had planted your foot, stable, on the floor, then we are in agreement.

**Anyway, I find the use of the word 'weight' very confusing (unless properly defined). The "line of gravity" (or "center of mass") and "the spot where you apply pressure to the floor" are not the same thing, yet some use them synonymously.