Failure to Learn On2

Status
Not open for further replies.
GForce85 said:
While I'm mostly in agreement with you in this topic, I think this example may not serve the way you think. As children, we're only given the basics of these topics, so it's no big deal to learn them at the same time. Note that by the time we get through university the variety of topics we study has narrowed considerably while the depth of study on each topic has expanded considerably, and those who wish to become teachers must specialize even further beyond that. I can dance on1 and on2 proficiently, but being able to dance proficiently is like having a bachelor's degree. The depth of knowledge required for teaching goes beyond that (which is not to say that one cannot specialize in both, but it is to say that one must put in the time to specialize in both rather than specializing in one and then depending on the fact that they can dance the other competently).

EDIT: It seems I was a little too late with this point and it looks like I just reworded what toan-hoang said XD

2nd EDIT:

I live in LA so yes, I have seen this (besides my own case). I've only seen a handful of people give up on it entirely. The important thing seems to be dancing on2 when possible (i.e. when you're dancing with someone who can do both just dance on2) to get the repetitions. In that aspect the part about doing a little on2 and picking it up was slightly off the mark. Look at it more like turning on faucets than flipping a light switch. If you have the hot water going but you gradually increase the amount of cold water then eventually the water won't be hot anymore. You don't have to stop dancing on1 completely (IMO and IME), but you do have to increase the amount of on2 dancing relative to on1 dancing for at least a while. 5 years ago out here reducing the on1 amount to 0 was pretty unrealistic.
Click to expand...

Similar minds huh...
 
GForce85 said:
While I'm mostly in agreement with you in this topic, I think this example may not serve the way you think. As children, we're only given the basics of these topics, so it's no big deal to learn them at the same time. Note that by the time we get through university the variety of topics we study has narrowed considerably while the depth of study on each topic has expanded considerably, and those who wish to become teachers must specialize even further beyond that. I can dance on1 and on2 proficiently, but being able to dance proficiently is like having a bachelor's degree. The depth of knowledge required for teaching goes beyond that (which is not to say that one cannot specialize in both, but it is to say that one must put in the time to specialize in both rather than specializing in one and then depending on the fact that they can dance the other competently).
Click to expand...
I'm fine with most of what you say here, except I wouldn't place being able to dance On1 or On2 proficiently at the level of BA. We know of many cases of pre-college children being proficient in dancing salsa, and those children IMO were not particularly gifted - they just had the exposure and some perseverance. Being proficient in salsa (one timing or another or both) IMO is not much more than a GED or HS equivalent. The only reason more people do not have this proficiency is because they were not exposed to it earlier in their youth. Consider music - people who go to musical conservatories (equivalent to university/college) are already quite proficient in one musical discipline or another.
toan-hoang said:
Interesting thought.

And yes, at my University my professors specialised in only one area and taught that area exclusively. We had general lecturers to do the rest but that was normally lower level stuff. This is because there is so much to know and you as a teacher have to know more than the just the content you are teaching but around the subject. I always liked to ask additional questions and the generic lecturers would always be caught out where as my professors owned the subject.

I am not too sure which country you are from but in the UK we study general stuff from ages 5-11 (or at least I did). Then during our formally assessed years (14-16) we do 9 subjects (on average), the pre-university (A-levels) we did 3 subjects and then studied a single subject at University (I did computer science). Can you see a trend here? As we go into a subject deeper do you not think that we need to narrow our focus a bit? Maybe there is a reason for this? What do you think? Also consider that the majority of the Salsa dancers are NOT learning Salsa full time and only do this once or maybe twice a week, I went crazy and was doing it 6-7 times a week but this is the exception not the rule. So given that as we get older we have more life issues, family maybe, additional stress maybe we cannot dedicate time to student all those subjects when we were children when we had no stress and spent all the time studying.
Click to expand...
I have varying degree of familiarity with education system of 3 different countries. I'm most familiar with the USA, but I also lived in the UK for 5 1/2 years in an academic setting. The US system is less specialized than the European system, and my educational background is considered more general even by the US standards. For example, I majored in a scientific field when I was in college yet I also took multiple courses in literature, history, art and music (by multiple, I mean more than one course in all 4 topics above). Most of the professors in my college department taught 3(!) courses a year, and a smaller number taught 2. In non-science departments, teaching load was even higher. In my grad school, there also were professors who taught more than one or two courses - not necessarily in the same year (e.g. they might teach one class one year and then another class the next year). So did I ever think that professors who taught more than one course was not as good as professors who only taught one course? No way! The main factors that mattered were their expertise and preparation.

toan-hoang said:
Have you seen with your own eyes people that have danced loads of On1 and was able to do a little On2 and still pick it up? and if so what were your observations? I don't mean to be rude but I often see a lot of people talking theory as opposed to seeing stuff work in practice. I actively work to help people learn On2 and would like suggestions if you have any. Concrete examples would be great :)
Click to expand...
Yes. I have stated this earlier in this thread. They took whatever practice opportunity they had, and they learned it. This was in the UK I might add - Cambridge to be specific. Some people did it with me. Some people did it somewhat separately at around the same time. I think synergy of having multiple interested people at the same time probably helped. Others who started somewhat later might also have benefited from having us. Sure there were some who were more or less doing On2 only too, but most did not abandon On1 at any time. It probably helped that most were young, but youth has its advantages (and disadvantages).
 
toan-hoang said:
Me and my partner were asked to teach at El Grande but the catch was that we had to teach On1. El Grande is London's largest Salsa party so we had to say yes.

I have never had to prepare for a class so much in my life the same goes for my teaching partner. For a 45 minute class we had to spend close to 2 hours preparing and making sure we knew all the counts for all the steps. Tough stuff...
Click to expand...

This is where I'd have a huge advantage. I dance equal parts on 1 and on 2, and teach both. Most classes I teach are on 1, however I can say categorically that not only do I dance on 2 well and know all the theory, I dance it better than many who only dance on 2. Yes there are plenty of on 2 dancers who only dance on 2 yet still dance on the 123 567 without allowing for the "swing" feeling (build up) by stepping before the 1 and 5, from a musical perspective on the second open tone of each measure half a count before, we all know being on the 4& and 8&. I have studied extensively, and have attained most of the refinement in my dancing from various privates including Oliver Pineda, Sharon Pakir and Mariano Neris.

I'm an example of an instructor who despite primarily teaching on 1, as is reflected in the majority of the scene here, my preference is on 2, and I'm a big believer in being bi-lingual. I'm also a big advocate of learning Son and Rumba, and it's surprising how many instructors, both on 1 and on 2, are lacking in those skills. In reality, the more you stick with understanding and dancing only one method or count, the more you're limiting yourself, imho. Not only that, but for students who are on 1 dancers, wanting to learn on 2, the perspective of an instructor who also first learnt on 1 and persevered to dance on 2 well would be invaluable.

Edit: Again I agree wholeheartedly with wildbill's post - it's certainly possible to be both an excellent on1 and on2 dancer, and teach both with equal competence. The differences in the structure of the dances are minor, of course the dynamic is different, however not so different that you can only be extremely good at one or the other. To actually "master" anything, really is impossible, as even after dancing for 100 years you'll still have more to learn.

Sure, it may be more difficult to learn on 2 well after having on 1 entrenched, but the effort is the same as with learning anything new, simply stick at it and eventually you'll get it, continue sticking at it and within 5 years you'll become quite good, within 10 very good, within 20 a veritable expert (not master, there is a difference). This can happen when you're doing both on 1 and on 2 at the same time, you'll become very good within 10 years. Because most of the techniques are shared, the only thing that would add a bit of time to the learning process would be the shift in timing and dynamic, and by that I mean less than 10% additional.
 
Last edited:
Sabrosura said:
And now that the red pants are passe, Milan has come up with another very original salsa fashion--red everything else :cool:
Click to expand...
White pants are the new red pants, and red shoes are the new white shoes! One can also mix it up by wearing red shoes, red pants, and a white shirt/top.


The salseros from Milan might think they're fashion forward, but Switzerland, the Red Cross, and Santa Claus were doing the red and white combo a long time ago...
 
P.S. Smej, next time you go to Milan to buy red clothing and other salsa fashion items, can you tell these Milan on2 guys that their steps need to be a little bigger? :troll:
 
hyh said:
I'm fine with most of what you say here, except I wouldn't place being able to dance On1 or On2 proficiently at the level of BA. We know of many cases of pre-college children being proficient in dancing salsa, and those children IMO were not particularly gifted - they just had the exposure and some perseverance. Being proficient in salsa (one timing or another or both) IMO is not much more than a GED or HS equivalent. The only reason more people do not have this proficiency is because they were not exposed to it earlier in their youth. Consider music - people who go to musical conservatories (equivalent to university/college) are already quite proficient in one musical discipline or another.

I have varying degree of familiarity with education system of 3 different countries. I'm most familiar with the USA, but I also lived in the UK for 5 1/2 years in an academic setting. The US system is less specialized than the European system, and my educational background is considered more general even by the US standards. For example, I majored in a scientific field when I was in college yet I also took multiple courses in literature, history, art and music (by multiple, I mean more than one course in all 4 topics above). Most of the professors in my college department taught 3(!) courses a year, and a smaller number taught 2. In non-science departments, teaching load was even higher. In my grad school, there also were professors who taught more than one or two courses - not necessarily in the same year (e.g. they might teach one class one year and then another class the next year). So did I ever think that professors who taught more than one course was not as good as professors who only taught one course? No way! The main factors that mattered were their expertise and preparation.


Yes. I have stated this earlier in this thread. They took whatever practice opportunity they had, and they learned it. This was in the UK I might add - Cambridge to be specific. Some people did it with me. Some people did it somewhat separately at around the same time. I think synergy of having multiple interested people at the same time probably helped. Others who started somewhat later might also have benefited from having us. Sure there were some who were more or less doing On2 only too, but most did not abandon On1 at any time. It probably helped that most were young, but youth has its advantages (and disadvantages).
Click to expand...

Agreed..

which also raises the question thats been posed.. How come UK( and about 100 other countries ) ballroom dancers, at Amat. AND Prof levels dance, compete and teach in TEN different dances with expert knowledge.

Also, if one enters the US dance system,as a Prof. add another 13 dances to your "toolbelt "...
" Dance " is extremely inter related and yet, at the same time , diverse. Its the commonality that ties them together .
 
hyh said:
I know plenty of people who dance happily both On1 and On2 although I will admit that I haven't gone about asking them how they did it. In my personal experience, I rarely had nights of more than half On2 dances when I was counting such stuff when I started with On2. You can look it up, but it will be a long reading. I doubt that Terence had to stop dancing in other timings in order to do On1 or On3. I agree that immersion might accelerate the process, but I'd also think that many people would quit if they are told that it's the only way.

All of this is applicable to learning to dance period. Jumping levels prematurely is a very common occurrence.

Just plain wrong. Terence has been teaching On2 longer than you have been alive. He now also teaches On1. Because he also teaches On1, he is less qualified to teach On2 than you. Is that your logic?
Click to expand...

Damn it !.. now ya had to bring logic into the discussion:D

Yep. I "fought " dancing/teaching on 1 for the longest time,(talk about muscle memory !!) but, states-side, thats what sold .

And, from a musical standpoint, there are some songs, for me, that just seem to fit "1" better ( and there are tens of 1000s of latinos who feel the same ! ) .
As a dancer, one should be equipped to adjust, to virtually any dance situation from a music perspective .
 
terence said:
Agreed..

which also raises the question thats been posed.. How come UK( and about 100 other countries ) ballroom dancers, at Amat. AND Prof levels dance, compete and teach in TEN different dances with expert knowledge.

Also, if one enters the US dance system,as a Prof. add another 13 dances to your "toolbelt "...
" Dance " is extremely inter related and yet, at the same time , diverse. Its the commonality that ties them together .
Click to expand...
Haha honestly I was expecting this point to be made on the first page when the jack of all trades/master of none point came up :)
 
Jag75 said:
I dance equal parts on 1 and on 2, and teach both. Most classes I teach are on 1, however I can say categorically that not only do I dance on 2 well and know all the theory, I dance it better than many who only dance on 2.

Yes there are plenty of on 2 dancers who only dance on 2 yet still dance on the 123 567 without allowing for the "swing" feeling (build up) by stepping before the 1 and 5, from a musical perspective on the second open tone of each measure half a count before, we all know being on the 4& and 8&. I have studied extensively, and have attained most of the refinement in my dancing from various privates including Oliver Pineda, Sharon Pakir and Mariano Neris.
Click to expand...

Hey Jag...I've meaning to do this for a while since you talk so highly of your own dancing (and in general you seem very knowledgeable judging from your posts) -- I finally went and searched for a video of you dancing. :) Only found the pachanga shines and performance vids; your on2 "swing" (as you nicely called it) is quite inconsistent, that is to say it's not really there--your on2 honestly looks a lot like the "on1-on2" that on1 dancers often end up doing when they convert, it doesn't really have the "tension build-up and release" / "swing". (Sorry -- maybe you have better videos, especially since these were not social dancing ones...But the pachanga was very nice)
 
Last edited:
terence said:
And, from a musical standpoint, there are some songs, for me, that just seem to fit "1" better ( and there are tens of 1000s of latinos who feel the same ! )
Click to expand...

Yeah right, what do they know about latin dancing. If they were reading this forum, they would know on2 fits better :rofl:
 
GForce85 said:
The on7 revolution has already begun and is growing whilst we bicker about on1 vs on2.
Click to expand...

Yes, it looks like it is exactly what is danced as on2 in my and surrounding venues (closer to on3 than to on2 and if we add 4 because it is also on1 alike, we get exactly "on7")
 
Sabrosura said:
your on2 "swing" (as you nicely called it) is quite inconsistent, that is to say it's not really there--your on2 honestly looks a lot like the "on1-on2" that on1 dancers often end up doing when they convert, it doesn't really have the "tension build-up and release" / "swing".
Click to expand...

I didn't see videos you mention, but from my experiences in my area, if the follower doesn't go into it, leader has no chance to build up the tension (in CBL for instance). What followers here (in my on1 dominant venue) usually do is to delay the step before the break too long and then go straight into CBL (like in video in "me doing basic" thread). Funny thing is - many of them will do that nicely when dancing on1
 
Sabrosura said:
Hey Jag...I've meaning to do this for a while since you talk so highly of your own dancing (and in general you seem very knowledgeable judging from your posts) -- I finally went and searched for a video of you dancing. :) Only found the pachanga shines and performance vids; your on2 "swing" (as you nicely called it) is quite inconsistent, that is to say it's not really there--your on2 honestly looks a lot like the "on1-on2" that on1 dancers often end up doing when they convert, it doesn't really have the "tension build-up and release" / "swing". (Sorry -- maybe you have better videos, especially since these were not social dancing ones...But the pachanga was very nice)
Click to expand...

You'll probably be surprised by this response but I actually agree with you. My dancing today is somewhat different than it was even 6 months ago, especially after discovering Son. Only 6 months ago I really had no idea how to dance it, but the way I learnt it was using counts 2,3,4-6,7,8 - similar to Power 2. Learning Son actually gave me a better idea of how to use that tension release and now I'm almost addicted to it.

I also took a private from Melissa Rosado, quite an extensive one. Whilst I had an idea of contra-body movement and how to apply it to my basic, she taught me a better way to understand the weight shift whilst executing patterns as well. I feel this has really improved the dynamic of my dance.

I do talk up my dancing a bit, but at the same time I'm well aware of the huge gulf between my dancing and a highly trained professional who's been dancing and teaching for 10 years. Having said that, I still can teach patterns using the on2 convention just as easily as I can using the on1 convention, because I dance both. This being the point of my post to toan, if I can do it, then a highly trained professional of many years should have little difficulty dancing both styles (counts) equally well, if having trained in both, and should still be exceptional at both counts.

I do appreciate the feedback you've given of my dancing - believe me I'm even harder on myself :-)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top