quick-quick-slow OR slow-quick-quick? Why?

[smiling28]

Hi fantastic team

I was asked this question at the week for on2.

Whether it was:

quick-quick-slow (popular interpretation)

(ladies RF short, LF long, RF replace)

OR

slow-quick,quick

(ladies RF short, LF long, RF replace)



I explained I felt I could see what the lady meant as slow-quick-quick however I felt it was quick-quick-slow as this places the emphasis on the 4 and 8 change of directions meaning the replace step sets up the slow.


Sort of saying the same thing in a way. Does that make sense?

What do you guys think please?

 

[peachexploration]

Alot of it has to do with the music. See this thread :arrow: The Clave

 

[salsaonline]

Hi fantastic team

I was asked this question at the week for on2.

Whether it was:

quick-quick-slow (popular interpretation)

(ladies RF short, LF long, RF replace)

OR

slow-quick,quick

(ladies RF short, LF long, RF replace)



I explained I felt I could see what the lady meant as slow-quick-quick however I felt it was quick-quick-slow as this places the emphasis on the 4 and 8 change of directions meaning the replace step sets up the slow.


Sort of saying the same thing in a way. Does that make sense?

What do you guys think please?

I'm sure someone will jump all over me for this, but here goes:

From the point of view of the lady: When she steps back right, forward left, feet together, the count is quick quick slow. There's a reason for this: during the slow beat, she should be changing weight from her left to her right so that she can prepare to step forward with her left. Good luck changing weight if you're bringing your feet together on the "quick" part of the beat.

 

[chr]

You may want to check out the discussion here:

http://www.salsaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=576&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=223

 

[terence]

Hi fantastic team

quick-quick-slow (popular interpretation)

(ladies RF short, LF long, RF replace)

OR

slow-quick,quick

(ladies RF short, LF long, RF replace)


The time allocation has little or nothing to do with the " length " of a movement in this particular context-- only how much time is employed in creating same.
It would be more appropro of " style ", and distance travelled between movements, again, would be largely dependant on the figure at hand or to follow .

You have to go back to Danzon, to understand the musical composition .

Danzon was danced commencing side left, close right to left-- Q, Q ( 1,2 of the bar ), then-- fwd on Slow ,left foot ( 3,4 of the bar )

When Mambo was first introduced, it "opened " the box movement of Danzon, by stepping side on 4,1, changing it to a" slow ", and breaking back on 2 .

.

Heres an interesting oddity-- the F/A schools commence teaching their Rumba-- side q.q., whilst A/M teach-- fwd Left on a slow to commence .
Providing the slow occurs on the 1st bar of music, then it would still be rhythmically correct .

The main contention here, is that A/M way, does not follow the " call and response " theory .

Add to this, Bolero, which is also a template for the basic configuration of Mambo, starts side left ( slow, on 1,2 ) breaks back on 3 ( which is what many PR break on, in salsa )

 

[salsaonline]

I just noticed that the original question was about on2. I don't know anything about on2, so ignore my erroneous response. Sorry about that.

 

[Flujo]

Hi fantastic team
I was asked this question at the week for on2.

Whether it was:

quick-quick-slow (popular interpretation)
OR
slow-quick,quick

I explained I felt I could see what the lady meant as slow-quick-quick however I felt it was quick-quick-slow as this places the emphasis on the 4 and 8 change of directions meaning the replace step sets up the slow.

What do you guys think please?

I'd go with what Peach said. Check out those threads . It's all in the music as that is what inspires you to dance either on1 or on2 steps. I would also go with slow-quick-quick as there seems to be a long 1 and 5 count when dancing on2. If you listen to some teachers count they usually stretch it out like this:
|1.....2..3 | | 5.....6..7|, going with the clave.

Even though there are more steps in the slow section the feeling if you follow the clave/count is still slow, with the direction change being the 'quick-quick'. That's my interpretation anyway.

 

[terence]

Hi fantastic team

Even though there are more steps in the slow section

HUH ??

 

[Flujo]

Even though there are more steps in the slow section

HUH ??

Don't forget I'm still learning Terrence, which is why I added that what was said was just an interpretation. Do you think it would have been better to ask me to explain myself rather than just say "HUH??". What I meant was that when dancing on2 my interpretation is that the timing is slow-quick-quick even though there are more steps in the slow on2 vs on1.

on1:
The 3 & 4 is the slow section and there is a rest - no steps

on2:
The 1 and 5 counts represent the slow section of the step but have movement - almost 1 and a half steps.
(Edit) Make that 8&1 and 4&5.

Does that clear it up? If you can correct me then please do. We're all here to be educated, not to stand proud in ignorance.

 

[terence]

Even though there are more steps in the slow section

HUH ??

What I meant was that when dancing on2 my interpretation is that the timing is slow-quick-quick even though there are more steps in the slow on2 vs on1.

on1:
The 3 & 4 is the slow section and there is a rest - no steps

on2:
The 1 the 5 represent the slow section of the step but has movement - almost 1 and a half steps.

Does that clear it up?

again you are saying there are more steps-- there are only 3 weight changes in the bar-- whether or not you count them qqs or sqq -- the TIME allocation is the same for the slow-- 2 beats and 1 for each q .. Fwd and back .( If double time is used, then thats a different matter )

and the original q was about HOW to count, it not where--- as a former examiner, I would expect any individual to count the basic as it is danced -- QQS-- prep steps are that , and that only .

When put as a declaritive statement , it is open to challenge-- in the form of a Q-- not .
And -- it was meant as a" surprise " to your comment-- not a degradation .

 

[Flujo]

again you are saying there are more steps-- there are only 3 weight changes in the bar-- whether or not you count them qqs or sqq -- the TIME allocation is the same for the slow-- 2 beats and 1 for each q .. Fwd and back .( If double time is used, then thats a different matter )

I'm getting a little confused to be honest which means I probably don't quite understand the whole quick-quick-slow thing in relation to on2 just yet. Might just see what others have to say.

and the original q was about HOW to count, it not where--- as a former examiner, I would expect any individual to count the basic as it is danced -- QQS-- prep steps are that , and that only.

Yeah I gathered that. slow-quick-quick was my answer but could be wrong.

When put as a declaritive statement , it is open to challenge-- in the form of a Q-- not .
And -- it was meant as a" surprise " to your comment-- not a degradation .

That was a misinterpretation on my part...apologies. That's the problem with text when it's in caps. The original comment was more of an interpretation and wasn't meant to sound declarative.


@Smiling:You ask some interesting questions! Any joy in finding an answer yet?

 

[terence]

Simply put-- dancing on " 2"-- is just that-- breaking back ( and fwd) on the 2nd beat of the 2 bars, in the octave .( ergo- qq.s = 2 3- 4/1) or== as many like to enumerate-- 2 and 6 .

 

[smiling28]

I just noticed that the original question was about on2. I don't know anything about on2, so ignore my erroneous response. Sorry about that.

Actually great response because it encapsulated the weight change which I am interested about - thanks!

 

[smiling28]

Hi fantastic team

quick-quick-slow (popular interpretation)

(ladies RF short, LF long, RF replace)

OR

slow-quick,quick

(ladies RF short, LF long, RF replace)


The time allocation has little or nothing to do with the " length " of a movement in this particular context-- only how much time is employed in creating same.
It would be more appropro of " style ", and distance travelled between movements, again, would be largely dependant on the figure at hand or to follow .

You have to go back to Danzon, to understand the musical composition .

Danzon was danced commencing side left, close right to left-- Q, Q ( 1,2 of the bar ), then-- fwd on Slow ,left foot ( 3,4 of the bar )

When Mambo was first introduced, it "opened " the box movement of Danzon, by stepping side on 4,1, changing it to a" slow ", and breaking back on 2 .

.

Heres an interesting oddity-- the F/A schools commence teaching their Rumba-- side q.q., whilst A/M teach-- fwd Left on a slow to commence .
Providing the slow occurs on the 1st bar of music, then it would still be rhythmically correct .

The main contention here, is that A/M way, does not follow the " call and response " theory .

Add to this, Bolero, which is also a template for the basic configuration of Mambo, starts side left ( slow, on 1,2 ) breaks back on 3 ( which is what many PR break on, in salsa )

Seriously glad and appreciative that you replied. Your knowledge is invaluable. Alas I am sort of lost on your post though. Could you or someone else translate/elaborate in layman's terms please.

 

[smiling28]

@Smiling:You ask some interesting questions! Any joy in finding an answer yet?

Will let everyone know when I do. For me, dancing is about exploring. Some people like water, others mountains and others caves. I am VERY interested and fascinated to see how people decide to interpret the dance and choose to live in different places.


The key to your dancing/self development differs on who you are and how you view/live in the world. So very interesting to me to see how people understand the concepts that come so natural to many.

*the MASTERS of questions are children. Man, they can ask some GREAT direct questions that are so logically beautiful

 

[Flujo]

The key to your dancing/self development differs on who you are and how you view/live in the world. So very interesting to me to see how people understand the concepts that come so natural to many.

*the MASTERS of questions are children. Man, they can ask some GREAT direct questions that are so logically beautiful

So true and so well said. To view the world through the eyes of a child is to view the world as a place of wonder.

You may want to check out the discussion here:

http://www.salsaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=576&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=223

2nd that. In case you haven't already checked it out, I just read the first couple pages of this thread again and what you're looking for might there smiling. There is talk about the whole slow-quick-quick vs quick-quick-slow thing in regards to on2/et2. Been visiting here for almost a year and have only just found out how helpful the search feature is!

Edit: It's not the first couple pages it's pages 15-16.

 

[Salsamakossa]

Is this a slow 'transition' into a campaign to ask PeachExploration to reopen that that thread? Lol...

You may want to check out the discussion here:

http://www.salsaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=576&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=223

2nd that. In case you haven't already checked it out, I just read the first couple pages of this thread again and what you're looking for might there smiling. There is talk about the whole slow-quick-quick vs quick-quick-slow thing in regards to on2/et2. Been visiting here for almost a year and have only just found out how helpful the search feature is!

 

[Flujo]

Ssshshhhh!! :nope:

 

[hyh]

Is this a slow 'transition' into a campaign to ask PeachExploration to reopen that that thread? Lol...

You may want to check out the discussion here:

http://www.salsaforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=576&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=223

2nd that. In case you haven't already checked it out, I just read the first couple pages of this thread again and what you're looking for might there smiling. There is talk about the whole slow-quick-quick vs quick-quick-slow thing in regards to on2/et2. Been visiting here for almost a year and have only just found out how helpful the search feature is!

I was never for closing that thread. I was thinking about writing something about my experience on dancing On2 back then (now over a week ago), but I had this gut reaction when I saw the subject title again - because I strongly felt that I was learning to dance On2 in addition to dancing On1 rather than trying to switch from dancing On1 to dancing On2 (thus my objection to the word transition). I thought about starting a new topic but given the history of locking new threads when there is already a pre-existing thread on "same" topic, I decided to take a different approach. I couldn't be bothered to start a new topic to say what I've said in this paragraph - I just gave up.

I'll stop before someone accuses me of hijacking threads...

 

[Flujo]

No worries. In all fairness, there is not a single person on here that I have spoken to about learning on2 that no longer wants to dance on1. I think we just want to be more versatile dancers hence that thread and the sharing of knowledge/experience.

Anyway, what do you reckon? quick-quick-slow or slow-quick-quick?