partnerdanceonline.com
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 15, 2014, 08:54:49 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
A lot of people are visiting Smiley Smiley
Undecided Undecided but not many are posting....
please say hi Cheesy
116447 Posts in 1855 Topics by 221 Members
Latest Member: EVE_Dance
* Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  partnerdanceonline.com
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

 1 
 on: September 09, 2014, 10:02:40 PM 
Started by elisedance - Last post by elisedance
Nice to hear an 'insider' view.  I really think that most people are honest and are trying to do their best.  But they are also human with the same foibles.  A really corrupt judge is very rare.

 2 
 on: September 09, 2014, 02:25:38 PM 
Started by elisedance - Last post by Rugby
I agree.  I was just talking about this with some people.  They wondered how the same top couples would get different placings at different comps.  I was saying that it was not always due to politics but rather what the individual judges thought were most important in a dancer.  If you have a technique first judge then he will forgive lack of presentation over better technique.  If you have a judge that likes presentation or is swayed by it then they will judge the couples with stronger presentation over technique.  I have talked to darn near all the judges in Ontario and some from Quebec and got to know what they preferred.  During the competition I could almost tell who was going to get what and it would also very much answer some of the reasons why the marks could be so far apart or so different depending on the judging panel.  I remember that if we had a strong "Presentation" panel we would make that a focus at the comp. 
Now that I am around the judges a lot I have gotten to learn why they mark down particular couples and why they put up others.  I would say the majority of times it was not political or some such thing but due to a personal preferance.  Other times a couple was marked down because they had moved up to the next level but did not in time show improvement on something such as still taking heel leads where it should be toe.     

 3 
 on: September 09, 2014, 07:32:37 AM 
Started by elisedance - Last post by elisedance
I think some of the judges need to explain their marks.  It should be interesting.   
yes, but we have to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  A judge may just call it as they see it - and that call may correspond to the students they have taught.  Indeed, there is that likelihood since those students are dancing as the judge thinks is correct.

There is not always corruption just be cause the scores follow a possibly predicted pattern.

 4 
 on: September 09, 2014, 03:24:53 AM 
Started by elisedance - Last post by Rugby
I think some of the judges need to explain their marks.  It should be interesting.   

 5 
 on: September 03, 2014, 08:35:09 AM 
Started by elisedance - Last post by QPO
I wonder if there should be open marking and that might make them think twice about what they are doing.

 6 
 on: September 02, 2014, 03:31:46 PM 
Started by elisedance - Last post by elisedance
We usually are, it's just that we find out later into the conversation that we're looking at an asymmetrical object from two different angles and claiming that one is not seeing what the other is seeing.   Grin

[I find there are equally big disagreements when people look at a perfectly symmetrical object from the same angle Tongue Roll Eyes ]

 7 
 on: September 02, 2014, 03:30:27 PM 
Started by elisedance - Last post by elisedance
...I still think that they should not work with any competitors at least three month prior to the comp.
...but that cuts into their income and could make them loose clients (who would go elsewhere) so I think its too severe

 8 
 on: September 02, 2014, 03:08:27 PM 
Started by elisedance - Last post by Some guy
However, my comment on truer words was for you, QPO.  You mentioned absorbing the music and dancing to the music.  That's deep. 

The common trend is to add a layer of "count", a constantly moving target, to the music, which has a tendency to remove all musicality.  The interaction between the count and the body takes center stage, and the direct connection between the music and the body is severed.  People who don't count, on the other hand, and let the music do the counting for them, are able to connect directly to the music.  The body is in motion within the music, effectively making the music stationary.  No need to chase a stationary target.  That way, there's no such thing as music being "too fast" or "too slow".  Music just is.

The concept of counting, I think, does the most damage to limit any kind of connection with the music.  One doesn't count while singing, one doesn't count while listening to mentally keep up with the music and enjoy it.  So the concept of counting while dancing is mind boggling, unless of course, they want to give themselves a constantly moving target.  Listening to music, then counting to it, and then trying to dance to the count while listening to the music, "...is like trying to hit a bullet with a smaller bullet, whilst wearing a blindfold, riding a horse" – Montgomery Scott, 2258 (Star Trek).

 9 
 on: September 02, 2014, 02:49:45 PM 
Started by elisedance - Last post by Some guy
We usually are, it's just that we find out later into the conversation that we're looking at an asymmetrical object from two different angles and claiming that one is not seeing what the other is seeing.   Grin

 10 
 on: September 02, 2014, 09:21:23 AM 
Started by elisedance - Last post by QPO
Truer words... Wink

I love it when they are on the same page. Grin

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!