Dance technique or entertainment?

For me it's dance technique everytime... It's called strictly come dancing, not strictly let me entertain you!

I'm sick of the judges over marking routines "because it's entertaining" and yet overlooking the fact the technique is lacking. Especially, when in the same breath, they pick up the smallest arm placement or sickle foot with other beautiful dances and mark down.

That's just not fair or even. It shouts double standards!!!

I'm with you all the way, but I don't think for one second that it will change. It goes even further than just entertainment as its a popularity contest too.More's the pity.

Its a bit of both for me.

I take a holistic view.

For me the voteworthy performances tend to feature good technique but there has to be more to them than that. On the other hand, I voted for one of Dave Myers' efforts last year.

Ideally both.

Forced choice: I would rather be entertained than see perfect technique for the sake of it in a light entertainment show.

If I want to see and appreciate technique I would watch a professional rather than a celeb who is dancing by numbers.

A bit of both and neither for me.

It's a LEARNING to dance show, not a dance show, so I look for improvement in technique. It's Saturday night and I don't want to be lectured, so I like a bit of entertainment.

Comedy routines? Not for me. People who are already great when they start? Not for me.

The judges should mark for entertainment if there are actually good performance skills to create that entertainment. Mark Benton's MC Hammer dance would be my example of that. When you get to the top of the leader board though it should be good entertainment and good dancing and neither should be missing.

It's up to the public to vote purely on entertainment if they want.

9 times out of 10, dancing technique.

However, if something is completely entertaining- i.e. the couple has no chance of winning and they know it so compensate for lack of technique, then sometimes it works, Russell Grant, Mark Benton, Judy Murray, are great examples of that.

However, once all those acts go, it has to be about the dancing. Hence I prefer the 3 girls in the series, and especially Pixie, to the three men, especially Jake.

I wouldn't want certain dances to be "entertaining" anyway. Good dancing can be entertaining. If I ever see a comedy Waltz because they go for "entertainment" over technique, that couple deserves to be eliminated.

If technique is all you're looking for there is hours of footage on YouTube. Saturday night is traditionally family viewing. I know sod all about dance but Jake's samba had me laughing and cheering, great entertainment!

Absolutely.

Realistically, it is impossible to get the technique down pat in the short time the novice celebs have in order to learn new techniques/choreography/character etc. on top of unlearning everything they had to learn the week before.

Sit back and enjoy the performance is my motto and it has worked for me to date

All about the best dancer for me, and when they dance beautifully I am entertained by it. Comedy routines and flat footed no-hopers don't I'm afraid.

Agreed. It for me is The Generation Game meets Come Dancing meets the Morecambe and Wise Christmas Special.

Well clearly it needs to be both but I fail to see why proper dancing in lovely costumes to beautiful music wouldn't be entertaining. Similarly I don't understand why dumbing down and introducing cheesy humour, clichés etc is considered to be more entertaining.

Technique please.

When strictly first started, it was a NO frills, NO props, NO backing dancers and stupid video show. Celebs learning to ballroom dance to beautiful correct music, for the dance being done, with the weakest dancers being eliminated each week, and it was entertaining. People loved it and it very quickly became the best TV programme But I'm afraid the last couple of years it has been trying to copy DWTS and the programme has lost it's way. It may please some as it is now but I believe there is a lot of people out there who wish it would go back to what is was, a light entertainment programme with a competitive edge.

That had technique by the bucket load from a number of performance genres.

I agree with all this.

Realistically, there is no way beginners can learn the proper technique of any dance in a few days - it can take years and years of practice, but there are some basics that can be learnt, and a certain amount should be.

The truth is, though, that it is far easier to teach someone a load of "crowd-pleasing" gimmicks and tricks than it is to teach them to dance properly.

I get annoyed with the judges who then mark up some performance that has little or no resemblance to the dance it was meant to be, on the grounds it was "entertaining". A dancing dog (Pudsey in BGT for example) can be entertaining but do we want to see him on SCD?

I would just have two chosen celebs male / female and two pros female / male from the outset actually learning to dance each dance properly and not just learning a choreography for 10 seconds plus 90 secs of faffin abaht.

So a 5 minutes dance by pro celeb couple A then analysis and bits pointed out and then a 5 minute dance with pro celeb couple B - the two celebs dance with each other for 5 minutes and then finally the pros dance with each other for 5 minutes.

So we now we've seen the VW.

Next week Anton and Erin are rubbish at Latin so we bring in Pasha and Kristina to do the teaching. an so on.

And the other pros do a group dance to the band featuring each couple on at a time.

All VW one week - Cha Cha Cha etc. etc.

There should be slow motion action replays to see tricky bits - just like on Match of the Day.

No set choreography given by alleged expert consultants. Appropriate music chosen on the day and not given to the dancers beforehand.

Sort of what happens in real life. Almost like this evening for me from 10:00 > 22>00

And on ITT detailed coverage of them actually learning to dance every day and none of the current dumbed down rubbish VTs.

But sticking with the present format perhaps it is best to look at it as a game of two halves.

Light entertainment with dross like Judy, Scott, Alison and Lisa Riley; and then settle down to the last 8 for decent dancing.

Those not interested in faffin abaht can skip the first 8 weeks and go dancing themselves.

I voted a few times for Simon and Sunetra but I'm not going to bother anymore and I don't really care who wins.

In fact all the dances are on youtube so I might not bother watching the show itself any more.

So last the 8 generating 12 minutes (less faffin abaht) of dancing. That'll do.

Mixture.

Don't like liftathons or something which barely resembles the dance it's supposed to be.

However I'm fine with pushing the envelope choreography wise, (Aliona) I don't mind an amazing lift that adds to a dance (even if illegal) or a bit of scene setting for entertainment. (Matt on a unicycle or doing back flips) or Artistic License in theme weeks (Flavia and Louis Halloween Tango and also their salsa or Aljaz and Abi's Salsa)

Anything Aliona does is fabulous. She does a great job of creating something the audience will love and will keep Len happy (although he's seems to have stopped caring about faffing about)

Dance technique done well is entertainment to me

But I don't mind choreography that thinks outside the box, like Aliona, Artem and Janette have all done with American Smooths. And occasionally a less competent dancer or complete no-hope is just so lovely and has such a good partnership with their pro partner that they win me over - Chris Hollins and Dave Myers being prime examples.

The application of correct technique is the foundation of good dancing. Without technique, the dancing will never look any good. This is the (main) reason why the Pro's look so much better than the celebs. as they have had years of learning and applying technique, years of practice and honing their skills.
Learn and apply the technique quickly and you will improve quicker - the reason why a dancer like Pixie would always look better than Judy, as she applies technique that she already knew along with what Trent is teaching her.
I don't think that viewers understand this fully, its not a case of just shaking it all about, its the technique that is the difference between a dance that looks great and awful. The choreography really is secondary. For those that blame the Pro's for bad choreography for any given dance, if you were to see professionals dancing those same routines, you would hardly recognise them, they would look brilliant. Again its the application of the technique that is the difference.
So in my book, get the technique right = great dancing = entertainment.

If the weakest dancers were eliminated week in week - how did Chris Parker get to the very first final?

When it started, Strictly was basically a one series charity money raiser. It was a programme cobbled together from the twin points of celebs learning a new skill being currently popular and a tie in to Sports Relief for Charity donations via the phone in. It took off because while people liked to see celebs fall in love with dance/maybe each other they also liked to see a man-child pretending to be Batman. While series 2 followed in the same year and the Charity changed to Children in Need nothing else did. The bones of 'What Strictly Is' have not changed from series one.

Agree with every word and would only add that once dancers reach a certain level and dancing against others of similar level we move into that difficult added ingrediant where for viewers/spectators/judges some couples are naturally more attractive to the eye
Not as individuals in particular but in presentation where the best in any group offer a warmth and good feeling to the eye
Difficult to measure but very real

Entertainment all the way for me.

Are you suggesting that the pros teach each other how to dance? Bit late for that, surely, as all the pros learnt to dance when they were kids.

They are all more than comfortable dancing with different partners, they do it all the time. Have a different couple each week demonstrate one particular dance, and a third party explaining the dance to the viewers if you wish. That might prove popular.