Aren't there two elements to dancing - the steps and the performance?

A good dancer is one that masters both. They execute a technically sound routine and they capture the attention and the hearts of the audience in the process.

So when people quack on about so-called 'better dancers' leaving the competition at the expense of worse ones, what criteria are they using to come to such a conclusion?

If somebody can't move the viewers enough to pick up their phones and vote for them, why do they deserve to stay? Gabby was a case in point. She was clearly very competent, but her dancing left me cold. John might lack technical ability, but his dances are always memorable.

So I think the term 'better dancer' is a subjective and misleading one.

Well said Sid!! It's all about what turns you on or as I like to think of it the Ice Cream syndrome. Gabby was mint choc chip for me, and well, I'd rather eat my own feet than eat mint choc chip ice cream!

I think this is a good point, missed by so many on this forum.

It can't just be about technical issues, because the camera work doesn't allow the audience to see much of the footwork etc, and therefore, it's not possible for the general public to vote on such points.

I always liked Bob Dylan, but can he sing?

Rachel is my favourite but i don't hold a grudge against John because she was in the bottom 2.
What does annoy me is people who whinge about John and yet admit to vote for another person purely because of the other celebs personality!
Ironic or what.

..............no.

Yes Sid good point. One man's trash is another man's treasure. God now I sound like Tom.....lol

Hiya Sid, how're you doing, mate?

I'd go along with 'subjective' but not 'misleading'.

I reckon that the technique is of primary importance and that the performance element only kicks in if the celeb meets a minimum technical standard - that would be the 'subjective' part of it; my idea of an acceptable standard will be different to yours.

For some people, the technique is less relevant and performance is all - that's why the likes of John Sergeant and Kate Garraway (and many others) do so well.

I'm not sure if I see anything misleading anywhere, though.

Hi Anna - and snap!

Rachel & Vincent are my number one couple. I'm mad about them

But, if they didn't manage to outshine John in the minds of viewers (for whatever reason) then they deserved to be in the dance-off instead of him. That's the name of the game.

I think you're right to say that dance has two aspects, Sid, but it's how you build on those that separates the good from the great!

For me, 'better dancers' come out of the woodwork when it's time to start improving. At the beginning, it's all about finding out what level people are starting at - and only then can you make a judgement about how 'good' or otherwise they are in your eyes.

Using your example, I never liked Gabby either, though I could see she was technically pretty good - but the interest wasn't there for me because she was always going to be technically able, she just hadn't made the effort to perform. John, on the other hand, was never likely to be technically able, so it was wonderful to see that he did have performance ability.

For my money, the two who have made improvements in both style and technique this series are Lisa and Jodie, though from different initial levels.

I can only think of a few celebs who managed to improve both technique AND performance in any marked fashion, and they're usually the ones who do brilliantly in the end - Matt Dawson and Gethin Jones spring immediately to mind.

Hey Johnster

I'm good mate

I agree with you to an extent. However, I suspect the majority of viewrs are not in a position to determine how technically proficient a performance is given that they are not experts in dance themselves.

And it's difficult to rely on the judges for that information because they are almost always in conflict with one another about whether the frame was good/bad, whether the foot-work was erraneous or perfect and so on.

But surely 'performance' as you define it is subjective itself? I did not find John's cha cha this week memorable (or, at least, not in ways that make me want to see him dance again) so he failed on both counts for me. Clearly he did not fail on the 'performance' element for many but it is a matter of personal opinion in a way that technique doesn't really seem to be.

(Incidentally, this is the first week I have felt like this about John's performance, so the subjectivity is relative to, quite literally, the actual performance of the specific dance, rather than the more nebulous concept of being able to convey emotion via dance which Gabby never really managed to do in any dance.)

I agree about improvement but in peole like Christine and Jodie. John has not improved IMO. Hes got worse.

I agree with John that it's subjective but not misleading.

I for one don't know much about the actual techniques. But after watching Strictly for three seasons now, it's not difficult to pick up what is meant by 'flat-footed', 'missed heel leads' and 'upper body line/frame' etc. If I see a hunchback of notre dame posture, even if that person is doing an excellent job with his/her feet or performing decently the dance, I would be very distracted and tend not to vote for him/her.

The 'performance' factor of a dancer is also subjective. When performed well, the dancer should touch the heart and move the soul so much that it becomes irresistible not to pick up and phone and vote for him/her.

Take John for instance. He's clearly lacking in techniques (flatted footed, bad posture etc.). But in his earlier dances, he seemed to enjoy his dancing and 'performed' them quite nicely. But of late, I detect even that element missing from him. Thus, yes, I do think he is a worse dancer than Heather in that respect, and if we are living in a perfect world, he should be in the bottom two, not Rachel.

Hmm, sorry for the rambling...

Some very interesting views

I think the whole nature of the show is subjective.

Is it a dance contest or purely light entertainment?

Is it about consistency or improvement?

Is it about technique or performance?

They sound like obvious statements to make but I think sometimes we lose sight of the fact that we are all looking for different things. There is no right answer.

So Sid, would you say that John is a 'better dancer' than Heather because, if you lump together technique and performance, he polled better than her?

You're right about people not being able to determine good technique from bad - with my level of knowledge and the quality of the coverage, I certainly can't. I often think something was quite good, only for the judges to unite in condemnation. And that suggests to me that I am placing more emphasis on performance than I thought I was.

Hmmm. Makes you think.

For me the 'better dancer' is the one who can actually do both; perform and do the steps.

John is an example who can do the former not the latter, Gabby would have been the other way round. Therefore there are better dancers than both of them. Someone who is an excellent technician but poor performer doesn't rate more highly to me than someone who is a very good technician and has the performance skills.

I hope that everyone uses their own unique set of criteria whilst attempting to minimise the effect of bias. That's what I try to do.

One of the reasons I use this forum is to share information about - and insight into - why we like the dancers or personalities that we do. I know there will never be consensus but I see definite benefits in trying to gain a better understanding of views contrary to my own.

Unfortunately what can get in the way of that is phenomena such as bandwagon effects, confirmation bias, expectation bias, reactance...or any number of other cognitive biases.

This week reactance, for example, is very much in evidence in connection with John and the result on Saturday and the judges comments about it all and the 'indignant' response of some FMs to John's survival. This emotional stuff doesn't really get us anywhere in terms of assessing the contestants...but it's all part of the Strictly pantomime.

I think the whole nature of the show is subjective.

It has to be, it's a reality show.

Is it a dance contest or purely light entertainment?

It's an entertaining dance-based popularity contest.

Is it about consistency or improvement?

If it's consistently bad, or worse a regression, then no, no. Otherwise, those who are consistently good or made a great improvement makes not much of a difference to me.

Is it about technique or performance?

Both. But for a viewer with no dance experience such as me, I would probably go for performance (though it's already subjective how one constitutes a good or bad performance) more than techniques. But having been classically trained musically, if I see someone with no sense of rhythm or couldn't dance to the beat, it often jars and distract me from the dance.

Nor can I but sometimes you do spot things - like Tom's little stumble on Saturday and Lisa's occasional wobble and think I noticed that why aren't the judges picking up on it?

See, I am the opposite, but come to the same conclusion!

I usually go 'that wasn't bad but something was missing', or 'yeah, some good bits but nasty body line', and the judges agree with me. But when we differ, it's usually about the performance element - dances that leave me 'meh' often have the flawsome foursome raving about them.

Curiouser and curiouser

I'd be interested to know what your definition of the other phenomena you have mentioned and how you think they affect the program.

Originally Posted by taxi_driving

I always liked Bob Dylan, but can he sing?


Today 15:39
mintchocchip

..............no.


YES!!!!

It's the same point that Sid makes about the dancing. Singing is about more than hitting every note perfectly.

I wouldn't want a world where everyone sang like Michael Ball

Yes, fraid so Johnster!

His superior performance outweighed the edge she had on technicality for me.

I thought Heather was a very sweet and sincere lady, but her dancing failed to stir any emotion or interest in me - and surely that's what dances are supposed to do - inspire us?

I agree with you entirely Claire.

And based on that criteria, I don't believe we've lost anyone superior overall to John yet.

Yes, true. Michael Ball has a theatrical kind of singing. Just like I won't want to listen to Bob Dylan attempting to sing Phantom of the Opera, even if he's supposed to be rather 'deep' and 'emotive' in his singing. No way.

I could write essays but if we focus on the best known of those I've mentioned...the bandwagon effect.

Basically it's the widely observed tendency of people to 'follow the crowd'. For example, there's a widespread perception backed up by some evidence that John is a very popular cast member. That leads to the very real possibility that some viewers / voters may be jumping on the John bandwagon without really assessing his merits as a contestant.

Now it's not the kind of the thing that people are necessarily aware of...and they may not admit it in an internet forum even if they are aware of it. With this kind of subject matter, intelligent people can find plenty of justification for just about any decisions or beliefs.

EDIT: I'm not picking on John. I'm using him because it's topical. I could have used e.g. Cherie quite easily.